COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-569596 DATE: 2019/04/23
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
SELECT COMFORT CORPORATION Plaintiff
- and - MAHER SIGN PRODUCTS INC. Defendant
COUNSEL: David A. Ziegler for the Plaintiffs Mark Adilman for the Defendant
HEARD: April 11, 2019
PERELL, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. Introduction
[1] This is a summary judgment motion in an action to enforce a foreign judgment.
[2] In the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota in the United States of America, the Plaintiff, Select Comfort Corporation, which carries on business in the State of Minnesota and across the U.S., sued Maher Sign Products Inc., which carries on business in Ontario.
[3] Maher Sign did not attorn to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Court. It did not defend the action in Minnesota, and on May 11, 2016, the Minnesota District Court granted Select Comfort a default judgment of $756,236.56 (USD).
[4] On February 13, 2017, Select Comfort sued in Ontario, and, Maher Sign defended the action. Maher Sign advanced several defences:
a. Maher Sign submits that the Minnesota Court did not have a real and substantial connection to the matter.
b. Further, Maher Sign’s principal defence is that the Minnesota ought not to have seized itself of the action because there was an exclusive choice of forum clause in the contract between the parties that privileged the courts of Ontario.
c. Further still, Maher Sign submits that Select Comfort’s claim to enforce the Minnesota Court’s judgment is contrary to public policy because the action was statute-barred under Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002. [1]
d. Finally, Maher Sign submits Select Comfort fraudulently circumvented the exclusive choice of forum clause in the contract between the parties in order to obtain a default judgment in Minnesota based on false representations and on fraud upon the court.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I grant Select Comfort a summary judgment enforcing the judgment of the Minnesota court. The judgment shall also include an Order changing the name of the plaintiff in the title of the proceedings to Sleep Number Corporation because effective November 1, 2017, the Plaintiff changed its corporate name to Sleep Number Corporation.
B. Facts
[6] Select Comfort is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
[7] Maher Sign is a Canadian company with its place of business in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. It carries on business as a producer and installer of commercial graphics and signs. All of its manufacturing work is completed in Ontario. It sells its products across Canada and the United States.
[8] On October 29, 2012, Mark Simpson, an Account Executive with Maher Sign wrote to Kelly Krueger, Senior Print Production Specialist, at Select Comfort’s offices in Minnesota to promote and market Maher Sign’s products.
[9] On November 26, 2012, Dave McMillian, who was an employee of Maher Sign, sent an email message to Kelly Krueger of Select Comfort with a quote for the supply of Maher Sign’s products. The quotation number was M6576. The Quotation, in addition to setting out unit prices for various sign products, contained a governing law and choice of forum clause that stated:
This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the Customer hereby attorns to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Ontario for the purpose of pursuing any legal remedies here under.
[10] In December 2012, two of Maher Sign’s sales representatives visited Select Comfort’s headquarters in Minnesota and several stores in Minnesota to discuss a business relationship.
[11] Subsequently, Select Comfort began purchasing Maher Sign’s products in accordance with the pricing set out in Quotation M6567. The dealing was informal; there were no purchase orders and orders were emailed to Maher Sign. Some of Maher Sign’s invoices referred to Quotation M6567. Other invoices did not refer to the quotation. There is a debate between the parties about what documents constituted the contractual arrangements between the parties.
[12] Select Comfort’s orders came in three distinct transactions:
a. an initial order for approximately USD $314,000 shipped in January-February 2013; the invoices of this order refer to Quotation M6567;
b. a second order shipped in May-June 2013 for approximately USD $95,000; and,
c. a third order in February 2014 for approximately USD $42,000.
[13] Select Comfort disputes that the terms of the Quotation formed part of its contracting with Maher Corp. My review of the correspondence reveals that the parties were debating the choice of law for the contract. Select Comfort asserts that it never signed the quotation and that there were further negotiations after the initial quote. It submits that it never accepted the Quotation but made a counteroffer. In essence, Select Comfort submits that the parties never came to an agreement about the exclusive forum to resolve any disputes. In any event, Select Comfort submits that the Quotation does not form the basis for the parties’ business relationship. It submits that the business relationship between the parties was, instead, informal and the only formality was a series of purchase orders and invoices exchanged between January 31, 2013, and May 27, 2014.
