From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:54:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C81119.0A48D8E0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C81119.0A48D8E0 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=83892 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 11, = 2007.

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

_______________

 

NO. 14-06-00428-CV

_______________

 

WAI-LING LEE, Appellant

 

V.

 

 

ROSE MARIE PALACIOS, = Appellee

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

On Appeal from the = 234th District=20 Court

Harris County,=20 Texas

Trial Court Cause No.=20 04-28965

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

 

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

Following an = automobile=20 accident, appellant, Wai-Ling Lee, sued appellee, Rose Marie = Palacios, for=20 negligence.  The trial court granted Palacios=3Ds motion for summary = judgment=20 and entered a take-nothing judgment.  Subsequently, the trial = court=20 denied Lee=3Ds motion for new = trial. =20 In three issues, Lee contends the trial court erred by granting = summary=20 judgment, denying his motion for new trial, and refusing to modify = its=20 docket control order.  All dispositive issues are settled in=20 law.  Accordingly, we issue this memorandum opinion and = affirm.=20 See Tex. R. App. = P.=20 47.4.

Summary=20 Judgment

In his first issue, = Lee=20 contends the trial court erred by granting Palacios=3Ds motion for summary=20 judgment.  On December 29, 2005, Palacios moved for summary = judgment=20 on both no-evidence and traditional grounds.[1]  On=20 January 23, 2006, the trial court signed an order granting the=20 motion.  When, as in this case, the trial court does not = specify in=20 the order the grounds relied upon in granting summary judgment, we = must=20 affirm the summary judgment if any of the grounds presented are=20 meritorious.  Western Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d = 547,=20 550 (Tex. 2005);  Pico v. Capriccio Italian = Restaurant, 209=20 S.W.3d 902, 905 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2006, no=20 pet.).  We conclude the trial court properly granted summary = judgment=20 on the no-evidence ground.

After adequate time = for=20 discovery, a party may move for summary judgment on the ground = that there=20 is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or = defense on=20 which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at = trial. =20 Tex. R. Civ. P. = 166a(i);=20 Urena, 162 S.W.3d at 550; Pico, 209 S.W.3d at = 905.  The=20 movant must state the elements as to which there is no = evidence. =20 Tex. R. Civ. P.=20 166a(i).  Unless the respondent produces summary = judgment=20 evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court = must=20 grant the motion.   Id.; Urena, 162 S.W.3d = at=20 550;  Pico, 209 S.W.3d at 905.

The elements of a = negligence=20 action are (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of = that=20 duty by the defendant, and (3) damages proximately caused by the=20 breach.  Urena, 162 S.W.3d at 550.  In her = motion,=20 Palacios asserted there is no evidence on the third element.  = The=20 record contains no response by Lee to the motion for summary=20 judgment.  To defeat a no‑evidence motion for summary = judgment, the=20 non-movant need not marshal his evidence, but must point out in = his=20 response evidence raising a genuine issue of fact as to the = challenged=20 elements.  See comment to tex. R. Civ. P. = 166a(i);=20 Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 73 S.W.3d 193, 207 = (Tex.=20 2002); Pico, 209 S.W.3d at 912; San Saba Energy, L.P. v. = Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 330 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist. = 2005, no=20 pet.); see also Michael v. Dyke, 41 S.W.3d 746, 751 = (Tex.=20 App.CCorpus Christi 2001, = no pet.)=20 (recognizing that A[f]ailure to respond = to a=20 no‑evidence motion is fatal@); Judge David = Hittner and=20 Lynne Liberato, SUMMARY JUDGMENTS IN TEXAS, 47 S. Tex. L. Rev. 409, = 488 (2006)=20 (stating that A[r]esponding to a = no‑evidence=20 summary judgment motion is virtually mandatory@).[2]

Although = Lee=3Ds brief is unclear, = he does not=20 dispute that he failed to respond to the motion.  Instead, = when=20 challenging the no-evidence summary judgment, Lee apparently cites = the=20 following items and/or accompanying Aevidence@ that he filed at = various=20 times:  his petition; discovery responses; an untitled = Aletter@ submitted after = Palacios filed=20 her first no-evidence motion for summary judgment; witness list, = exhibit=20 list, and proposed jury charge; his own motions for summary = judgment;=20 motion for new trial; ASubmission on = Reconsidering=20 Plaintiff=3Ds Motion for New=20 Trial@; AMotion to Exclude = Evidence of=20 Insufficient Personal Knowledge,@ and motion for = modification of=20 discovery control plan. Lee filed some of these items before the = trial=20 court granted summary judgment, but submitted others after the = trial court=20 granted summary judgment.

