From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:07:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C88944.85E1FA60" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C88944.85E1FA60 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=84348 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed in=20 Part, Vacated and Dismissed in Part, and Majority = and Concurring Opinions filed March 18,=20 2008.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-03-00399-CV

____________

 

THE CITY OF=20 HOUSTON, = Appellant

 

V.

 

DONALD=20 CLARK, = Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the = 333rd District Court

Harris County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 00-20826

 

 

M A J O R=20 I T Y   O P I N I O N

In this=20 appeal regarding disciplinary action taken against a member of the = Houston=20 Fire Department, the City of Houston challenges a summary judgment = granted=20 in favor of that member, alleging (1) error in the district=20 court=3Ds=20 declaratory judgment that an acting fire chief lacks authority to = suspend=20 fire department members, and (2) error by the district court in = concluding=20 that the hearing examiner did not exceed his jurisdiction.  = Under=20 applicable statutes, a district court adjudicating an appeal from = a=20 hearing examiner=3Ds decision=20 lacks = jurisdiction=20 to review the merits of that decision.  Therefore,=20 the district court lacked jurisdiction over the = parties=3D = declaratory-relief requests.  For this reason, we vacate the = district=20 court=3Ds judgment=20 in this regard, and we dismiss the City=3Ds appeal=20 to this extent.  However, because we have determined that the = district court did not err in concluding that  the hearing = examiner=20 acted within his jurisdiction in making his decision, we affirm = the=20 district court=3Ds=20 rejection of the City=3Ds appeal=20 from the hearing examiner=3Ds=20 award.

I. =20 Factual and Procedural=20 Background

In 1999,=20 Houston Fire Department Assistant Chief Chris Connealy, while = serving as=20 Acting Fire Chief, temporarily suspended appellee Donald = Clark, a=20 member of the Houston Fire Department, for failing to follow the = fire=20 department=3Ds=20 regulations.  Clark appealed his suspension to a hearing=20 examiner.  In his decision, the hearing examiner ruled that=20 Clark=3Ds=20 Agrievance@ = was=20 Adenied@ = because=20 just cause existed for Clark=3Ds=20 suspension.  However, the hearing examiner also = determined=20 that only the appointed Fire Chief, and not the Acting Fire Chief, = had=20 authority to temporarily suspend Clark.  Consequently, = the=20 hearing examiner Agranted@ = Clark=3Ds=20 AMotion to=20 Dismiss the charges against [Clark]@ = because=20 he concluded the Acting Fire Chief had no authority to issue the=20 suspension.

The City=20 of Houston appealed the hearing examiner=3Ds decision=20 to the district court, and the City also sought a declaratory = judgment=20 that an Acting Fire Chief has the authority to suspend members of = the fire=20 department (hereafter referred to as the Aauthority=20 issue@). =20 The district court granted summary judgment for Clark  based = on=20 collateral estoppel.  However, the First Court of Appeals = reversed=20 and remanded the case to the district court.  See City of = Houston=20 v. Clark, No. 01-01-00828, 2002 WL 31771188, at *4 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [1st Dist.] 2002, Dec. 12, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for=20 publication). 

On remand,=20 Clark filed another motion for summary judgment, and the City = filed a=20 cross-motion for summary judgment.  The district court denied = the=20 City=3Ds motion,=20 and granted Clark=3Ds=20 motion.  In its judgment, the district court rendered a = declaratory=20 judgment that:  (1) the term Adepartment=20 head,@ = contained=20 in section 143.117 of the Local Government Code, does not include = an=20 Acting Fire Chief who was not appointed by the mayor or confirmed = by the=20 city council; (2) an Assistant Fire Chief temporarily appointed by = the=20 Fire Chief to serve as Acting Fire Chiefs is not empowered with = the=20 authority to suspend fire department members; and (3) Acting Fire = Chief=20 Connealy did not have the authority to suspend Clark.  In its = final=20 order, the district court rejected the City=3Ds appeal=20 from the hearing examiner=3Ds=20 decision.  The City appealed the district court=3Ds=20 judgment, and this court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject = matter=20 jurisdiction, holding that, under the applicable statutes, the = City had no=20 right to appeal the hearing examiner=3Ds decision=20 and that the district court=3Ds=20 declaratory judgment was an advisory opinion.  See City of = Houston=20 v. Clark, 142 S.W.3d 350, 353B54 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2004), ref=3Dd, 197=20 S.W.3d 314, 324 (Tex. 2006).  Without addressing this=20 court=3Ds decision=20 regarding the district court=3Ds=20 declaratory judgment, the Supreme Court of Texas concluded that = the City=20 did have the right to appeal, reversed this court=3Ds=20 judgment, and remanded for consideration of the party=3Ds=20 appellate arguments.  See City of Houston v. Clark, = 197 S.W.3d=20 314, 318B24 (Tex.=20 2006).