[14] Further, Select Comfort submits that the agreement in the immediate case was governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods, which is a part of Ontario law pursuant to the International Sales Conventions Act. [2] Unless expressly excluded by the parties, the Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different states, and the Convention governs the formation of the contract of sale and the rights and obligations of the seller and the buyer arising from such a contract. Under the Convention, there is a four-year limitation period for claims arising from defects that begins to run from the date on which the goods are delivered to the buyer.
[15] Whatever the terms of their contract, almost immediately after receiving delivery of some of the signs from initial order in January 2013, Select Comfort alleged that some of the signs were defective.
[16] In early 2013, Select Comfort was given a “retro-fit work” credit for $10,000 (USD). Notwithstanding its complaints about the signs, and notwithstanding that there were no repairs made after the summer of 2013, Select Comfort continued to order signs; visualize: the Second Order of May-June 2013 (USD $95,000) and the Third Order of February 2014 (USD $42,000).
[17] From Maher Sign’s perspective, it believed that the matter of complaints about the signs had been resolved. However, on October 12, 2015, Select Comfort commenced a civil action in the Minnesota District Court against the Maher Sign by filing a Summons and Complaint.
[18] In its pleadings, Select Comfort alleged that Maher Sign had agreed to design, manufacture, and supply the signs for Select Company’s network of retail stores across the United States. Select Comfort alleged that before shipping any of the signs, Maher Sign’s representatives had traveled to Minnesota to review and discuss the contract and also had visited two of Select Comfort’s retail stores in Minnesota to understand how the signs would be used. Select Comfort claimed breach of contract, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment with respect to the sale and delivery of hundreds of LED window graphic holders, a type of sign.
[19] Maher Sign alleges that Select Comfort purposely brought the action in Minnesota because it was aware that an action in Ontario would have been statute-barred given that the complaints about defective signs were discovered in the summer of 2013 and Select Comfort did not commence an action until the autumn of 2015.
[20] Select Comfort served Maher Sign with the pleadings in the U.S. action by two means. First, on October 14, 2015, Select Comfort served the pleadings upon Maher Sign by personal service at its principal place of business, and second, on December 11, 2015, it served the pleadings by the Canadian Central Authority for Service of Documents in Ontario in accordance with Article 5, subparagraph (a) of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
[21] Maher Sign retained the Toronto, Ontario, law firm of Morris Cooper. Maher Sign decided not to defend the action in Minnesota. Instead, Mr. Cooper wrote a letter to the Minnesota District Court. The letter stated:
Your Honour:
RE: Select Comfort Corporation v. Maher Sign Products Inc.
Fourth Judicial District, Minnesota State Court,
File No. 27-CV-15-17766
I am counsel to Maher Sign Products Inc. of Toronto, the Defendant in the above noted action in Minnesota State Court. As .1 have previously advised counsel for the Plaintiff, Maher does not intend to defend this action in Minnesota Court as its contract with Select Comfort expressly provided for exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Ontario and the laws of Ontario with respect to any dispute. As a result, Maher Sign Products will not attorn to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Courts in relation to this matter. Respectfully,
Morris Cooper
[22] In accordance with Minnesota law, Select Comfort moved for a default judgment, and on April 21, 2016, it served Maher Sign with the motion material, which contained affidavit evidence explaining and quantifying the damages claim. The motion material also put before the court the correspondence from Mr. Cooper expressing Maher Sign’s objections to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Court.
[23] Maher Sign did not respond to the motion and did not deliver any contradictory evidence, and on May 11, 2016 the Honorable M. Jacqueline Regis, Judge of the District Court, granted Select Comfort a default judgment against Maher Sign in the amount of $610,236.23 (USD) plus interest in the amount of $145,236,22, computed at the rate of 10%, and costs in the amount of $763.11. The Judgment was entered on May 13, 2016. The time period for any appeal from the judgment has expired.
