From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:04:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01C80080.C49F5790" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16480 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C80080.C49F5790 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=83842 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September = 25,=20 2007.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court=20 of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-06-00166-CV

____________

 

THE PAIN=20 CARE CENTER, INC. AND MARSHA HUGHES, = Appellants

 

V.

 

O=3DCONNOR & = HANNAN,=20 L.L.P.,=20 Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the = 127th District Court

Harris County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 2003-36758

 

 

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

Appellants,=20 The Pain Care Center, Inc. and Marsha Hughes, appeal from a final = judgment=20 in their lawsuit alleging legal malpractice and other claims = against=20 O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan, L.L.P.  The judgment awarded appellants = $2,099.50 in=20 sanctions against O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan but denied all further relief after a settlement = credit from=20 a settling defendant was applied to the jury=3Ds=20 verdict.  On appeal, appellants contend that the trial court = erred in=20 (1) permitting O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan to call witnesses that were not timely identified in = response=20 to discovery requests; (2) failing to order a mistrial when the = court=20 reporter=3Ds machine=20 malfunctioned during a pre-trial hearing; (3) granting summary = judgment=20 against their breach of contract cause of action; (4) permitting a = juror=20 to serve who had been previously excused from the panel; and (5) = refusing=20 to grant challenges for cause and an additional peremptory=20 challenge.  Appellants further contend that the = jury=3Ds finding=20 that O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan did not commit fraud was against the great weight and = preponderance of the evidence.  We affirm.

I. =20 Background

In May=20 2001, Kirk Coverstone sued appellants, alleging various claims = relating to=20 a contract of employment between Coverstone and The Pain Care=20 Center.  The contract was signed by Hughes as Chief Executive = Officer=20 of The Pain Care Center.  Among the claims, Coverstone = alleged breach=20 of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty.  He = further=20 alleged that The Pain Care Center was simply an alter ego of = Hughes. =20 Initially, appellants were represented in this underlying lawsuit = by=20 attorney Jay Dushkin.  During this time, Hughes was taking a = college=20 class taught by Michael Wing.  After discussing the case = several=20 times with Wing, Hughes decided to dismiss Dushkin as counsel for = her and=20 The Pain Care Center and hire Wing and the law firm in which he = was a=20 partner, O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan.  On March 17, 2002, Hughes signed an Engagement = Letter=20 naming Wing and O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan as attorneys for her and The Pain Care = Center.

Although=20 Wing subsequently left O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan in August 2002, no order was entered dismissing the = firm as=20 counsel in the lawsuit.  Ultimately, after judgments were = entered in=20 the underlying lawsuit against both Hughes and The Pain Care = Center, they=20 settled with Coverstone by agreeing to pay him $70,000.  = Including=20 the legal fees paid to Wing and certain garnishment fees resulting = from an=20 apparent failure to timely pay the settlement amount, appellants = paid a=20 total of $93,056.11 in settlement of the underlying=20 case.

Appellants=20 subsequently brought the present action against Wing and = O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan, alleging professional negligence, fraud, breach of = contract,=20 and breach of a fiduciary duty.  Wing settled with appellants = before=20 trial, agreeing to pay them $300,000.  Also prior to trial, = the trial=20 court granted summary judgment against appellants=3D = breach of=20 contract claim.  The trial court further held that as a = matter of=20 law, the representation of appellants in the underlying lawsuit = was=20 negligently performed and that O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan remained liable for appellants=3D = representation because it had not obtained a court order approving = its=20 withdrawal as their counsel.  Consequently, the court = instructed the=20 jury that O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan was liable for the negligent representation of = appellants in=20 the underlying action.  The jury awarded appellants a = combined sum of=20 $98,056.17 in damages.  The jury further found that = O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan had not committed fraud against = appellants.

Additionally,=20 prior to trial, the court held a hearing on appellants=3D = motion=20 for sanctions based on O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan=3Ds alleged=20 failure to timely and adequately answer discovery.  The court = granted=20 certain relief requested by appellants, including monetary = sanctions, and=20 denied certain relief, including the requested exclusion of all of = O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan=3Ds trial=20 witnesses.[1]

II. =20 Analysis

A. =20 Discovery Disputes

In their=20 first issue, appellants contend that the trial court erred in = allowing=20 O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan to call any witnesses in its case-in-chief because=20 O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan failed to timely and adequately answer = discovery. =20 See generally Tex. R. Civ.=20 P. 193.6(a) (providing that a party that fails to timely = identify a=20 witness may not offer that witness=3Ds=20 testimony at trial), 215 (governing sanctions for discovery = abuses). =20 Appellants=3D = primary=20 position appears to be that because O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan did not identify the witnesses it expected to call = until=20 thirty days before trial in answer to interrogatories, the trial = court=20 should have excluded all of O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan=3Ds trial=20 witnesses.[2] =20 However, beyond stating that supplementation of the interrogatory=20 responses thirty days before trial was untimely, appellants offer = no=20 explanation and make no arguments as to why they deem the answers=20 untimely.  Appellants also cite no authority in support of = this=20 contention.  Consequently, this issue has not been properly=20 briefed.  Tex. R. = App. P.=20 38.1(h) (requiring that an appellant=3Ds brief=20 Amust=20 contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, = with=20 appropriate citations to authorities and the record@).