II. =20 Standard of Review

A summary=20 judgment may be granted if the summary-judgment record shows that = there is=20 no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to = judgment=20 as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the = summary-judgment=20 motion and responses.  Tex.=20 R. Civ. P. 166a(c).  In a traditional motion for = summary=20 judgment, if the=20 movant=3Ds motion and = summary-judgment=20 evidence facially establish its right to judgment as a matter of = law, the=20 burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a genuine, material fact = issue=20 sufficient to defeat summary judgment.  M.D. Anderson = Hosp. &=20 Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22, 23 (Tex. = 2000).  In=20 our de novo review of a lower court=3Ds summary=20 judgment, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable = to the=20 nonmovant, crediting evidence favorable to the nonmovant if = reasonable=20 jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable = jurors=20 could not.  Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d = 572, 582=20 (Tex. 2006).  The evidence raises a genuine issue of fact if=20 reasonable and fair-minded jurors could differ in their = conclusions in=20 light of all of the summary-judgment evidence.  Goodyear = Tire=20 & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754, 755 (Tex. 2007).=20

III. =20 Issues and=20 Analysis

Declaratory=20 Judgment

The City=20 first challenges the district court=3Ds=20 declaratory-judgment ruling on the merits as to the authority = issue. =20 Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code offers procedures = to fire=20 fighters and police officers by which to appeal certain adverse=20 disciplinary actions to a hearing examiner.  See Tex. Loc. = Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' = 143.1016=20 (Vernon 1999); see generally Tex. Loc. = Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' = 143.001=20 et. seq. (Vernon 1999).  Under subsection = 143.1016(c)=20 of the Texas Local Government Code, a hearing examiner=3Ds decision=20 is final and binding on all parties.  Tex. Loc. = Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' = 143.1016(c); Clark, 197 S.W.3d at 318.  Subsection = 143.1016(j)=20 permits a district court to hear an appeal of a hearing=20 examiner=3Ds=20 award.  Tex. Loc.=20 Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' = 143.1016(j); Clark, 197 S.W.3d at 318.  However, such = an=20 appeal is limited to three grounds:  (1) the hearing = examiner[1]=20 lacked jurisdiction; (2) the hearing examiner exceeded his = jurisdiction;=20 or (3) the hearing examiner=3Ds decision=20 was procured by fraud, collusion, or other unlawful means.[2] =20 Tex. Loc. = Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' = 143.1016(j); see Clark, 197 S.W.3d at 318; City of Houston v.=20 Williams, 99=20 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2003, no=20 pet.).  The City=20 has never asserted the third ground; however, it did assert the = first two=20 grounds in the district court. 

