From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:50:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003F_01C88564.F5861C90" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C88564.F5861C90 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=84340 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Vacated=20 and Dismissed in Part, Reversed and Rendered in Part and = Memorandum=20 Opinion filed March 11, 2008.

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-06-01054-CV

____________

 

PATRICK=20 OLAJIDE AKINWAMIDE, = Appellant

 

V.

 

TRANSPORTATION = INSURANCE CO.,=20 CNA INSURANCE CO. & AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING,=20 INC.,=20 Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the = 80th District Court

Harris County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 2004-12332

 

 

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

After two=20 unsuccessful lawsuits to recover on a workers=3D = compensation claim, appellant, Patrick Olajide Akinwamide, filed a = bill of=20 review in the trial court in an attempt to set aside a = final=20 judgment rendered against him in 2000.  The trial court = granted=20 summary judgment in favor of appellees, Transportation Insurance = Co., CNA=20 Insurance Co., and Automatic Data Processing, Inc.  = Additionally, the=20 trial court declared appellant a vexatious

litigant,=20 and ordered appellant to pay a $2,500 security bond, which was=20 subsequently released to appellees.  In eight points of = error,=20 appellant, a pro se litigant, contends the trial court = erred in=20 granting appellees=3D = motion=20 for summary judgment, erred in declaring appellant a vexatious = litigant,=20 and erred in releasing the security posted.  We vacate = and=20 dismiss in part and reverse and render in part.=20   

Factual=20 and Procedural Background

Appellant=20 has been litigating his claims against appellees for over ten = years. =20 Appellant=3Ds suit=20 began when he filed a workers=3D = compensation claim with the Texas Industrial Accident Board (IAB) = claiming=20 he had developed respiratory problems in October 1989 caused by = the=20 inhalation of second-hand smoke while working at Automatic Data=20 Processing, Inc. (ADP).  In August 1997, the IAB issued a = final=20 ruling denying appellant=3Ds=20 claim.  In response, in September 1997, appellant filed suit = against=20 ADP in the district court (hereinafter Afirst=20 suit@). =20 Appellant later sought to add Transportation Insurance Co. (TIC) = and CNA=20 Insurance Co. (CNA) as defendants, but the district court denied=20 appellant=3Ds motion=20 to join.

Appellant=3Ds case was=20 tried to a jury in June 2000, and the jury determined appellant = failed to=20 timely file his appeal from the IAB ruling.  The court signed = the=20 final judgment in August 2000, and appellant timely appealed the = trial=20 court=3Ds=20 decision.  The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial = court=3Ds judgment=20 in August 2004.

While=20 appellant=3Ds first=20 suit was pending in the appellate court, appellant again attempted = to=20 recover damages by filing a second lawsuit against ADP, TIC, and = CNA=20 (hereinafter Asecond=20 suit@). =20 In this suit, alleging all three companies conspired to = misrepresent facts=20 pertinent to appellant=3Ds claim=20 for compensation, appellant sued for fraud, negligence, and = fraudulent=20 concealment.  Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment,=20

which the=20 trial court granted in April 2002.  Appellant appealed this = decision,=20 and in May 2003, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the = trial=20 court=3Ds=20 judgment.  Appellant subsequently appealed the decision to = the Texas=20 Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court denied the petition for = review in=20 October 2003.

In yet=20 another attempt to collect damages, appellant filed a bill of = review with=20 the trial court in March 2004 seeking review of the trial=20 court=3Ds decision=20 in appellant=3Ds first=20 suit.  Appellant claimed the judgment in the first suit was = voidable,=20 and it should be replaced with a default judgment in his = favor.  In=20 response to this third suit, appellees filed a motion to declare = appellant=20 a vexatious litigant, and the trial court granted the motion in = March=20 2006.  The order declaring appellant a vexatious litigant = required=20 appellant to post a $2,500 security, which appellant posted.  = Appellees also filed a motion for summary judgment in July 2004, = and the=20 trial court granted their motion in September 2006.  = Appellant filed=20 a motion for new trial and a motion to vacate the judgment, and = both=20 orders were subsequently denied.  In October 2006, the trial = court=20 ordered the release of appellant=3Ds security=20 to the appellees.  Appellant filed a timely notice of=20 appeal.     

