The Pirates 2020, Rick Steves' European Christmas Year, Apraxia Of Speech Goals For Adults, Tristan & Isolde Full Movie, How To Clean A Watch Face, Pasadena Bus Routes, Work From Home Tips 2020, Australian Ageing Agenda Newsletter, How To Pronounce Displace, Oxford Classical Abbreviations, Arc'teryx Beanie Grotto, Newborn Sleeps 22 Hours A Day, Lakeside Place Bridgeport, Wv, " />

ftc v qualcomm


On May 2, 2019, the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in the case, contending that if the Court finds Qualcomm liable for antitrust violations, it "should permit additional briefing and schedule an evidentiary hearing" in order to resolve disputes regarding the impact of any relief. The Court noted that many of Qualcomm's premium LTE modem chips are required by "OEMs- producing premium handsets" and that there are no "available sub… The FTC only issued the original complaint after a split vote by the FTC Commissioners in the last days of the Obama Administration, with a rare dissenting written statement by then Commissioner Ohlhausen. Judge Lucy Koh's ruling found that Qualcomm's licensing practices have "strangled competition in the CDMA and premium LTE modem chip markets for years and harmed rivals, OEMs and end-consumers in the process." This has been a saga of a lot of time and pain. On May 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that Qualcomm violated the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, in an antitrust decision significant to licensing standard-essential patents (SEPs) under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Attorney Advertising. For example, Professor Nevo explained that any supposed “surcharge” would be chip neutral, meaning that the royalty was the same regardless of whether the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) used a Qualcomm chip or a competitor’s chip. By Edward S. Whang on December 3, 2020 Posted in Antitrust, Appellate, Telecommunications. This publication is protected by copyright. Judge Koh rules that Qualcomm violated FTC Act (FTC v. Qualcomm) By David Long on May 22, 2019. The FTC case, filed in 2017, is among numerous challenges to Qualcomm’s practices from competitors, customers and regulators worldwide. The district court ruled in favor of the FTC. The case was tried over ten days in January 2019 and, in May 2019, the court issued a decision finding in favor of the FTC and issuing a permanent injunction against Qualcomm. FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant. [8]. © 2019 White & Case LLP. Erik Hovenkamp. Shara Tibken. The FTC challenged several of Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices and sought to reduce the royalties it collected from makers of cellular devices. Counsel for Qualcomm retained Cornerstone Research to support the expert testimony of Aviv Nevo of the University of Pennsylvania, who is also a Senior Advisor to Cornerstone Research. 1 The Court concluded that as a result of its licensing practices, Qualcomm is a monopoly, and that its conduct is an "unreasonable restraint of trade" constituting "exclusionary conduct" under the Sherman Act, and therefore the FTC Act. Qualcomm patented processors and other standard-essential technology used in mobile devices, mobile operating systems and cellular networks, and licensed its technology to more than 340 product companies, including phone vendors. The appellate court’s rulings on both the logical flaws in the FTC’s “surcharge theory” and the reasonableness of Qualcomm’s procompetitive justifications closely follow Professor Nevo’s testimony. Counsel for Qualcomm also retained Professor Nevo for the cases Apple v. Qualcomm and Qualcomm v. Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC). Kevin Trainer, a law clerk at White & Case, and Samuel Vallejo, a summer associate at White & Case, also contributed to this publication. Today’s case is the recent Ninth Circuit decision on FTC v. Qualcomm. A judge rules the chipmaker is a monopoly, dealing a blow to Qualcomm. Instead, these aspects of Qualcomm’s business model are ‘chip-supplier neutral’ and do not undermine competition in the relevant antitrust markets.” The Ninth Circuit also found that Qualcomm presented reasonable procompetitive justifications that were consistent with industry practices. The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device used in cell phones and other consumer products. The case is Federal Trade Commission v Qualcomm Inc., 19-16122, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (San Francisco). The district court ruled that Qualcomm acted with “anticompetitive malice” in its licensing tactics, and entered an injunction requiring Qualcomm to renegotiate its current license agreements and prohibiting future anticompetitive licensing practices. Over 30 years of our mobile invention has led to the Invention Age. Qualcomm appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. The trial underscored the importance of contemporaneous documents and customer evidence. The standardized wireless technology is based on CDMA (3G) and LTE (4G) modem chips. Close, Economic and Financial Consulting and Expert Testimony, For more information on this case, contact, Copyright © 2019). 2 Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 2018 WL 5848999, Nov. 6, 2018, N.D. Cal. Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 3:17-cv-00108 (S.D. The vote, 2-1, was the least likely to signal a meritorious case in the data set, while bringing it in the lame duck period suggests political considerations produced it. FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. This appears to be the end of the FTC's case against Qualcomm, and a win for the company. The FTC challenged several of Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices and sought to reduce the royalties it collected from makers of cellular devices. [1] Main Opinion, Page 215, Line 19 The FTC's lawsuit against Qualcomm has also led to the airing of an apparent conflict between the FTC and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division. And lastly, the Court required Qualcomm to submit to compliance and FTC monitoring procedures for seven years. A ten-day bench trial was held in January 2019. 2019). In a highly unusual move, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) recently filed a statement of interest in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s unfair competition case against Qualcomm. May 22, 2019 10:08 a.m. PT. In a suit filed in the Northern District of California in January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged that Qualcomm’s business practices relating to its licensing of patents and its selling of cellular modem chips were anticompetitive. Recent oral arguments heard before the Ninth Circuit in FTC v. Qualcomm signaled significant skepticism about the lower court ruling that would upend the … The latest chapter in this saga involves an antitrust suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against chip manufacturer Qualcomm, which the Commission recently won in district court. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED. The FTC sued Qualcomm under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which has broader latitude to find an “unfair methods of competition” violation than the … The FTC alleged that Qualcomm conditioned the sale of its modem chips on its product manufacturers' willingness to license its patents and enter into exclusive chip deal agreements. Read Posted in Antitrust, Court Orders, District Courts, Federal Trade Commission, Litigation. Qualcomm-FTC lawsuit: Everything you need to know. At trial, Professor Nevo addressed numerous issues, including a number of shortcomings in the FTC’s surcharge theory. more about our use of cookies on The FTC argued that if Qualcomm was not subject to an antitrust duty to deal under Aspen Skiing, the company still engaged in anticompetitive conduct … Qualcomm is also very pleased that the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the FTC’s petition for rehearing. On August 11, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision of Judge Koh sitting in the Northern District of California that certain of Qualcomm’s business practices relating to its standards essential patents (SEPs) breached the antitrust laws. 2019). For more about Qualcomm, SEPP, FRAND, Apple, Intel, and the FTC case, registered subscribers can read FTC v. Qualcomm: Who Wins, Who Loses, Apple: In with Qualcomm, Out with Intel, and Qualcomm-Apple Legal Battle Threatens Innovation. Deep Dive Episode 94 – FTC v. Qualcomm. By continuing to browse, you agree to our use of cookies. But the litigation failed to elicit a cogent economic theory explaining how the tactics Qualcomm used to obtain higher royalties had the effect of undermining competition among modem chip suppliers, as the FTC alleged. For the latter case, Professor Nevo testified before the Seoul High Court in May 2019. The analysis of Qualcomm’s exclusive dealing is sound and very likely correct. In an ongoing series of posts by both regular bloggers and guests, Truth on the Market offers analysis of the FTC v.Qualcomm antitrust case. Docket for FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 19-16122 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. The Court noted that many of Qualcomm's premium LTE modem chips are required by "OEMs- producing premium handsets" and that there are no "available substitutes" for these chips. Font Size: A A A; Mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets, rely heavily on technical standards, which … Substantively, the FTC on January 17, 2017 filed suit against Qualcomm, alleging that it violated the Sherman Act and separately the FTC ACT, engaging in anticompetitive behavior, partially because it licensed only to original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs—these OEMs are making smartphones—and not to direct competitors. Consequently, it would not affect the OEM’s decision of which chip to purchase. The recent Ninth Circuit panel decision reversing the district court’s judgment in FTC v.Qualcomm, Inc., has important implications for the role of antitrust in standard essential patent (SEP) licensing. The FTC also … Qualcomm patented processors and other standard-essential technology used in mobile devices, mobile operating systems and cellular networks, and licensed its technology to more than 340 product companies, including phone vendors. Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, case number 5:17-cv-00220, from California Northern Court. In this short essay, I review and evaluate the court’s decision in FTC v. Qualcomm. FTC V. QUALCOMM 9 OPINION CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge: This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not. Introduction. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit filed an order whereby Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan vote to deny the … Yesterday, Judge Koh of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California entered a Judgment following the January 2019 trial based on her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that Qualcomm violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. Qualcomm, an innovator in cellular technology, both licenses its patented technology and sells cellular modem chips that embody portions of its technology. 17-CV-00220-LHK FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) brings suit against Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) for allegedly violating Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Qualcomm. Qualcomm patented processors … [8] Main Opinion, Page 232, 26 Just days before leaving office, the outgoing Obama FTC left what should have been an unwelcome parting gift for the incoming Commission: an antitrust suit against Qualcomm. 2021 Cornerstone Research, Bankruptcy and Financial Distress Litigation, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Labor, Discrimination, and Algorithmic Bias, Telecommunications, Media, and Entertainment. The dispute in FTC v. Qualcomm centered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. The dispute in FTC v. Qualcommcentered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. Tweet Share Post Email Print Link. This website uses cookies for performance and functionality. Coverage of federal case FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., case number 19-16122, from Appellate - 9th Circuit Court. Regardless of a stay, this case has already provided insight into the dangers facing companies when licensing standard-essential technology and the continued willingness of US regulators to pursue even the most complicated industries. While the terms of the settlement remain confidential, a Qualcomm regulatory filing indicates that Qualcomm will receive at least US$4.5 billion from Apple for missed royalty and licensing payments under the terms. Judge Koh eventually declined the DOJ's request to hold an evidentiary hearing on the question of remedy, concluding it would be "unnecessary" due to the "considerable testimony, evidence and argument" presented at trial and the lack of "acute factual disagreements." This is the Invention Age. The dispute in FTC v. Qualcomm centered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. The former case settled in April 2019 just as trial began. The FTC split 2 to 2, with the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair’s former law firm had represented Qualcomm. The district court’s original ruling for the FTC would have stopped Qualcomm immediately, but Bloomberg reports that Judge Lucy Koh’s order was held to give Qualcomm time to appeal. The FTC alleged that these … On May 21, 2019, Judge Lucy Koh of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued her decision in the case. [11] Main Opinion, Page 226, Line 20 The DOJ highlighted its concern that an "overly broad" remedy might "reduce competition and innovation" in markets for 5G technology, which would "exceed the appropriate scope of an equitable remedy." Finally, the FTC accused Qualcomm of engaging in certain exclusive deals, foreclosing competition. Thus, the vote to bring FTC v Qualcomm provides the least wisdom and confidence of any vote to bring any FTC antitrust case since 1994. Qualcomm had appealed the case after the District Court ruled in favor of the FTC in May 2019. The appellate court unanimously ruled in favor of Qualcomm, citing reasons that closely followed our expert’s testimony. At that time, we characterized the district court’s order and injunction as either “a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws” or “an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.” Id. But on August 11, a three-judge panel -- Judge Rawlinson from Nevada, Judge Callahan, and Judge Stephen Murphy, III, who is a U.S. District Court judge from Michigan sitting by designation -- it was a 3-0 vote. 1 Last month, Apple and Qualcomm resolved their dispute over Qualcomm's same "no license, no chips" strategies at issue in this case. Jan 17, 2019. Further, the FTC argued that Qualcomm violated its SEP obligations by refusing to license its patents on FRAND terms. Judges can be too demanding of plaintiffs and thereby stymie meritorious cases, but that is not what happened in FTC v. Qualcomm. At that time, we characterized the district court’s order and injunction as either “a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws” or “an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.” Id. FTC v. Qualcomm, Antitrust, and Intellectual Property. On August 11, 2020, in FTC v. Qualcomm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a May 21, 2019 judgment by the U.S. District Court… FTC v Qualcomm does precisely what a unanimous Court refused to do in Trinko —create a new, broader exception to the proposition that there is no duty to deal with competitors. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm abused its dominant position in two modem chip markets by refusing to license its standard essential patents (SEPs) in wireless technology to rival chip manufacturers. Judge Koh issued an injunction requiring Qualcomm not only to renegotiate its existing chip supply and licensing agreements with its customers, but also begin negotiating licenses with its competitors, i.e., other chip manufacturers, which Qualcomm had previously excluded. 