[24] Maher Sign did not pay the judgment, and on February 13, 2017, Select Comfort commenced this action in Ontario to enforce the judgment of the Minnesota District Court.
[25] Maher Sign defended the action, and it delivered a Statement of Defence dated March 8, 2017. Select Comfort delivered a Reply dated April 12, 2017.
[26] Select Comfort moved for a summary judgment to enforce the judgment of the Minnesota District Court.
C. Discussion and Analysis
[27] At common law, a foreign judgment is, in effect, a debt that can be enforced by a cause of action to claim payment of the debt, and absent evidence of fraud or of a violation of natural justice or of public policy, the enforcing court is not interested in the substantive or procedural law of the foreign court that granted judgment. [3] In an action to enforce the foreign judgment, the Ontario court will not relitigate the underlying litigation that gave rise to the judgment, and if the foreign judgment is proven and is final, the Ontario court will enforce the foreign court’s judgment with a judgment of its own. [4]
[28] In Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corp., 2015 SCC 42, [5] Justice Gascon stated at para. 43:
- First, the purpose of an action for recognition and enforcement is not to evaluate the underlying claim that gave rise to the original dispute, but rather to assist in enforcing an already adjudicated obligation. In other words, the enforcing court’s role is not one of substance, but is instead one of facilitation: Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., 2006 SCC 52, at para. 12. The court merely offers an enforcement mechanism to facilitate the collection of a debt within the jurisdiction. This entails that the enforcing court does not exercise jurisdiction in the same way as it does in actions at first instance. In a first instance case like Van Breda, the focus is on whether the court has jurisdiction to determine the merits of a substantive legal claim; in a recognition and enforcement case, the court does not create a new substantive obligation, but instead assists with the fulfillment of an existing one.
[29] Subject to the defences, a Canadian court will enforce a foreign judgment if the defendant attorned to the jurisdiction of the foreign court [6] or if the foreign jurisdiction had a “real and substantial connection” to the dispute. [7] It is important to note that the circumstances of enforcement by the domestic court are disjunctive and if a defendant does not attorn to the foreign court’s jurisdiction, the foreign judgment may nevertheless be enforced by the domestic court, if the foreign court had a real and substantial connection to the dispute. [8]
[30] The underlying principles are comity, order and fairness, and these principles apply both interprovincially and internationally. [9] The real and substantial connection is the overriding factor in the determination of the jurisdiction of the foreign court, and once it is determined that a foreign court properly assumed jurisdiction, a foreign judgment is prima facie enforceable.” [10] Given that the domestic court will not relitigate the substantive merits of the foreign judgment and although the creation of new defences is possible, [11] there is only a small list of defences to the enforcement of a foreign judgment. [12]
[31] In deciding if the dispute had a “real and substantial connection” to the foreign jurisdiction, the domestic court must find that a significant connection existed between the plaintiff’s cause of action and the foreign jurisdiction. [13] In determining whether there is a real and substantial connection, the domestic court should consider the connections between the subject matter of the action, the alleged wrongdoing, the place where the damages are suffered, as well as with the transactions of the parties and with the action. [14] The connection must be real and substantial but not necessarily the most real and substantial connection of all possible jurisdictions that might have a connection to the dispute. [15] The “real and substantial connection” test is not a rigid test, and must ultimately be guided by order and fairness, as opposed to a mechanical counting of contacts and connections. [16]
[32] In the immediate case, in my opinion, there was a real and substantial connection between the Minnesota District Court and the dispute between Select Comfort and Maher Sign. Select Comfort is a Minnesota corporation and its head office and several of its stores are located in Minnesota. Maher Sign came to solicit sales to Select Comfort in Minnesota and it corresponded with Select Comfort in Minnesota. If the sales contract was, technically speaking, formed in Ontario, it was negotiated in large part in Minnesota. The contract was performed by deliveries of some products to Minnesota, and Maher Sign’s efforts to repair the allegedly defective products occurred in Minnesota. Maher Sign’s products were placed into the stream of commerce and delivered to the Plaintiff’s U.S. stores, including approximately a dozen stores located in Minnesota. The alleged breach of the contract of supply occurred in Minnesota. Maher Sign suffered its damages in Minnesota.