Whether the hearing = examiner=20 correctly determined the authority issue is irrelevant to the = resolution=20 of the City=3Ds appeal. =20 The = district court=20 below made declarations on the merits of the authority = issue.  The=20 City challenges these declarations in its appeal in this = court. =20 However, the district court lacked jurisdiction to make these = declarations=20 because the hearing examiner ruled on this issue in his decision = and, by=20 statute, the district court cannot review the merits of this = decision but=20 only the three non-merits issues listed in section = 143.1016(j). =20 See Tex. Loc.=20 Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' 143.1016(j); = Clark, 197=20 S.W.3d at 324;=20 Williams, 99 S.W.3d at 713 (holding district court lacked = jurisdiction=20 to make declaration regarding merits of firefighter=3Ds appeal to hearing=20 examiner).  Therefore, although a case or controversy exists=20 regarding the authority issue, section 143.1016 deprives the = district=20 court of jurisdiction to make a declaration regarding this = issue.[3] =20 Because the district court lacked jurisdiction, this court lacks=20 jurisdiction over the City=3Ds appeal from the = district=20 court=3Ds declaratory = judgment;=20 therefore, as to this part of the district court=3Ds judgment, we vacate = the=20 judgment and dismiss the City=3Ds appeal.[4]  See = Gantt v.=20 Gantt, 208 S.W.3d 27, 31 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2006, pet.=20 denied) (vacating trial court judgment and dismissing appeal based = on lack=20 of subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court).

The=20 Hearing Examiner=3Ds=20 Jurisdiction

The City=20 also contends the district court erred by rejecting the = City=3Ds=20 contention that the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction = based on=20 his lack of jurisdiction to rule on the authority issue because, = the City=20 asserts, this=20 issue was not stated as a ground in Clark=3Ds notice of appeal to = the=20 hearing examiner, as the City asserts is required by section=20 143.010(b).  See Tex.=20 Loc. Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' 143.010(b) (Vernon=20 1999).  Presuming that this section applies to appeals to a = hearing=20 examiner, courts have held that an appellant must include in the = notice of=20 appeal one of the statements contained in the second sentence of = section=20 143.010(b) in order to invoke appellate jurisdiction under section = 143.010(b).  See id; City of Temple=20 Firemen=3Ds and=20 Policemen=3Ds Civil Serv.=20 Comm=3Dn v. = Bender, 787 S.W.2d 951, 952 = (Tex.=20 1990) (per curiam); Fire Fighters=3D and Police=20 Officers=3D Civil Service = Commission of=20 City of Houston v. Caezer, 725 S.W.2d 431, 433 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 1987, writ=20 ref=3Dd n.r.e.).  The City does not = assert that=20 Clark failed to invoke the hearing examiner=3Ds jurisdiction at all = by=20 failing to include one of these grounds in his notice of appeal; = rather,=20 the City asserts that the hearing examiner=3Ds jurisdiction is = limited to=20 only those grounds stated in the notice of appeal and that Clark = did not=20 state the authority issue as a ground in his notice. =20

The City has not = cited and=20 research has not revealed any cases addressing the issue of = whether an=20 appeal to a hearing examiner is limited to the grounds specified = in the=20 notice of appeal.[5] =20 Nonetheless, the=20 City has a proof problemCthe appellate record = does not=20 reflect what grounds Clark stated in his notice of appeal.  = Our=20 record does not contain Clark=3Ds notice of appeal to = the=20 hearing examiner, and it does not indicate that this document was = before=20 the district court.  The only reference to Clark=3Ds notice of appeal in = the=20 record is in the parties=3D district court = stipulations,=20 in which they agree that AClark timely appealed = his=20 suspension to an independent third-party hearing examiner under = the=20 provisions of Chapter 143, Texas Local Government = Code.@  Even if = section 143.010=20 applied and limited Clark=3Ds appeal to the = grounds stated=20 in his notice of appeal,[6] = because=20 the notice is not contained in our record, we would presume that = the=20 missing document supports the district court=3Ds determination that = the=20 hearing examiner did not exceed his jurisdiction.  See,=20 e.g., Middleton v. Nat=3Dl Fam. Care Life Ins. = Co., = No.=20 14-04-00428-CV, 2006 WL 89503, at *2 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = Jan. 17,=20 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding that, because appellate = record did=20 not contain a complete record of the trial, this court would = presume the=20 omitted portions are relevant to the disposition of the appeal and = support=20 the trial court=3Ds judgment); = Hiroms v.=20 Scheffey, 76 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2002, no=20 pet.) (holding that the court could not address the merits of an = alleged=20 charge error because appellate record did not contain a complete = record of=20 the trial proceedings). =20 Therefore, we=20 cannot reach the merits of the City=3Ds argument because we = cannot=20 review the contents of Clark=3Ds notice of = appeal. =20 See Middleton, 2006 WL 89503, at *2; Hiroms, 76 S.W.3d at = 489. =20