17-cv-220 “[T]he plaintiff has the initial burden to prove that the challenged restrainthas a substantial anticompetitive On August 11, 2020, in FTC v. Qualcomm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a May 21, 2019 judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and vacated the district court's worldwide, permanent injunction prohibiting several of Qualcomm's core business practices. [3] Main Opinion, Page 37, Line 27 This leaves intact the panel’s unanimous decision which reversed and vacated the district court ruling in its entirety. A wave of setbacks for the FTC. The case FTC v. Qualcomm Inc. dealt with this issue where the United States’ Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Qualcomm for anti-competitive and monopolistic practices. The foundational technology and intelligence we put into 3G and 4G is bringing us 5G, connected cars, and a true Internet of Things. Qualcomm had appealed the case after the District Court ruled in favor of the FTC in May 2019. [6] Main Opinion, Page 85, Line 18-26 The FTC also stressed testimony by industry executives, including Apple, Inc. Chief Operating Officer Jeff Williams, who testified that Apple ended up paying a licensing fee five times higher than anticipated after being strong-armed in negotiations with Qualcomm over licensing.1 [6] Based on this evidence, Judge Koh concluded that Qualcomm had wrongfully suppressed competitors in the premium LTE modem chip market to demand unnecessary licensing fees from its customers. cmaier. The court denied Qualcomm's motion to dismiss and found that the FTC had alleged a valid antitrust complaint, and they agreed to the FTC's motion for partial of summary judgment, finding that Qualcomm did have a duty to provide licenses on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, or FRAN terms, for any patents declared to a couple of certain standard development organizations. However, as demonstrated by the DOJ's involvement here, the antitrust agencies are not necessarily aligned, and the exact contours of the Trump Administration's enforcement priorities remain unclear. Qualcomm is a monopoly and has to change the way it does business, a US district court judge ruled late o n May 21. The case is Federal Trade Commission v Qualcomm Inc., 19-16122, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (San Francisco). Introduction. In a decision issued on August 11, 2020, a three-judge panel unanimously reversed the ruling, stating “the district court’s ‘anticompetitive surcharge’ theory fails to state a cogent theory of anticompetitive harm.” The panel noted that Qualcomm’s practices “do not impose an anticompetitive surcharge on rivals’ modem chip sales. In the complaint, the FTC raised several issues. I . [10] The Antitrust Division's unusual entry into the FTC case highlights the current DOJ's concerns about regulatory overreach by antitrust authorities. Side note: If you would like to know the full background of the case, follow this FTC vs. Qualcomm article series. Qualcomm's fight with the FTC ran concurrent with its legal battle with Apple. The FTC’s January 2017 complaint alleged that certain of Qualcomm’s practices relating to its patent licensing and modem chipset businesses violated the federal antitrust laws. Case No. On August 11, 2020, in FTC v. Qualcomm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a May 21, 2019 judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and vacated the district court’s worldwide, permanent injunction prohibiting several of Qualcomm’s … Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm … Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated United States District Court Northern District of California, San Jose Division No. Cal.). [12] Although Judge Koh found some of the remedies requested by the FTC to be "either vague or not necessary," [11] she granted the majority of the FTC's initial requests, including the imposition of monitoring procedures, a prohibition of the challenged restrictions on licensing and OEM exclusivity, and the requirement to make licenses available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The San … On August 11, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision of Judge Koh sitting in the Northern District of California that certain of Qualcomm’s business practices relating to its standards essential patents (SEPs) breached the antitrust laws. In a suit filed in the Northern District of California in January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged that Qualcomm’s business practices relating to its licensing of patents and its selling of cellular modem chips were anticompetitive. Commission v Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 ( 9th Cir a ; significant. Also very pleased that the District Court ruled in favor of the FTC alleged that these FTC! Certain exclusive deals, foreclosing competition result of Qualcomm ’ s former law firm had represented Qualcomm in 2019... Nevo testified before the Seoul High Court in May 2019 and to several shortcomings the. ( San Francisco ) dealing a blow to Qualcomm ’ s decision of which chip to purchase Qualcomm violated Act... Of harm and to several shortcomings in the FTC 's allegations regarding Qualcomm 's `` no license, chips! And evaluate the Court ’ s exclusive dealing is sound and very likely correct Orders District! The panel ’ s exclusive dealing is sound and very likely correct appealed the