From: Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 17:06:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C79FB8.3DBBDFB0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C79FB8.3DBBDFB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=83064 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February = 8,=20 2007.

 

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =           =20

In The

 

Fourteenth Court=20 of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-05-01264-CV

____________

 

WAFIC TAWFIC=20 ATAYA, SAWSSAN ATAYA A/K/A SAWSSAN MOHAMAD ELEHIKH-ISSA, AND = VICTORY=20 WHOLESALE, INC., = Appellants

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF=20 TEXAS, = Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the = 334th District Court

Harris County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 2003-20338

 

 

M E M O R=20 A N D U M   O P I N I O N

In a=20 single issue, appellants Wafic Tawfic Ataya, Sawssan Ataya a/k/a = Sawssan=20 Mohamad Elehik-Issa, and Victory Wholesale, Inc. challenge the = trial=20 court=3Ds denial=20 of their motion for new trial.  We affirm.

I. =20 Factual and Procedural Background

This=20 appeal concerns a post-answer default judgment and subsequent = denial of a=20 motion for new trial.  In April 2003, the State of Texas sued = Wafic=20 Tawfic Ataya, his wife, Sawssan Ataya, and their wholesale food=20 distribution business, Victory Wholesale (collectively = Aappellants@), seeking=20 civil penalties and to enjoin them from operating the business = without a=20 license in violation of the Texas Health and Safety Code.  = Appellants=20 timely answered.  After numerous re-settings, the trial court = set the=20 case for trial for a two-week docket beginning the latter half of=20 September 2005.[1] =20

The record=20 reflects that, as early as July 22, 2005, appellants=3D = attorney,=20 Jonathan E. Bruce, informed them in writing of this trial setting. = Mr.=20 Ataya also concedes that Bruce informed him of this setting on = August 16,=20 2005 in discussions about a potential settlement with the = State. =20 Thereafter, in the three-week period before September 20, Bruce = left=20 numerous messages on Mr. Ataya=3Ds cell=20 phone reminding him of the trial setting and requesting a = callback. =20 After hearing no response, on September 20, Bruce mailed a letter = to the=20 Atayas=3D = home=20 address in Houston, Texas imploring them to return his numerous = phone=20 messages and again stating that trial was set for Athis=20 week@ = and that=20 the court could call the case at any time.  Still after = hearing no=20 response, on September 30, Bruce mailed the Atayas a final = correspondence=20 stating that  (1) the court had called their case for October = 4,[2]=20 (2) he would move for a continuance, which the court would most = likely=20 deny, and, (3) pursuant to a prior written agreement, he would = move to=20 withdraw as appellants=3D = counsel=20 because they had paid him only for a settlement agreement.  = Finally,=20 at 3:15 p.m. on October 3, Mr. Ataya called Bruce.  From the=20 conversation, which Bruce described as Akind of .=20 . . chopped-up,@ = Bruce=20 understood that Mr. Ataya was out of the country.  According = to=20 Bruce, Mr. Ataya said he received the correspondence regarding the = October=20 4 trial date and the motion to withdraw and that he did not object = to the=20 motion for withdrawal.  To ensure that Mr. Ataya understood = the=20 situation, Bruce faxed a copy of the September 30 letter to a = Alocal=20 phone number which apparently was faxed to him overseas[, and Mr. = Ataya=20 later] re-faxed it to [Bruce=3Ds]=20 office.@

The=20 following day, on October 4, 2005, appellants failed to appear for = trial.  Bruce, however, appeared, and, as promised, moved to = withdraw=20 as appellants=3D = counsel=20 and requested a continuance.  The court granted his motion to = withdraw but denied the continuance in part because it = Aha[d=20 continued trial] so many times before@ = and=20 A[Mr.=20 Ataya=3Ds] absence=20 has caused us to continue to move this case.@  The=20 court subsequently entered a default judgment against appellants,=20 permanently enjoining them from operating without a license.  = The=20 court also assessed $425,000 in penalties for seventeen violations = of the=20 Health and Safety Code, $13,210.04 in investigation costs, $4,100 = in=20 destruction costs of adulterated products discovered in the = investigation,=20 and $24,963.95 in attorney=3Ds=20 fees. 