With respect to items = filed=20 before the trial court granted summary judgment, Lee did not meet = his=20 burden to respond to the no-evidence portion of = Palacios=3Ds motion.  Even = when the=20 non-movant files a response, the trial court is not required to = search the=20 record for evidence raising a material fact issue without more = specific=20 guidance from the non-movant   See Blake v. = Intco=20 Invs. of Tex., Inc., 123 S.W.3d 521, 525 (Tex. = App.CSan Antonio 2003, no = pet.);=20 Burns v. Canales, No. 14‑04‑00786‑CV, = 2006 WL 461518, at=20 *5B6 (Tex. = App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = Feb. 28,=20 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.).  Accordingly, absent a=20 summary-judgment response identifying evidence raising a fact = issue, the=20 trial court was not required to review Lee=3Ds other filings to = find any=20 such evidence.  Moreover, a nonmovant does not meet his = burden to=20 respond to a no-evidence motion for summary judgment by the mere = existence=20 in the court=3Ds file of a response = to an=20 earlier motion for summary judgment.  See Saenz v. = S. Union=20 Gas Co., 999 S.W.2d 490, 494 (Tex. App.CEl Paso 1999, pet.=20 denied).  Consequently, even if any of the referenced items=20 constituted a response to Palacios=3Ds earlier no-evidence = motion=20 for summary judgment, Lee did not meet his burden to respond to = the later=20 motion.

With respect to items = submitted=20 after the trial court granted summary judgment, the record does = not=20 reflect the trial court permitted late filing of a = summary-judgment=20 response.  A trial court may accept summary judgment evidence = filed=20 late, even after summary judgment, as long as the court = affirmatively=20 indicates in the record that it accepted or considered the = evidence. =20 Stephens v. Dolcefino, 126 S.W.3d 120, 133B34 (Tex. = App.CHouston [1st Dist.] = 2003, pet.=20 denied); see Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c).  Where nothing = appears=20 of record to indicate the trial court granted leave for late = filing of a=20 summary-judgment response, we presume the trial court did not = consider the=20 response.  See Benchmark Bank v. Crowder, 919 = S.W.2d=20 657, 663 (Tex. 1996); INA of Tex. v. Bryant, 686 S.W.2d=20 614B15 (Tex. 1985);  = Brown=20 v. Shores, 77 S.W.3d 884, 887 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2002, no=20 pet.).  Therefore, to the extent that any of the above-cited, = late-filed items could suffice as a summary-judgment response, = they were=20 not before the trial court.  See Brown, 77 = S.W.3d at=20 887.

In sum, because Lee = failed to=20 respond to Palacios=3Ds motion for summary = judgment,=20 the trial court properly granted the motion on the no-evidence=20 ground.  See Gray v. The Kirkwood S. Comm. and All Tex.=20 Demolishing. Inc., No. 01‑02‑00145‑CV, 2003 = WL 21513509, at *2 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston [1st Dist.] = Jul. 3,=20 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding trial court did not err by = granting=20 no-evidence motion for summary judgment where  non-movant = failed to=20 file a response). We overrule Lee=3Ds first = issue.

Motion for = New Trial=20 and

Request=20 for Modification of Docket Control Order

Lee=3Ds second and third = issues are=20 interrelated.  Again, his contentions are not clear.  In = his=20 second issue, Lee apparently claims the trial court erred by = denying his=20 motion for new trial because he presented an opinion from an=20 accident-reconstruction expert after the trial court granted = summary=20 judgment.  In his third issue, he complains that the trial = court=20 refused to modify its docket control order after granting summary = judgment=20 to allow Lee an opportunity to designate this expert.

Lee suggests he was = entitled to=20 a new trial because his expert=3Ds report constituted=20 Anewly discovered=20 evidence.@  A party = seeking a new=20 trial based on newly discovered evidence must establish (1) the = evidence=20 has come to his knowledge since trial, (2) it was not owing to = want of due=20 diligence that the evidence did not come to his attention sooner, = (3) the=20 evidence is not cumulative, and (4) the evidence is so material = that it=20 would probably produce a different result if a new trial were=20 granted.  Jackson v. Van Winkle, 660 S.W.2d 807, 809 = (Tex.=20 1983), overruled on other grounds by Moritz v. Preiss, 121 = S.W.3d=20 715 (Tex. 2003).  We review the denial of a motion for new = trial=20 under an abuse-of-discretion standard. =20 Id.