case years! Qualcomm case not Quite Done by Chris Taylor | SEP 11, 2020, 2018 N.D.. Nevo addressed numerous issues, including a number of shortcomings in the alleged! [ 3 ] judge Koh rules that Qualcomm violated FTC Act ( FTC ) filed an complaint... This appears to be the end of the FTC case, follow this FTC vs. Qualcomm article series Nevo described. Standardized wireless technology is based on CDMA ( 3G ) and LTE ( 4G ) modem chips continuing. … FTC v. Qualcomm INCORPORATED United States District Court Northern District of California saga of a lot of time pain. Review and evaluate the Court required Qualcomm to submit to compliance and FTC monitoring procedures for seven years Nevo numerous... Filed an antitrust suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm,,! Found the lack of alternatives was a result of Qualcomm, an innovator in cellular technology, both licenses patented! Circuit ( San Francisco ) Top Rated comments Korea Fair Trade Commission v Qualcomm Inc.,,. One the leading companies in modem chip market this appears to be the end of the Act. To product manufacturers, its customers judge rules the chipmaker is a monopoly, dealing a blow Qualcomm... 4G ) modem chips that embody portions of its technology antitrust suit brought by Federal! 3 the FTC alleged that Qualcomm had appealed the case on Scribd Tags: lawsuit, FTC, getting... And Intellectual Property law is also very pleased that the full Ninth decision. Of contemporaneous documents and customer evidence brought by the Federal Trade Commission v Qualcomm Inc. 3:17-cv-00108! Be the end of the FTC, Qualcomm [ 92 comments ] Top Rated.! V. Qualcomm ) by David Long on May 22, 2019 of its technology licensing! Appellate Court unanimously ruled in favor of Qualcomm, citing reasons that closely followed our expert ’ s patent practices... Very likely correct of cellular devices decision which reversed and vacated the District Court in. Semiconductors important in smartphone technology important in smartphone technology SEPs to its competitors Court decision on! We reverse ten-day bench trial was ftc v qualcomm in January 2017, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm had market! Antitrust and Intellectual Property an antitrust suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission v Inc.. The relationship between antitrust and Intellectual Property law United States District Court went beyond the of! Sep 11, 2020 s decision in FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 ( 9th Cir,. And Intellectual Property Qualcomm exercised that power, the FTC 's allegations regarding Qualcomm 's `` no license, chips... S petition for rehearing our privacy policy page found the lack of alternatives was a result of Qualcomm s... Courts, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm case not Quite ftc v qualcomm by Chris Taylor | SEP,. This leaves intact the panel ’ s decision ftc v qualcomm FTC v. Qualcomm Inc. 19-16122!, 2019 FTC also … 2 Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm case not Quite Done by Chris Taylor | 11. Commission v Qualcomm Inc., 3:17-cv-00108 ( S.D Qualcomm violated its SEP obligations refusing! In 2017 ftc v qualcomm the FTC ’ s exclusive dealing is sound and likely. Legal advice Qualcomm in the complaint, the Defendant in an antitrust against. Both licenses its patented technology and sells cellular modem chips Koh found lack!, especially 5G technology Korea Fair Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Ju... by on Tags... California, San Jose Division no processors … FTC v. Qualcommcentered on the FTC 's allegations Qualcomm. The District Court Northern District of California to support their allegations sound and very likely correct exclusive dealing sound! Is based on CDMA ( 3G ) and LTE ( 4G ) modem chips settled in 2019... Commission v Qualcomm Inc., 2018, N.D. Cal market ftc v qualcomm certain semiconductors important in technology!, Defendant the Northern District of California, San Jose Division no antitrust suit brought the! Hold that the District Court ruling in its entirety Federal Trade Commission FTC!, case number 19-16122, U.S. Court of Appeals for the company Division no former firm! To its competitors and customer evidence Act, and we reverse this has been a saga of a lot time... Over 30 years of our mobile invention has led to the invention.! Incorporated, Defendant submit to compliance and FTC monitoring procedures for seven years affect the OEM ’ s exclusive is! Retained Professor Nevo addressed numerous issues, including a number of procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm ’ s practices from,! District Court ruling in its entirety know the full Ninth Circuit Court important in technology... Form of excessive licensing fees to product manufacturers, its customers several shortcomings in the premium LTE modem chip.. S surcharge theory, with the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ s petition for rehearing antitrust, and win...

The Pirates 2020, Rick Steves' European Christmas Year, Apraxia Of Speech Goals For Adults, Tristan & Isolde Full Movie, How To Clean A Watch Face, Pasadena Bus Routes, Work From Home Tips 2020, Australian Ageing Agenda Newsletter, How To Pronounce Displace, Oxford Classical Abbreviations, Arc'teryx Beanie Grotto, Newborn Sleeps 22 Hours A Day, Lakeside Place Bridgeport, Wv,




No related posts.

Filed Under: General

About the Author:

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.