[33] The case law about the enforcement of foreign judgments supports the conclusion in the immediate case that the Minnesota Court, the foreign court, had a real and substantial connection with the dispute between Select Comfort and Maher Sign. In Old North State Brewing Co. v. Newlands Services Inc., [1999] 4 W.W.R. 573 (B.C.C.A.), [17] a British Columbia corporation solicited business from a North Carolina corporation, quoted a price, delivered its brewing equipment to North Carolina, and sent its representatives to the state to address complaints; the British Columbia Courts enforced the judgment of the North Carolina court. In Pomini Inc. v. EMPCO-Fab Ltd., [1998] O.J. No. 3960 (S.C.J.), aff'd [1999] O.J. No. 2740 (C.A.), [18] an Ontario corporation that sold furnaces sold furnace parts to a South Carolina corporation but failed to properly engineer, manufacture, and install the parts; the Ontario court upheld the foreign judgment. In Mill Valley Bamboo Associates, LLC v. D.T.I. Diversified Transportation Inc., [2006] O.J. No. 4686 (S.C.J.), [19] an Ontario corporation was hired to ship flooring manufactured in Ontario to the plaintiff in California and the goods arrived damaged; the Ontario court granted a summary judgment enforcing the foreign judgment.
[34] In Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393, [20] a product’s liability action, the defendant manufactured its product in Ontario and did not carry on business in Saskatchewan and had no property or assets in Saskatchewan. The plaintiff was injured using the product in Saskatchewan, and in the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Dickson, as he then was, explained for the Court that “[b]y tendering his products in the market place directly or through normal distributive channels, a manufacturer ought to assume the burden of defending those products wherever they cause harm as long as the forum into which the manufacturer is taken is one that he reasonably ought to have had in his contemplation when he so tendered his goods.”
[35] Thus, the Minnesota court had a real and substantial connection to the dispute between Select Comfort and Maher Sign. It is further my opinion, that this conclusion is not negated or Maher Sign’s argument that the Minnesota court was precluded from assuming jurisdiction because there was an exclusive choice of forum clause in the parties’ contract.
[36] As noted above, Select Comfort, to rebut this argument by Maher Sign, submits that the so-called exclusive jurisdiction clause or exclusive choice of forum clause found in the Quotation was not a part of the contract between the parties. Alternatively, Select Comfort submits that if the clause was a part of the contract, then, as a matter of contract interpretation, the clause was a permissive clause and not an exclusive choice of forum clause.
[37] While Select Comfort’s contract formation and contract interpretation arguments are reasonably strong, it has a better and a dispositive argument that defeats Maher Sign’s argument and its main defence to this summary judgment motion.
[38] Simply stated, the counterargument is that assuming that there was an exclusive choice of forum clause in the contract between Select Comfort and Maher Signs, the clause would not detract from whether the Minnesota District Court had a real and substantial connection with Select Comfort’s action, which is to say that the existence of a forum selection clause is not relevant to whether a court has jurisdiction simpliciter; rather, the forum selection clause is relevant to whether a court, foreign or domestic, should exercise its jurisdiction, and the clause does not deprive the foreign court of its jurisdiction. [21]
[39] The point to emphasize is that if the foreign court has a real and substantial connection with the dispute, then the presence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause does not alter the legal principles that govern whether a domestic court should enforce the foreign judgment. Those principles hold that once it is determined that a foreign court properly assumed jurisdiction, a foreign judgment is prima facie enforceable. In the immediate case, the Minnesota District Court had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute and its judgment is prima facie enforceable.
[40] When there is a foreign element involved in a case, it is important to keep in mind, that a court’s jurisdiction, be it a domestic or a foreign court, is a different matter than whether the court should exercise that jurisdiction. In Momentous.ca Corp. v. Canadian American Assn. of Professional Baseball Ltd., 2010 ONCA 722, aff'd 2012 SCC 9, [22] Justice Laskin explained the differences in at paragraphs 36-39, where he stated:
When an Ontario court has, or can assume jurisdiction, a second issue arises: whether an Ontario court should take jurisdiction. Decisions on whether a court should take jurisdiction are discretionary.