The City=20 also asserts that the hearing examiner lacked jurisdiction to rule = on the=20 authority issue or exceeded his jurisdiction in doing so because = the=20 hearing examiner abused his discretion and ignored or = misinterpreted=20 controlling law.  As stated above, the district court and = this court=20 lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the hearing = examiner=3Ds=20 decision, including issues regarding whether the hearing examiner = abused=20 his discretion and ignored or misinterpreted controlling = law. =20 See Tex. Loc. = Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' 143.1016(j); = Williams,=20 99 S.W.3d at 713.

Finally, the City = argues that,=20 under section 143.118 of the Texas Local Government Code,  = the=20 hearing examiner=3Ds jurisdiction over = an appeal=20 of a suspension is limited to deciding whether the suspension (1) = is=20 supported by just cause, (2) should be reduced, or (3) should be=20 reversed.  See Tex.=20 Loc. Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' 143.118 (Vernon = 1999). =20 However, this statute does not expressly purport to set forth or = limit a=20 hearing examiner=3Ds jurisdiction, and = the City=20 has not provided any argument, analysis, or authorities in support = of its=20 assertion that this jurisdiction is so limited.  Therefore, = we=20 conclude that the City has waived this challenge to the district=20 court=3Ds judgment. = See Tex. R. App. P. = 38.1(h);=20 San Saba = Energy, L.P.=20 v. Crawford,=20 171 S.W.3d 323, 337 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2005, no=20 pet.). 

In any event, even = absent=20 briefing waiver, the City would not prevail.  In conducting a = hearing=20 in an appeal of a suspension, a hearing examiner has the same = powers as=20 the Fire Fighters=3D and Police=20 Officers=3D Civil Service = Commission.=20  Tex. Loc.=20 Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 '' 143.003(1), = 143.1016(f). =20 Therefore, this court has concluded that a hearing examiner has = the=20 authority to interpret statutory provisions and make decisions=20 thereon.  See Williams, 99 S.W.3d at 717; = Lindsey v.=20 Fireman=3Ds and=20 Policeman=3Ds Civil=20 Serv. Comm=3Dn, 980=20 S.W.2d 233, 236B37 (Tex. = App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 1998, pet.=20 denied).  For this reason, the hearing examiner did not = exceed his=20 jurisdiction by deciding the authority issue based on his = interpretation=20 of the statutes at issue.  In addition, a hearing examiner, = as the=20 hearing examiner did in this case, may reverse a suspension and = order that=20 the fire fighter or police officer be restored to his prior = position with=20 backpay.  Tex. Loc. = Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' 143.118(b).  = The hearing=20 examiner stated that he was denying Clark=3Ds grievance but = granting=20 Clark=3Ds motion to dismiss = asserting=20 that his suspension was invalid but Acting Fire Chief Connealy = lacked the=20 authority to suspend Clark.  In reviewing his decision, the = hearing=20 examiner concluded that, although Clark engaged in conduct that = would=20 justify the suspension given, Clark=3Ds suspension should = be reversed=20 because the Acting Fire Chief had no authority to suspend = Clark. =20 Accordingly, the hearing examiner reversed Clark=3Ds suspension and = ordered Clark=20 reinstated with backpay.  The hearing examiner=3Ds determinations and = rulings,=20 as set forth in the award, were not made without jurisdiction or = in excess=20 of jurisdiction.  See Tex. Loc. = Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 '' 143.1016(f), = 143.118;=20 Williams, 99 S.W.3d at 717; Lindsey, 980=20 S.W.2d at 236B37.  The district = court did=20 not err in rejecting the City=3Ds appeal.  = Accordingly, we=20 overrule the City=3Ds issues to the = extent the City=20 challenges the district court=3Ds rejection of the=20 City=3Ds appeal, and we = affirm the=20 district court=3Ds ruling in this=20 regard.