Additionally,=20 in their statement of issue one, appellants assert that = O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan did not supplement its responses to the requests for=20 production until thirty days before the trial setting.  = However,=20 appellants neither assert that the trial court erred in permitting = the=20 introduction of any documents as trial exhibits, nor do they = explain how=20 supplementation of document production relates to the testimony of = O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan=3Ds=20 witnesses of which appellants complain.

Appellants=20 further point out that had the case proceeded to trial on two = previously=20 scheduled trial dates, O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan would not have been able to call any witnesses = because it had=20 not provided a witness list by those dates.  But appellants = do not=20 explain how this observation is relevant to whether O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan timely supplemented its witness list thirty days = prior to the=20 actual trial date.

Appellants=20 additionally argue that in responding to requests for disclosure,=20 O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan failed to state what connection each person = identified as=20 having knowledge of relevant facts had to the case.  Again,=20 appellants make no connection between this alleged failure and the = exclusion of witnesses due to failure to provide a witness list in = response to an interrogatory until thirty days prior to = trial. =20 Furthermore, a review of O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan=3Ds=20 responses to the requests for disclosures reveals that it did in = fact=20 state a connection for each person listed.

Lastly,=20 appellants point out that O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan failed to demonstrate (1) good cause for the late=20 supplementation of the witness list, or (2) that such late = supplementation=20 did not cause unfair surprise or prejudice to appellants.  = See=20 generally Tex. R. = Civ. P.=20 193.6(a).  However, because appellants have provided = no=20 argument as to why supplementation thirty days before trial was = untimely,=20 we need not consider whether untimely supplementation was excused = by good=20 cause or caused unfair surprise or prejudice.  For the = foregoing=20 reasons, we overrule appellants=3D = first=20 issue.

B. =20 Reporter=3Ds=20 Record

In their=20 second issue, appellant=3Ds contend=20 that they are entitled to a new trial because the court=20 reporter=3Ds=20 recording machine apparently malfunctioned at one point during the = hearing=20 on appellants=3D = motion=20 for sanctions.  Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure = 34.6(f), an=20 appellant is entitled to a new trial if, among other = possibilities: (1) a=20 significant portion of an electronic recording of proceedings has = been=20 lost or destroyed or is inaudible, (2) the portion is necessary to = the=20 resolution of the appeal, and (3) the portion cannot be replaced = by=20 agreement of the parties.  Tex. R. App. P. = 34.6(f). =20 However, except for pointing out that the machine apparently = malfunctioned=20 at some point and baldly asserting that the alleged missing = portion of the=20 record Ais=20 necessary to this Court=3Ds=20 resolution of the appeal,@ = appellants offer no argument in support of this issue.  = Appellants do=20 not even suggest what may have gone unrecorded or why the missing = portion=20 would be necessary to our disposition of the appeal.

Furthermore,=20 the portion of the record appellant cites shows that the = malfunction=20 occurred when O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan=3Ds counsel=20 was responding to a question from the judge and argument by = opposing=20 counsel.  After the interruption, O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan=3Ds attorney=20 appears to continue where he left off.  Thus, there is no = indication=20 that anything of substance occurred during the time there was no=20 recording.  Indeed, a logical inference is that the = proceedings=20 simply stopped until the problem could be corrected.  = Accordingly, we=20 find that appellants have failed to demonstrate the necessity of = any=20 missing portion of the record for resolution of this appeal.  = We=20 overrule appellants=3D = second=20 issue.

C. =20 Breach of Contract

In their=20 third and fourth issues, appellants contend that the trial court = erred in=20 granting summary judgment against their breach of contract cause = of=20 action.  In their First Amended petition, appellants asserted = that=20 O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan breached the contract when it failed Ato provide=20 any legal services to [appellants] after it entered into a = contract=20 with [appellants] to provide such services.@ =20 (emphasis in original).  In the traditional summary judgment = portion=20 of its motion, O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan contended that appellants=3D = breach of=20 contract claim constituted an improper fracturing of their legal=20 malpractice claim.  In the no-evidence portion of the motion, = O=3DConnor=20 & Hannan asserted that appellants could present no evidence of = breach=20 or causation.  The trial court granted summary judgment = against the=20 breach of contract claim without specifying the grounds = therefore. =20 Consequently, we must affirm the summary judgment if any of the = summary=20 judgment grounds are meritorious.  Mandell v. Mandell, = 214=20 S.W.3d 682, 687 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.).