Discussion

A.     =20 Did the Trial Court Err in Granting Appellees=3D = Motion=20 for Summary Judgment?

Appellant=3Ds first=20 five issues all challenge the trial court=3Ds granting=20 of appellees=3D = motion=20 for summary judgment.  In his first issue, appellant argues = the trial=20 court erred in granting the appellees=3D = summary=20 judgment because appellees failed to properly serve the motion for = summary=20 judgment on appellant.  In his next four issues, appellant = argues the=20 trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment = because=20 appellees=3D = exhibits=20 attached to the motion were not properly certified, = appellees=3D = evidence=20 was insufficient, and the verification attached to the motion was=20 insufficient.

 

1.      =20 Bill of Review

A=20 bill of review is an equitable proceeding brought by a party to a = former=20 action who seeks to set aside a judgment that is no longer = appealable or=20 subject to a motion for new trial.  Baker v. = Goldsmith, 582=20 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. 1979).  A bill of review complainant = must prove=20 three elements: (1) a meritorious claim or defense, (2) that he = was=20 prevented from asserting by the fraud, accident or wrongful act of = his=20 opponent or by official mistake, and (3) the absence of fault or=20 negligence of the complainant.  Caldwell v. Barnes, = 975 S.W.2d=20 535, 537 (Tex. 1998).  A bill of review may not be used as an = additional remedy after one has made a timely, but unsuccessful=20 appeal.  Rizk v. Mayad, 603 S.W.2d 773, 776 (Tex.=20 1980).

To=20 invoke the equitable powers of the court, the bill of review = petitioner must, as=20 a preliminary matter, make a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense to the = cause of=20 action alleged to support the judgment.  Baker, 582 = S.W.2d at=20 408.  A prima facie=20 meritorious claim or defense is made out when it is determined the = complainant's claim or defense is not barred as a matter of law = and he=20 will be entitled to judgment on retrial if no evidence to the = contrary is=20 offered.  Id. at 408B09. =20 Prima facie proof may = consist of=20 documents, admissions, and affidavits along with other evidence = the trial=20 court may receive in its discretion.  Id. at = 409.  If the=20 petition fails to make a prima facie showing, the proceeding = terminates,=20 and the case is dismissed.  See id.; In re = L.N.M., 182=20 S.W.3d 470, 474B75=20 (Tex. App.CDallas=20 2006, no pet.).  Thus, we first address whether the trial = judge erred=20 in failing to find appellant made a prima facie showing of a = meritorious=20 claim or defense.        =20 2.      =20 Analysis

In=20 appellant=3Ds=20 bill of review, his meritorious claim argument centers around the = idea=20 that appellees did not have workers=3D=20 compensation insurance in full force and effect at the time of his = injury.  Appellant argued appellees were negligent in failing = to=20 provide a

 

reasonably=20 safe work place and failing to protect him against injuries while = acting=20 in the course and scope of his employment.  Appellant also = argued=20 appellees intentionally engaged in the misrepresentation of facts, = engaged=20 in intentional fraudulent acts, and engaged in deceptive acts to = conceal=20 the truth, which caused appellant harm.  Appellant attaches=20 affidavits and twenty-four exhibits to his petition, which include = things=20 such as medical reports, petitions and answers filed in the first = suit,=20 motions and orders filed in the first suit, the final judgment of = the=20 first suit, and documents from his claim with the IAB.  After = reviewing the proof presented by appellant in his bill of review = petition,=20 we cannot say it is sufficient prima facie proof to support=20 appellant=3Ds=20 argument of a meritorious claim or defense.  His evidence = merely=20 proves he has litigated this issue multiple times in the = past. =20 Furthermore, a bill of review may not be used as an additional = remedy=20 after one has made a timely, but unsuccessful appeal.  = Rizk,=20 603 S.W.2d at 776.  The grounds upon which a bill of review = can be=20 obtained are narrow because the procedure conflicts with the = fundamental=20 policy that judgments must become final at some point.  = Transworld=20 Fin. Serv. Corp. v. Briscoe, 722 S.W.2d 407, 407 (Tex. 1987) = (citing=20 Alexander v. Hagedorn, 226 S.W.2d 996, 998 (Tex. = 1950)). =20 Here, appellant has already tried and unsuccessfully appealed the = claims=20 and defenses underlying his bill of review. =20 Appellant=3Ds=20 arguments regarding the basis for his bill of review, both here = and in the=20 trial court, simply reiterate the issues already resolved in=20 appellant=3Ds=20 first and second suits.  All of appellant=3Ds=20 claims and defenses either were or could have been litigated in = the trial=20 and appellate courts and thus are barred by res judicata. =20 Compania Financiara Libano v. Simmons, 53 S.W.3d 365, 367 = (Tex.=20 2001); Rizk, 603 S.W.2d at 775.  Thus, we find = appellant=20 failed to present prima facie proof in support of his claim of a=20 meritorious claim or defense.      =