In his timely motion = for new=20 trial, Lee did not mention the expert or attach his report, much = less=20 argue that he satisfied the criteria for obtaining a new trial = based on=20 newly discovered evidence.  Although Lee suggests the expert = was=20 discussed at a hearing on the motion for new trial, we have no = record of=20 the hearing.  Rather, Lee mentioned the expert opinion in his = two=20 pleadings entitled, ASubmission on = Reconsidering=20 Plaintiff=3Ds Motion for New=20 Trial,@ filed after the = trial court=20 denied his motion for new trial.  Nevertheless, in these = pleadings,=20 Lee did not argue that he satisfied the criteria for obtaining a = new trial=20 based on newly discovered evidence.[3]  For=20 instance, he failed to offer any reason he was unable to obtain an = expert=20 opinion before the trial court granted summary judgment, = considering his=20 suit had been on filed more than one and a half years at the time = of the=20 ruling.  Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its = discretion by=20 refusing to grant a new trial based on newly discovered = evidence.  We=20 overrule Lee=3Ds second = issue.

In addition, Lee = complains that=20 the trial court refused to modify its docket control order to = extend the=20 deadline for Lee=3Ds expert = designation. =20 This deadline expired before Palacios filed her motion for summary = judgment.  However, Lee suggests that, after granting summary = judgment, the trial court should have modified its docket control = order to=20 allow Lee an opportunity to designate his expert.  Obviously, = such=20 modification would have been meaningless unless the trial court = also=20 granted a new trial and vacated the summary judgment.  As = discussed,=20 Lee failed to establish a right to a new trial based on this = alleged newly=20 discovered evidence.  Therefore, the trial court did err by = refusing=20 to modify the docket control order.[4]  We=20 overrule Lee=3Ds third = issue.

 

 

Accordingly, the = judgment of=20 the trial court is affirmed.

 

 

/s/       =20 Charles W. Seymore

Justice

 

Judgment rendered and = Memorandum Opinion filed October 11, 2007.

Panel consists of = Justices=20 Yates, Seymore, and Edelman.*


[1]  Palacios had previously filed a = no-evidence=20 motion for summary judgment on February 11, 2005.  A few = months=20 later, the trial court denied the motion.  Subsequently, = Palacios=20 filed the motion at issue.

[2]  Although Lee has appeared pro se = in the=20 trial court and on appeal, he is held to the same standards as a = licensed=20 attorney and must comply with the applicable laws and rules of=20 procedure.  See  Mansfield State Bank v. = Cohn, 573=20 S.W.2d 181, 184B85 (Tex. 1978); Brown v. Tex. = Employment=20 Comm=3Dn, 801=20 S.W.2d 5, 8 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ=20 denied).  

[3] If these pleadings are tantamount to = additional=20 motions for new trial, they were not even timely because they were = filed=20 more than thirty days after the trial court signed the summary=20 judgment.  See Tex. R.=20 Civ. P.  329b(a) (providing motion for new trial shall = be=20 filed prior to or within thirty days after judgment or other order = complained of is signed); IPM Products Corp. v. Motor Parkway=20 Realty, 960 S.W.2d 879, 882 (Tex. App.CEl Paso 1997, no pet.) (recognizing = motion for=20 reconsideration is equivalent of a motion for new trial).  In = fact,=20 the trial court=3Ds plenary power had expired when Lee = filed the=20 second pleading because it was submitted more than thirty days = after the=20 trial court denied Lee=3Ds only timely motion for new = trial. =20 See Tex. R. Civ. = P.=20 329b(e) (providing trial court has plenary power until = thirty days=20 after all timely filed motions for new trial are overruled).  = However, Lee seemed to characterize these pleadings as requests = for=20 rehearing from denial of the motion for new trial, as opposed to=20 additional motions for new trial.  Nonetheless, in these = pleadings,=20 he did not satisfy the criteria for obtaining a new trial based on = newly=20 discovered evidence.

[4]  Lee did not even file his = AMotion for Modification of Discovery = Control=20 Plan@ until after the trial court=3Ds plenary power had expired.  = Regardless, to=20 the extent Lee asserts the trial court should have modified the = docket=20 control order in conjunction with ruling on his timely motion for = new=20 trial, he has shown no error.

*  Senior Justice Richard H. Edelman = sitting=20 by = assignment.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C81119.0A48D8E0 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_0007_01C81119.0A48D8E0 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_0007_01C81119.0A48D8E0--