In their=20 brief, appellants argue that their cause of action was not an = improper=20 fracturing of a malpractice action and that they provided summary = judgment=20 proof of damages resulting from the alleged breach of = contract. =20 However, appellants do not address the no-evidence grounds = relating to=20 breach and causation.[3] =20 For that reason alone, we may affirm summary judgment.  = Broesche=20 v. Jacobson, 218 S.W.3d 267, 274 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).  Accordingly, we overrule = issues=20 three and four.

D. =20 Juror Issues

In issues=20 five through seven, appellants argue that the trial court made = several=20 errors relating to challenges and seating of jurors.

1. =20 Excused Panelist

In issue=20 number five, appellants contend that the trial court erred by = excusing a=20 venire panel member but then seating that panel member on the = jury. =20 Specifically, appellants assert that jury panel member number = eleven, whom=20 appellants identify as AMrs.=20 Zamora,@ = had been=20 Aerased@ = from the=20 list but was subsequently seated on the jury and signed the = verdict. =20 The Strike List contained in the record, however, shows = AMichael=20 Mullen@ = as panel=20 member eleven, and it shows that Andra Zamora (the only Zamora on = the=20 list) was panel member twenty-three.  Mullen=3Ds name and=20 number are indeed marked through on the list; Zamora=3Ds name and=20 number are not.  Mullen did not sign the verdict and, as = apparent=20 from the record, did not serve as a juror.

At one=20 point during pretrial proceedings, the trial judge stated that the = panel=20 members excused for job-related reasons included ANo. 11=20 Mrs. Zamora.@ =20 This appears to be a simple misstatement by the judge.  = Although=20 Mullen (the actual panel member number eleven) told the judge that = he=20 could not afford to be off work for jury service, Zamora = apparently made=20 no such statement (telling the judge only that her brother had = been=20 involved in a medical malpractice case).  Furthermore, prior = to=20 saying ANo. 11=20 Mrs. Zamora,@ = the trial=20 judge had correctly identified Mullen as panel member eleven on = the=20 record.  The judge also correctly identified Zamora as panel = member=20 twenty-three on the record, and she included Mullen, but not = Zamora, on a=20 subsequent list of excused jurors.  Accordingly, appellants = have not=20 demonstrated that the trial court erred in permitting Zamora to = serve on=20 the jury.  We overrule issue number = five.

2. =20 Challenges

In issue=20 number six, appellants contend that the trial court erred in = refusing to=20 grant certain of appellants=3D = challenges for cause.  In issue number seven, appellants = assert that=20 the trial court erred in permitting an objectionable juror to be = on the=20 jury after the court denied appellants=3D = challenge=20 for cause and request for an additional peremptory = challenge. =20 Appellants=3D = discussion of these issues in their brief details the procedural = history=20 of when the challenges were made, how many were granted, how many = were=20 denied, which jurors were excused, and which jurors were objected = to but=20 not excused.  However, except for juror Zamora discussed = above,=20 appellants offer no legal basis for why any of the jurors who = actually=20 served on the jury should not have so served.  Consequently,=20 appellants=3D = presentation of these issues violates Rule 38.1(h) of the Rules of = Appellate Procedure, which requires an appellant=3Ds brief to=20 Acontain a=20 clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with = appropriate=20 citations to authorities and to the record.@ =20 Tex. R. App. P.=20 38.1(h).  We overrule issues six and seven.

E. =20 Factual Sufficiency

In their=20 eighth issue, appellants contend that the jury=3Ds failure=20 to find fraud was against the overwhelming weight of the = evidence. =20 In reviewing this challenge to the factual sufficiency of the = evidence, we=20 consider and weigh all the evidence and will set aside the verdict = only if=20 the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great = weight=20 and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong or=20 unjust.  Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 = (Tex.=20 2001).  The trier of fact is the sole judge of the = credibility of the=20 witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.  = GTE=20 Mobilnet of S. Tex. v. Pascouet, 61 S.W.3d 599, 615‑16 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied).