When=20 a petitioner fails to make a prima facie showing, the proceeding=20 terminates, and Athe=20 trial court shall dismiss the case.@ =20 Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409.  In this case, when = appellant failed=20 to make a prima facie showing of a meritorious claim or defense, = the trial=20

judge=20 should have dismissed the case rather than grant summary judgment = in favor=20 of appellees.  See Rich v. Cooley, No. 05-05-00912-CV, = 2006 WL=20 2106715, at *1B3=20 (Tex. App.CDallas=20 July 31, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) = (holding it was improper for the trial court to grant summary = judgment in=20 favor of appellees because appellant failed to present prima facie = proof=20 to support his bill of review petition).  Accordingly, we = vacate the=20 trial court=3Ds=20 summary judgment order in favor of appellees, and we render = judgment=20 dismissing appellant=3Ds=20 bill of review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e); = Rich,=20 2006 WL 2106715, at *1B3.

B.     =20 Did the Trial Court Err in Declaring Appellant a Vexatious = Litigant?=20

In=20 appellant=3Ds=20 sixth issue, he argues the trial court erred in declaring him a = vexatious=20 litigant because appellees failed to comply with section 11.051 of = the=20 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  More specifically, = appellant=20 argues appellees failed to file their motion within the requisite=20 ninety-day time period.

1.      =20 Standard of Review

We=20 review the trial court=3Ds=20 ultimate determination that appellant is a vexatious litigant = under an=20 abuse of discretion standard.  Leonard v. Abbott, 171 = S.W.3d=20 451, 459 (Tex. App.CAustin=20 2005, pet. denied).  The trial court abuses its=20 discretion by acting arbitrarily,=20 unreasonably, or without consideration of guiding = principles. =20 Walker v. Gutierrez, 111 S.W.3d 56, 62 (Tex.=20 2003).

2.      =20 Applicable Law

Texas=20 law provides a mechanism allowing a plaintiff to be declared a = vexatious=20 litigant.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. = ch. 11=20 (Vernon 2006).  But, a defendant must file the motion = triggering that=20 mechanism Aon=20 or before the 90th day after the date the defendant files the = original=20 answer.@ =20 Id. '=20 11.051. 

 

3.      =20 Analysis

In=20 this case, appellees filed their original answer on April 12, = 2004. =20 They filed their motion to declare appellant a vexatious litigant = on July=20 21, 2004.  Appellees motion was filed after the statutory = ninety-day=20 period had expired; therefore, it was an abuse of discretion for = the trial=20 court to grant relief under that circumstance.  See = Dishner v.=20 Huitt-Zollars, Inc., 162 S.W.3d 370, 377 (Tex. = App.CDallas=20 2005, no pet.) (holding the trial court abused its discretion in = declaring=20 appellant a vexatious litigant because motion filed outside the = ninety-day=20 time period); In re Marriage of Grossnickle, 115 S.W.3d = 238, 252=20 (Tex. App.CTexarkana=20 2003, no pet.) (A[T]he=20 >vexatious=20 litigant=3D=20 statute applies only when filed within ninety days after the date = on which=20 a defendant files his or her original answer.@);=20 Spiller v. Spiller, 21 S.W.3d 451, 454 (Tex.=20 App.CSan=20 Antonio 2000, no pet.) (holding the motion filed outside the = ninety-day=20 period was untimely).