Appellants=20 thereafter filed a motion for new trial.  They contended that = their=20 respective failures to appear were not intentional or the result = of=20 conscious indifference but, rather, was due to a mistake.  In = support, appellants attached affidavits of both Mr. and Mrs. Ataya = and=20 copies of Bruce=3Ds=20 September 20 and 30 letters.  In his affidavit, Mr. Ataya = averred=20 that he went to Sacramento, California on September 3, 2005 to = care for a=20 sick relative and left his cell phone and fax machine in the care = of his=20 wife.  He stated that his wife is of foreign extraction, does = not=20 read or speak English fluently, and has difficulty understanding = many=20 English phrases.  Therefore, because his wife Acould=20 neither read nor understand [Bruce=3Ds]=20 messages very well,@ = A[n]one of=20 these communications were conveyed to [him] by [his] wife until = October 3,=20 2005.@  He=20 further claimed that, by the time he spoke with Bruce the day = before=20 trial, he Adid not=20 have sufficient time, money or means of getting from Sacramento to = Houston, by 9:00 a.m. the following morning.@ =20 Though Mr. Ataya admitted he was Atold=20 earlier in the year that the case may go to trial around this=20 time,@ = he=20 claimed he Athought=20 [he] would have some more time to arrange [his] appearance in=20 court.@  In=20 her affidavit, Mrs. Ataya echoed her husband=3Ds=20 assertions that she does not read or speak English fluently.[3] =20 Further, though she acknowledged Bruce=3Ds=20 Apurported[]@ = attempts=20 to call her husband=3Ds cell=20 phone and the September 30 letter and stated that her Ahusband=20 became aware of this letter on October 3, 2005,@ = she=20 maintained that she Anever=20 understood that there was a trial on October 4, 2005.@ =20 Therefore, in the motion, appellants relied on Mrs. = Ataya=3Ds alleged=20 lack of English proficiency to establish their respective = Amistake[s]@ = in=20 failing to appear.

Appellants=20 also asserted in their motion for new trial that (1) the Atayas = are merely=20 officers and agents of Victory Wholesale and thus not personally=20 responsible for its corporate civil liabilities and (2) Victory = Wholesale=20 had filed for bankruptcy and thus was protected by the automatic = stay in=20 the United States Bankruptcy Code.  They further contended = that the=20 granting of a new trial would not injure the plaintiff.  =

The State=20 responded that appellants acted with conscious indifference in = failing to=20 appear for trial, citing the repeated, unreturned communications = from=20 Bruce.  To controvert Mrs. Ataya=3Ds alleged=20 lack of English proficiency, the State=3Ds attorney=20 attached an affidavit averring that she had previously deposed = Mrs. Ataya=20 in October 2003 entirely in English, and Mrs. Ataya never = requested an=20 interpreter.  The State further challenged the = appellant=3Ds=20 defenses.  As to the Atayas, the State asserted that because = they had=20 been sued in their individual capacities, the Atayas could not = defend on=20 the basis they were merely officers and agents of Victory = Wholesale. =20 As to Victory Wholesale, the State contended the governmental unit = exception to the automatic bankruptcy stay applied, which allowed = a suit=20 against the company.  Finally, the State maintained that a = grant of=20 new trial would cause significant delay and prejudice.=20

The court=20 heard the motion, but no party presented live testimony.  = After=20 considering Athe=20 motion; the evidence; and the applicable law,@ = the court=20 subsequently denied appellants=3D = motion=20 for new trial, finding that ADefendants=3D = claim of=20 lack of notice because Sawssan Ataya could not understand the = messages not=20 to be credible in light of the competing evidence and this=20 Court=3Ds own=20 experience with this cause . . . [and] that Defendants have failed = to=20 establish a meritorious defense to the action.@

The Atayas=20 and Victory Wholesale now appeal, claiming the trial court should = have set=20 aside the default judgment and granted a new trial because = appellants=20 negated a lack of intent or conscious indifference in failing to = appear,=20 presented a meritorious defense, and established a new trial would = cause=20 no injury to the State.     