In its=20 charge, the trial court instructed the jury that:

Fraud occurs = whenC

1.      =20 A party makes a material misrepresentation,

2.      =20 The misrepresentation is made with knowledge of its falsity or = made=20 recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive=20 assertion,

3.      =20 The misrepresentation is made with the intention that it should be = acted=20 on by the other party, and

4.      =20 The other party relies on the misrepresentation and thereby = suffers=20 injury.[4]

The=20 question on fraud in the charge then reads as follows:

In=20 answering this question, consider only representations, if any, = that you=20 find were made to The Pain Care Center, Inc. and/or Marsha Hughes = in the=20 law firm brochure or the web site [sic] concerning the quality of = legal=20 services and support in the legal representation of Plaintiffs by = Mr.=20 Wing.

In support=20 of their factual sufficiency argument, appellants point to = statements in=20 the firm brochure that appellants contend were misrepresentations = that (1)=20 their legal defense would be handled by a team, (2) the firm would = choose=20 the attorney whose skills were best suited to the job, and (3) the = lawyer=20 so chosen would be an experienced litigation attorney.[5] =20 However, even assuming appellants are correct that these = statements were=20 material misrepresentations, knowingly made, with the intention = that they=20 be acted uponCthus=20 fulfilling the first three elements of the fraud = chargeCappellants=20 fail to establish that a finding that appellants did not rely on = these=20 statements in hiring Wing was against the great weight and = preponderance=20 of the evidence.

Appellants=20 assert as uncontroverted fact that they relied on statements in = the=20 brochure and on the website in hiring Wing (and the firm) to = represent=20 them.  Hughes did indeed testify that she relied on these = statements=20 in signing the agreement.  However, as stated above, the jury = is the=20 sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to = be given=20 to their testimony.  GTE Mobilnet, 61 S.W.3d at = 615‑16. =20 On the most basic level, the jury may simply have disbelieved=20 Hughes=3D = self-serving testimony.  See, e.g., Purcell Const., Inc. = v.=20 Welch, 17 S.W.3d 398, 401-02 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (holding evidence was factually = sufficient=20 where jury could have disbelieved testimony of principle of = defendant=20 company).

Furthermore,=20 there was evidence that Hughes and Wing had a relationship prior = to and=20 outside of the attorney-client context.  Wing was = Hughes=3D = college=20 professor.  She testified that she had previously spoken to = him=20 numerous times about the underlying case and about the performance = of her=20 prior attorney.  Emails between Hughes and Wing on these = subjects=20 were also introduced into evidence.  When she turned to him = for=20 advice on replacement counsel, he reportedly referred her to the=20 firm=3Ds website,=20 where she reviewed his curriculum vitae.  According to = Hughes, Wing=20 told her that Ahe was a=20 very experienced attorney; [sic] that he tried a lot of cases, and = that he=20 had never lost a case.@ =20 This evidence suggests that in hiring legal representation for The = Pain=20 Care Center and herself, Hughes relied on her own personal = opinions of=20 Wing and on his representations rather than on the statements in = the=20 brochure and on the website.  Thus, we cannot say that the=20 jury=3Ds failure=20 to find fraud under the charge given was against the great weight = and=20 preponderance of the evidence.  We overrule issue number=20 eight.

We affirm the trial = court=3Ds=20 judgment.     

 

 

 

/s/     =20 Adele Hedges

Chief = Justice

 

 

 

 

Judgment=20 rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed September 25, = 2007.

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

 


[1]  Additional background and = procedural facts=20 will be discussed below as necessary.

[2]  Appellants=3D first issue is to some degree = multifarious;=20 however, to the extent we can discern the complaints being made, = we will=20 address them.  See, e.g., In re Guardianship of Moon, = 216=20 S.W.3d 506, 508 (Tex. App.CTexarkana 2007, no pet.); Bell v. = Tex.=20 Dep=3Dt of Crim. = Justice‑Inst=3Dl Div.,=20 962 S.W.2d 156, 157 n.1 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet.=20 denied).

[3]  Appellants state that damages was = the only=20 element on which O=3DConnor & Hannan alleged no evidence = could be=20 presented.  Appellants misread the motion.  Although in = one=20 section of the motion, O=3DConnor & Hannan alleged that = appellants could=20 present no evidence of damages caused by Wing=3Ds conduct during the time he worked for = the firm,=20 in another section of the motion, O=3DConnor & Hannan specifically alleged = that=20 appellants could present no evidence that it breached the = agreement or=20 that any such breach caused damages.

[4]  The charge also included an = instruction=20 regarding fraudulent failure to disclose a material fact; however, = in=20 their brief, appellants make no arguments regarding this=20 instruction.

[5]  Appellants additionally mention=20 Arepresentations of Wing, as a = partner,@ but as stated, the charge limited the = realm of=20 possibly fraudulent statements to those made in the brochure or on = the=20 = website.

------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C80080.C49F5790 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_0031_01C80080.C49F5790 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_0031_01C80080.C49F5790--