Appellees=20 argue even though the time to file a motion may have expired, the = court=20 had the inherent power to prevent such vexatious litigation.  = Appellees cite to University of Texas v. Morris and = Birdo v.=20 Holbrook in support of this proposition, but their reliance on = these=20 two cases is misplaced.  See Univ. of Tex. v. Morris, = 344=20 S.W.2d 426, 428 (Tex. 1961); Birdo v. Holbrook, 775 S.W.2d = 411,=20 412B13=20 (Tex. App.CFort=20 Worth 1989, writ denied).  First, both cases were decided = before the=20 enactment of the current vexatious litigant statute.  = See Tex.=20 Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch. 11 (stating it was enacted on=20 September 1, 1997).  In Morris, the Texas Supreme = Court held=20 the district courts have the inherent power to enjoin a party from = prosecuting a cause of action in another court when necessary to = prevent=20 multiple suits or vexatious litigation.  Morris, 344 = S.W.2d at=20 428.  In Birdo, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals = determined=20 under its inherent powers it could prevent appellant from filing=20 additional hand printed documents with the court.  = Birdo, 775=20 S.W.2d at 412B13. =20 Both of these cases stand for the proposition the courts have the = inherent=20 power to apply certain

 

restrictions=20 on pro se plaintiffs in order to protect judicial = resources, but=20 they do not stand for the proposition the courts can inherently = declare a=20 plaintiff a vexatious litigant.  Morris, 344 S.W.2d at = 428;=20 Birdo, 775 S.W.2d at 412B13. =20 Furthermore, after reviewing the trial court=3Ds=20 order, it is apparent the trial court declared appellant a = vexatious=20 litigant using chapter eleven of the Civil Practice and Remedies=20 Code.  Appellees also state in their brief = A[d]efendants=20 moved to declare the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant pursuant to=20 '=20 11.054 of the [Texas Civil Practice and Remedies = Code],@=20 and then argue why appellant meets all of the requirements under = the=20 statute.  Appellees attempt to rely on supposed = Ainherent=20 powers@=20 of the court simply because they failed to comply with the = requirements of=20 the statute, and we do not find the argument persuasive.  = Because=20 appellees filed their motion outside the statutory ninety-day = period, we=20 hold the trial court erred in declaring appellant a vexatious=20 litigant.  Accordingly, we sustain = appellant=3Ds=20 sixth issue.  Because appellant=3Ds=20 seventh issue relates to the trial court=3Ds=20 vexatious litigant order, we need not address it.  Tex. R. = App. P.=20 47.1.

C.     =20 Did the Trial Court Err in Ordering the Release of Security to=20 Appellees?

In=20 his eighth issue, appellant argues the trial court erred in = releasing his=20 security to appellees.  After appellant was declared a = vexatious=20 litigant, he was ordered to furnish security for the benefit of = appellees=20 in the amount of $2,500.  Appellant complied with the order = and=20 deposited $2,500 with the trial court.  On October 27, 2006, = the=20 trial court ordered the registry to release the security to=20 appellees=3D=20 attorney.  The only reason the trial court required appellant = to=20 deposit this security was because it declared appellant a = vexatious=20 litigant.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.=20 '=20 11.055 (Vernon 2006) (requiring the court to order plaintiff to = furnish=20 security upon a finding the plaintiff is a vexatious = litigant).  In=20 light of our decision that the trial court abused its discretion = in=20 declaring appellant a vexatious litigant, we hold the court also = abused=20 its discretion in requiring appellant to furnish a security and = further=20 abused its discretion in releasing this security to = appellees.  We=20 sustain appellant=3Ds=20 eighth issue.

Conclusion

We=20 vacate the trial court=3Ds=20 order granting appellees=3D=20 motion for summary judgment, and we dismiss = appellant=3Ds=20 bill of review.  We reverse the order of the trial court = declaring=20 appellant a vexatious litigant and render judgment that appellant = is not a=20 vexatious litigant.  We further reverse the order of the = trial court=20 releasing the $2,500 security to appellees and render judgment = that=20 appellant recover the $2,500 security from=20 appellees.      

 

 

           = ;            =         =20

/s/     =20 John S. Anderson

Justice

 

Judgment=20 rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed March 11, = 2008.

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

------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C88564.F5861C90 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_003F_01C88564.F5861C90 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/images/icons/close.gif R0lGODlhFwAPAMQAAMDAwP//nP/OnPf39+/v5+/e3ufn5+fWxt7e3s7OY6+vMpycAISEhISEAFlN MkpCQkpCOTEhAAAAhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEA AAAALAAAAAAXAA8AQAVxICCOJMCU6KgMQesGArwYUTouCTMAgzQMBkijYRMtYkgYTLCoFQGLqA74 eIoU0aw2ijBUbYuXEsl0Fh3otNqKYgTZt0Rut/PCF25DQUKQHAxBRCkKIj88IwIJCwcIXyhhLTFj iU1FYZJJSJWWW51mIiEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C88564.F5861C90 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_003F_01C88564.F5861C90--