II. =20 Standard of Review

We review=20 a trial court=3Ds denial=20 of a motion for new trial under the abuse of discretion = standard. =20 Puri v. Mansukhani, 973 S.W.2d 701, 715 (Tex. = App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).  Generally, a trial court abuses = its=20 discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules and = principles or in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.  = Downer v.=20 Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241B42 (Tex.=20 1985).  A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it = bases its=20 decision on conflicting evidence and some evidence supports its = decision;=20 however, an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial = court=3Ds decision=20 is contrary to the only permissible view of the evidence.  = See In=20 re Barber, 982 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex. 1998); Walker v. = Packer,=20 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).  In the default judgment = context, a=20 trial court abuses its discretion by failing to grant a new trial = when the=20 movant meets all of the Craddock elements.  Bank = One, Tex.,=20 N.A. v. Moody, 830 S.W.2d 81, 85 (Tex. 1992) (citing = Craddock v.=20 Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126=20 (1939)).  Under Craddock, a default judgment should be = set=20 aside and a new trial granted if (1) the failure to answer was not = intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was due to = a=20 mistake or accident, (2) the defendant sets up a meritorious = defense, and=20 (3) the motion is filed at such time that granting a new trial = would not=20 result in delay or otherwise injure the plaintiff.  In re=20 R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112, 114B15 (Tex.=20 2006). 

III. =20 Analysis

Appellants=20 contest the trial court=3Ds findings=20 regarding the first Craddock element on two grounds.  = First,=20 as a threshold matter, they contend the trial court=3Ds=20 credibility determination regarding Mrs. Ataya=3Ds ability=20 to understand her attorney=3Ds messages=20 constitutes an abuse of discretion Ain its own=20 right@ = because=20 the court never had an opportunity to judge her credibility.  = Second,=20 they generally contend the trial court committed a substantive = abuse of=20 discretion by implicitly concluding, based on the above finding, = that they=20 failed to negate an intentional or consciously indifferent failure = to=20 appear.  We disagree with both contentions.

The burden=20 of proof lies with the movant to show that the failure to appear = at trial=20 was not negligent, intentional, or the result of conscious = indifference.=20 Holberg v. Short, 731 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tex. = App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ).  Conscious indifference means = failing to=20 take some action which would seem indicated to a person of = reasonable=20 sensibilities under similar circumstances.  State v. = Sledge,=20 982 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).  In other words, Ait must be=20 shown that the appellant was clearly aware of the situation and = acted=20 contrary to what such awareness dictated.@ =20 Id.; see also Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Drewery = Constr.=20 Co., 186 S.W.3d 571, 575B76 (Tex.=20 2006) (defining the conscious indifference standard as = Athe=20 defendant knew it was sued but did not care@).  A=20 failure to appear is not intentional or due to conscious = indifference=20 merely because it was deliberate; rather, it must also be without=20 justification.  In re K.A.R., 171 S.W.3d 705, 717 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).  Proof of such = justificationCaccident,=20 mistake, or other reasonable explanationCnegates=20 intent or conscious indifference.  Id.  When the=20 non-movant controverts the movant=3Ds=20 allegations, the trial court must look to the knowledge and acts = of the=20 movant to determine whether his conduct was the result of = conscious=20 indifference or intentional disregard.  Holberg, 731 = S.W.2d at=20 586B87 (citing=20 Strackbein v. Prewitt, 671 S.W.2d 37, 39 (Tex. = 1984)). =20 Courts have applied this element liberally, and each case depends = on its=20 own facts.  Gotcher v. Barnett, 757 S.W.2d 398, 401 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1988, no writ).