 

 

 

/s/     =20 Kem Thompson Frost

Justice

 

Judgment=20 rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed March 18,=20 2008.

Panel=20 consists of Justices Frost, Guzman, and Edelman.* (Edelman, = S.=20 J.,concurring).        =20


[1]  See=20 Tex.=20 Loc. Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' 143.1016(j); = see also id. = ' 143.057(j) (Vernon = 1999).  Both = subsection=20 143.057(j) and subsection 143.1016(j) refer to a police=20 officer=3Ds or fire fighter=3Ds ability to appeal a hearing = examiner=3Ds award on the basis that Athe arbitration panel@ lacked jurisdiction or exceeded its=20 jurisdiction.  See id. '' 143.057(j), = 143.1016(j).=20  The = legislature=3Ds use of the phrase Aarbitration panel@ is difficult to explain in the context = of an=20 appeal from a hearing examiner=3Ds decision.  See = Clark, 197 S.W.3d at 318 = n.5.  It may be = explained by the=20 fact that the American Arbitration Association apparently provides = the=20 hearing-examiners.  For purposes of this opinion, it is = presumed that=20 the references in the statutes  to an Aarbitration panel@ include hearing examiners.  See = id.

[2]  This appeal primarily involves = subsection=20 143.1016(j) of the Texas Local Government Code as  the City = is a=20 municipality with a population of 1.5 million people or = more.  See=20 Tex.=20 Loc. Gov=3Dt=20 Code Ann.=20 ' = 143.1016(j); see Clark, 197 S.W.3d at 317 = n.4. =20 However, the language at issue in this case regarding  = appeals of=20 hearing-examiner decisions in sections 143.1016(c) and (j) is=20 substantially similar to the language of sections 143.057(c) and=20 (j).  See = Tex. Loc. = Gov=3Dt Code = Ann. '' 143.057(c), (j), = 143.1016=20 (c), (j). 

[3]  In Nuchia v. Woodruff, = this court=20 held that, despite section 143.1016, the district court had = jurisdiction=20 to make a declaration as to whether the hearing examiner exceeded = his=20 jurisdiction, in addition to ruling on an appeal on this same = basis. =20 956 S.W.2d 612, 615B18 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. = denied). =20 However, in that case, the requested declaration addressed the = same issue=20 that would decide the appeal from the hearing examiner=3Ds decision rather than the merits of the = hearing=20 examiner=3Ds decision.  Therefore, the = Woodruff=20 case is not on point.  See id.

[4]  Our concurring colleague = concludes that the=20 district court lacked jurisdiction to render a declaratory = judgment as to=20 the authority issue based on a lack of standing.  See = post at=20 pp. 2B3.  Our colleague reasons that = there is no=20 standing due to a lack of case or controversy regarding the = requests for=20 declaratory relief because the authority issue will be resolved by = the=20 City=3Ds appeal of the hearing = examiner=3Ds decision.  See id.  = However,=20 after concluding there is no jurisdiction as to the = declaratory-judgment=20 issue because the City=3Ds appeal will resolve the authority = issue, our=20 colleague would adjudicate the City=3Ds appeal without addressing the = authority=20 issue.

[5]  No court appears to have = addressed this=20 issue, and it appears to be one of first = impression.

[6]  Our concurring colleague states = that the=20 City agreed to include the authority issue in the appeal to the = hearing=20 examiner; however, this point is only relevant to the analysis if, = contrary to the City=3Ds argument, the hearing = examiner=3Ds jurisdiction is not limited to the = grounds=20 stated in the notice.  See post = at pp. = 5B6; Tex.=20 Ass=3Dn of Bus. v. Tex. = Air Control=20 Bd., 852=20 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993) (noting how jurisdiction is essential = to the=20 authority to hear a case and cannot be waived); In re = Powers, 974=20 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th = Dist.] 1998,=20 orig. proceeding) (ASubject matter = jurisdiction=20 cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or estoppel.@).

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

= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C88944.85E1FA60 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_01C88944.85E1FA60 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_0000_01C88944.85E1FA60 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_01C88944.85E1FA60--