The case law recognizes two different classes of cases in which the court is asked to exercise its discretion. One arises on a forum non conveniens motion; the other where the parties have agreed to a forum to resolve their disputes. Each class of case has its own onus, test and rationale.
On the more usual forum non conveniens motion, a court must determine whether there is another more convenient forum to try the claim. The defendant has the onus of showing a more convenient forum. The test invites the application of a now well-recognized list of considerations, which assess the connections to the two competing forums. And the court's discretion is guided by the twin rationales of efficiency and fairness: see, for example, Young v. Tyco International of Canada Ltd. (2008), 92 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.), 2008 ONCA 709.
In the other class of case, of which the present appeal is an example, the parties have agreed to a forum to resolve their disputes. In this class of case, the onus is reversed. The plaintiff must show why Ontario should displace the forum chosen by the parties. The test is "strong cause" - the plaintiff must show strong cause why the choice of forum clause should not prevail. And in exercising its discretion, the court is guided by the rationale that ordinarily parties should be held to the bargain they have made. […].
[41] Assuming that a court has jurisdiction over a matter either because the defendant has attorned to the jurisdiction or because the court has a real and substantial connection to the matter, then the court has the discretion to exercise or not to exercise that jurisdiction. In Canada, while the matter remains discretionary, where there is a choice of forum selection cause that favours a foreign court and the plaintiff has selected a domestic court, the policy of the court is to hold the parties to their bargain unless there is strong reason to the contrary. [23]
[42] In the immediate case, with Minnesota having a real and substantial connection with the matter, Maher Sign did not bring a motion asking the foreign court not to exercise its jurisdiction. Maher Sign could have done this without attorning to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota District Court. In my opinion, Maher Sign ought to have brought a jurisdictional challenge in Minnesota.
[43] Had Maher Sign brought a jurisdictional challenge and succeeded, then without losing its jurisdiction, the Minnesota court might have decided not to exercise its jurisdiction and Select Comfort would have had to sue in Ontario. Had Maher Sign brought the jurisdictional challenge and lost, the Minnesota Court properly had jurisdiction, and Maher Sign would be no worse off than what occurred.
[44] The point to be emphasized, however, is that the presence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause, assuming there was one in the immediate case, would not mean that the Minnesota District Court did not have a real and substantial connection with the dispute between the parties; at most, the clause might mean that Ontario also had a real and substantial connection with the dispute, and, even then, it would debatable in the case at bar which forum would be the forum conveniens.
[45] An exclusive jurisdiction clause may give a particular court a real and substantial connection with a matter [24] but the clause does not oust the jurisdiction of another court with a real and substantial connection to the dispute, nor does it prevent a party from commencing proceedings in that other jurisdiction. In Old North State Brewing Co. v. Newlands Services Inc., [1999] 4 W.W.R. 573 (B.C.C.A.), [25] the British Columbia Court of Appeal explained that “to say that the parties will attorn to the jurisdiction of the B.C. courts is very far from saying that the courts of no other state can exercise jurisdiction.”
[46] In the case at bar, there was a great deal of debate between the parties about whether there was an exclusive forum clause that privileged Ontario or only a permissive jurisdiction clause that designated Ontario as a permissible forum. Assuming that such a clause existed in the case at bar, it would have cemented that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter, but the presence of the clause would not have negated the possibility that the Minnesota court had a real and substantial connection to the immediate matter. It should be recalled that the real and substantial connection test establishes one court’s jurisdiction which need not be the most real and substantial connection of all possible jurisdictions that might have a connection to the dispute.