Appellants=3D = threshold=20 contention seems to suggest the trial court abused its discretion = by=20 making a credibility finding as to Mrs. Ataya without the benefit = of any=20 live, sworn testimony.   In support, they cite Estate = of=20 Pollack v. McMurrey, 858 S.W.2d 388, 392 = (Tex.=20 1993), for the=20 proposition that the Atrial=20 court generally may not resolve disputed fact issues regarding = intent or=20 conscious indifference on affidavits alone.@  We=20 find Pollack distinguishable.  There, the trial court = denied a=20 motion for new trial without hearing evidence because the motion=20 Afail[ed]=20 on its own@; thus,=20 neither the movant nor the non-movant had the opportunity to = develop and=20 present evidence on conscious indifference at an evidentiary=20 hearing.  Id. at 390B91. =20 Here, an evidentiary hearing was held, and, presumably, appellants = had the=20 opportunity to present live testimony at the hearing.[4] =20 Given these circumstances, we do not find that the court abused = its=20 discretion simply by ruling on the first Craddock element = based on=20 the evidence before it.  See In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d = at 366;=20 Advanced Aesthetics, Inc. v. Creative Beauty Innovations, = Inc., No.=20 2‑04‑078‑CV, 2005 WL 327176, at *1 (Tex. = App.CFort Worth=20 Feb. 10, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (affirming denial of motion = for new=20 trial for failure to establish first Craddock element and=20 distinguishing its facts from Pollack on basis that trial = court=20 denied motion for new trial only after conducting hearing in which = court=20 did not deny parties ability to further develop facts, and parties = opted=20 to rely solely on competing affidavits, rather than present live=20 testimony); Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, = 771B72 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (holding that trial court did not = abuse its=20 discretion in denying motion for new trial where it could have = concluded=20 that movant=3Ds failure=20 to answer was intentional or due to conscious indifference based = on=20 evidence heard, which consisted of affidavits filed by parties);=20 Holberg, 731 S.W.2d at 587 (holding that trial court did = not abuse=20 its discretion in denying motion for new trial where it could have = concluded that movant=3Ds failure=20 to answer was intentional or due to conscious indifference based = on=20 evidence heard, which consisted of controverting=20 affidavits).   

Turning to=20 appellants=3D = contentions regarding the merits of the trial court=3Ds finding,=20 we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in=20 implicitly finding that appellants failed to meet their burden to = negate=20 intentional or conscious indifference.  As to Mr. = Ataya=3Ds failure=20 to appear, he admits having notice of the September 20 two-week = trial=20 setting since at least August 16, 2005, over two weeks before he = allegedly=20 left for California.  However, he never informed his attorney = he went=20 to California, and, while there, he made no attempts to contact = his=20 attorney, the court, or even his wife concerning any communication = she may=20 have received concerning the litigation until the day before = trial. =20 Moreover, the trial court=3Ds refusal=20 to believe that Mrs. Ataya could not understand the repeated = messages from=20 their attorney vitiates Mr. Ataya=3Ds position=20 that he never received any of the messages from Bruce until the = day before=20 trial.  Accordingly, based on the knowledge and acts of Mr. = Ataya=20 shown in the record, we cannot say the trial court abused its = discretion=20 in implicitly finding that he failed to negate intent or conscious = indifference.  See Martinez v. Martinez, 157 = S.W.3d=20 467, 470B71 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (finding conscious indifference for = failure to=20 answer where out of state party, though having knowledge of = divorce=20 petition as early as two months before formal service, never asked = attorney to file an answer, never asked to see copy of answer to = be filed,=20 never contacted the trial court to see if answer had been filed, = and never=20 asked friends or family residing in area where Texas trial court = was=20 located to check on progress of case); Pickell v. Guar.=20 Nat=3Dl Life=20 Ins. Co., 917=20 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ) (holding generally that a party has = duty to=20 keep informed of when case is set for trial); Sharpe v. = Kilcoyne,=20 962 S.W.2d 697, 701 (Tex. App.CFort Worth=20 1998, no pet.) (finding conscious indifference for failure to = appear where=20 party, though having knowledge she was being sued and constructive = notice=20 of trial date, and receiving multiple correspondences regarding = pendency=20 of suit, moved out of country without leaving forwarding address, = failed=20 to contact her attorney or court about case, and rejected = correspondence=20 regarding suit); see also Matter of Brackeen, No. = 07‑96‑0431‑CV,=20 1997 WL 760555, at *2B3 (Tex.=20 App.CAmarillo=20 Dec. 11, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (holding = that=20 party failed to negate intent or conscious indifference for = failure to=20 appear where party, though attorney did not inform her of precise = trial=20 date, had some notice that case may go to trial following week and = took no=20 action to resolve any uncertainty as to exact=20 date).     

As to Mrs.=20 Ataya=3Ds failure=20 to appear, we similarly do not find the trial court abused its = discretion=20 in implicitly finding she failed to negate intent or conscious=20 indifference.  The trial court found Mrs. Ataya=3Ds only=20 conceivable excuse for failing to appear the day of = trialCa lack of=20 English proficiencyCto lack=20 credibility, and she has offered no other justification.[5] =20 Moreover, even if Mrs. Ataya Acould=20 neither read nor understand [her attorney=3Ds]=20 messages very well,@ = this=20 alone does not explain why she waited until the day before trial = to inform=20 her husband of the messages and failed otherwise to seek help from = her=20 attorney to understand the messages.  See First=20 Nat=3Dl Bank of=20 Bryan v. Peterson, 709=20 S.W.2d 276, 279B80 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref=3Dd n.r.e.)=20 (finding conscious indifference for failure to answer where three = parties=20 did not understand that writ of garnishment required answer and = failed to=20 take steps toward consulting lawyer after receiving writ); = Butler v.=20 Dal Tex Mach. & Tool Co., 627 S.W.2d 258, 260 (Tex.=20 App.CFort Worth=20 1982, no writ) (finding conscious indifference for failure to = answer where=20 party who allegedly did not understand citation failed to take any = action=20 to seek help in understanding the citation).  =

Finally,=20 appellants do not make any specific arguments under the first = Craddock=20 element regarding Victory Wholesale=3Ds failure=20 to appear.  Therefore, to the extent appellants=3D = contentions relating to the Atayas subsume Victory Wholesale, we = similarly=20 overrule them.  To the extent appellants have failed to offer = independent grounds for reversal under the first Craddock = element=20 as to Victory Wholesale, they have failed to present error to this = court=20 for review.  See Tex.=20 R. App. P.=20 33.1.          =

Because=20 appellants failed to meet their burden under the first Craddock = element, we need not address their remaining arguments. =20 See Novosad, 38 S.W.3d at 772. 

We=20 therefore overrule appellants=3D = sole=20 issue and affirm the trial court=3Ds=20 judgment. 

 

 

 

/s/     =20 Leslie Brock Yates

Justice

 

 

 

 

Judgment=20 rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 8, 2007.

Panel=20 consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and=20 Seymore.


[1]  There is conflicting evidence in = the record=20 as to whether the two-week period began September 20 or 26.  = The=20 exact date, however, is irrelevant to our disposition of this = appeal.=20

[2]  The record does not reveal = exactly when the=20 court set the trial for October 4.  Both parties allude to = the=20 evacuation of the Houston metropolitan area during the week of = September=20 20 due to Hurricane Rita and agree the evacuation delayed the = court in=20 calling the case until October 4.  However, appellants did = not=20 contend in the trial court or to this court that the hurricane or=20 resulting evacuation in any way contributed to their failure to = appear for=20 the October 4 trial setting. 

[3]  Mrs. Ataya stated = in her=20 affidavit that, due to her inability to fully understand English, = Mr.=20 Ataya interpreted the affidavit for her.

[4]  Appellants have not = presented=20 a record showing the trial court denied their ability to present = live=20 testimony to this court.  See W & F Transp., Inc. v.=20 Wilhelm, 208 S.W.3d 32, 37 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th = Dist.] 2006, no=20 pet.) (noting that historically, burden falls on appellant to see = that=20 sufficient record is presented showing reversible error).  = Moreover,=20 appellants have failed to explicitly contend that the trial court=20 precluded live testimony at the hearing.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h) = (AThe brief must = contain a=20 clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with = appropriate=20 citations to authorities and to the record.@); Thomas v.=20 Olympus/Nelson Prop. Mgmt., 148 S.W.3d 395, 401 (Tex. = App.CHouston [14th = Dist.] 2004, no=20 pet.) (noting that appellant bears burden to show that record = supports=20 contentions raised, which includes specifying location of = supporting=20 evidence).

[5]  We acknowledge that = some=20 cases have declined to find conscious indifference where parties = lacked=20 English proficiency, did not seek aid in understanding suit = papers, and=20 thus failed to answer or appear.  See, e.g., Lara = v.=20 Rosales, 159 S.W.3d 121, 124 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi = 2004, pet.=20 denied); Martinez v. Valencia, 824 S.W.2d 719, 723 (Tex.=20 App.CEl Paso 1992, no = writ). =20 However, in these cases, unlike the current case, the lack of = English=20 proficiency was=20 uncontroverted.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C79FB8.3DBBDFB0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C79FB8.3DBBDFB0 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C79FB8.3DBBDFB0--