[47] Thus, to repeat, assuming that an exclusive jurisdiction clause existed in the immediate case, which point I need not decide, and assuming that Maher Sign wished to enforce it, then it should have brought a motion in Minnesota to have the action stayed on the grounds of the existence of the exclusive forum clause or perhaps based on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The Minnesota court, like a court in Canada, would have jurisdiction simpliciter over the matter and it would have the discretion to grant the stay or to refuse it. As it happens, in the case at bar, the jurisdictional challenge was brought to the attention of the Minnesota court and it was satisfied that it should proceed to determine Select Comfort’s claim.
[48] As noted above, subject to the defences, an Ontario court will enforce a foreign judgment if the foreign jurisdiction had a real and substantial connection to the dispute. In the immediate case, Select Comfort has shown that the Minnesota District Court had a real and substantial connection, and, therefore, the remaining issue is whether one or more of the few defences to the enforcement of a foreign judgment are available to Maher Sign.
[49] To raise the defence of a violation of natural justice, the party seeking to impugn the judgment must prove, on the civil standard, that the foreign proceedings, which do not have to be the same as those in Canada, were contrary to Canadian notions of fundamental justice and that minimum standards of fairness were not applied by the foreign court. [26] The defence of natural justice is restricted to the form of the foreign procedure, to due process, and it does not relate to the merits of the case. [27] In the immediate case, there is no factual foundation for a violation of natural justice defence. Maher Sign had ample notice of the proceedings in Minnesota, it was provided with an opportunity to defend, and it purposefully decided not to appear in the Minnesota court.
[50] The public policy defence precludes the enforcement of a foreign judgment that is contrary to the Canadian concept of justice. To determine whether enforcement of a foreign judgment would be contrary to public policy, the court must consider the historical and factual context of the proceedings that led to the granting of the judgment, and where there are competing public policy imperatives, whether overall, enforcement would be contrary to public policy. [28]
[51] In the immediate case, the only public policy arguments concerned the policies associated with respecting choice of forum clauses and with the alleged circumvention of limitation periods. I have already dealt with the so-called exclusive choice of forum clause in the immediate case and it does not raise a public policy argument.
[52] As for limitation periods, Maher Sign did not rebut Select Comfort’s argument that the agreements in the immediate case are governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods. Maher Signs action was timely in Minnesota and it would have been timely if brought in Ontario. There was no circumvention of any limitation periods. Thus, Maher Sign’s public policy defence fails at liftoff.
[53] A foreign judgment can be challenged for fraud only where the defendant’s factual allegations are material and new, i.e., not having already been already adjudicated by the foreign court. [29] To raise the defence of fraud, a defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the facts sought to be raised could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence before the obtaining of the foreign judgment. [30] While a defendant may seek to impeach a foreign judgment on the basis that it was obtained by fraud, the defendant may not do so by attempting to re-litigate any of the merits of the action that led to the foreign judgment. [31]
[54] In Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, [32] the Supreme Court of Canada stated that where the foreign default proceedings are not inherently unfair, failing to defend the action, by itself, should prohibit the defendant from claiming that any of the evidence adduced or steps taken in the foreign proceedings was evidence of fraud just discovered.
[55] In the immediate court, there is no evidence that Select Comfort perpetrated a fraud on the Minnesota District Court. Select Comfort put a fair factual record before the Minnesota District Court, including the material that Maher Signs relies on for its defences to liability and including the material about Maher Signs challenge to the Minnesota Court’s jurisdiction. Maher Signs has no new and material facts to support an allegation and fraud and if it wanted to put a different legal or factual spin on those facts, it had the opportunity to do so by attorning and defending the action, which it decided not to do.
D. Conclusion
[56] For the above reasons, Select Comfort shall have a judgment: (a) in an amount in Canadian currency sufficient to purchase in United States currency $756,236.56 at a bank in Ontario listed in Schedule 1 to the Bank Act [33] at the close of business on the first day on which the bank quotes a Canadian dollar rate for purchase of United States dollars before the day payment of the obligation is received by the plaintiff; (b) pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act. [34]
[57] If the parties cannot agree about the matter of costs, they may make submissions in writing beginning with Select Comfort’s submissions within twenty days from the release of these Reasons for Decision followed by Maher Sign’s submissions within a further twenty days.
Perell, J.
Released: April 23, 2019