From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 14:17:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8AD28.63A03540" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8AD28.63A03540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.11thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=7585 Texas Judiciary = Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           =20 11th Court of Appeals

           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;    =20 Eastland, Texas

           &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;          =20 Opinion

 

Saleh W. Igal

Appellant

Vs.      =20            =20 No.  = 11-03-00099-CV=20 C=20 Appeal from Dallas County

Brightstar Information Technology Group, = Inc.

and = BRBA, Inc.

 

Appellees

 

This=20 is an appeal of a summary judgment order dismissing an = employee=3Ds=20 common-law debt claim for unpaid wages.  Saleh W.=20 Igal sued Brightstar=20 Information Technology Group, Inc. and BRBA, Inc. alleging that = they owed=20 him for unpaid wages due under a written employment contract.  Prior to filing the = underlying=20 action, Igal presented an = administrative APayday=20 Law@=20 claim  to the Texas = Workforce=20 Commission (the Commission) regarding the same wages which are at = issue in=20 this appeal.  = See TEX.=20 LAB. CODE ANN. '=20 61.001 et seq. (Vernon 1996 & Supp. 2004). After conducting = several=20 hearings, the Commission issued a final decision denying Igal=3Ds=20 wage claim.  = See=20 Sections 61.060 & 61.061. =20 Igal did not pursue an appeal = of the=20 Commission=3Ds=20 final decision as permitted by Section 61.062.  Instead, he instituted = this action=20 to pursue common-law breach of contract remedies against appellees.

Appellees moved for summary judgment on two = grounds in=20 defense of Igal=3Ds=20 claims.  Appellees first asserted that Igal=3Ds=20 claims were barred by the Commission=3Ds=20 prior decision under the holding in Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., 914 S.W.2d = 189 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth 1995, writ den=3Dd).  They also asserted that = Igal had failed to exhaust his = administrative=20 remedies.  The trial = court=20 granted appellees=3D=20 motion for summary judgment on the basis that A[Igal=3Ds]=20 claims [were] barred by a prior decision of the Texas Workforce=20 Commission.@  Igal=20 attacks the trial court=3Ds=20 entry of summary judgment in a single issue.  We = affirm.

The=20 movant for summary judgment has the = burden to=20 show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it = is=20 entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Nixon v. Mr. Property=20 Management Company, Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985). When = deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue = precluding=20 summary judgment, the appellate court must take as true all = evidence=20 favorable to the non-movant.  Nixon v. Mr. Property = Management Company, Inc., supra at 548-49. The reviewing court = must=20 indulge every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant and resolve any doubts in its favor. = Nixon=20 v. Mr. Property Management Company, Inc., supra at 549.

Igal filed his administrative claim with the = Commission on July 17, 2001. See Section 61.051.  He asserted in the claim = that=20 appellees terminated him without cause = on=20 January 19, 2000.[1]  He sought the amount of=20 $285,234.57 for unpaid wages which he alleged were due from May = 15, 2000,=20 through January 31, 2001.[2]  The Commission issued a = Apreliminary=20 wage determination order@=20 on September 19, 2001, which dismissed Igal=3Ds=20 administrative claim.[3]  See Section = 61.052. On=20 October 5, 2001, Igal filed a request = for a=20 hearing to contest the preliminary wage determination order.  See Section = 61.054.  Hearings were conducted = on Igal=3Ds=20 claim on November 27, 2001, December 27, 2001, and February 14, = 2002.  The commission issued = its APAYDAY=20 LAW DECISION@=20 on February 19, 2002.

The=20 Commission determined that Igal=3Ds=20 administrative wage claim was not timely filed.[4]=20 Section 61.051(c) provides that A[a]=20 wage claim must be filed not later than the 180th day after the = date the=20 wages claimed became due for payment.@  The Commission ruled = that any=20 wages owed to Igal would have been due = more than=20 180 days prior to the date that he filed his claim.  In reaching this = determination,=20 the Commission made a finding that Igal was not=20 terminated by appellees without = cause.  Instead, the Commission = found that=20 appellees chose not to renew Igal=3Ds=20 employment agree-ment.

The=20 objective of the Texas Payday Act is to deter employers from = withholding=20 wages by providing wage claimants an avenue for the enforcement of = wage=20 claims, many of which would be too small to justify the expense of = a civil=20 lawsuit. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lopez, 93 S.W.3d = 548, 561 (Tex.App. ‑ Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, = no pet=3Dn)(citing=20 Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., supra at = 192). The=20 Payday Act is not an employee=3Ds=20 sole and exclusive remedy for a claim based on past wages but is = rather an=20 alternative remedy that is cumulative of the common law.  See 11th Street Bingo = Association v. Simonson, No. 13-02-399-CV, 2004 WL 1117161, at = *3=20 (Tex.App. ‑ Corpus Christi, May = 20, 2004, no=20 pet=3Dn=20 h.); Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., supra at = 192‑93.

The=20 claimant in Holmans filed a = common-law=20 debt action against his employer to collect sales commissions and = expenses=20 which he alleged were unpaid. =20 Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., supra at = 190.  The claimant = subsequently filed an=20 administrative wage claim with the Commission.  Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., supra at = 190.  The preliminary wage = determination=20 order issued by the Commission determined that the employer owed = the=20 claimant over $25,000 in unpaid commissions.  Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., supra at = 190.  Prior to the = Commission=3Ds=20 issuance of a final determination, the claimant withdrew his=20 administrative law claim in order to pursue a common-law debt = action.=20 Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., supra at 190. = The=20 employer sought and obtained the dismissal of the claimant=3Ds=20 common-law debt action based upon the claimant=3Ds=20 failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Payday = Law.  Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., supra at = 190.

The=20 employer in Holmans argued on = appeal that=20 the administrative procedure provided by the Payday Law was the = exclusive=20 remedy for the claimant to pursue his wage claim.  Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., supra at = 190.  The court rejected this = argument=20 by holding that the administrative remedy is an alternative remedy = to a=20 common-law debt action.  = Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., supra at = 192-93.  The court stated as = follows in=20 making its determination:

[W]e=20 can only conclude the legislature intended the Payday Law to be = cumulative=20 of the common law and stand as an alternative remedy a wage = claimant may=20 seek. Should a claimant choose to file a claim under the = statute,=20 utilize its remedial scheme, and appeal the final administrative = order,=20 then the claimant is properly re- quired to=20 abide by the statute=3Ds=20 provisions. We do not, however, construe the Payday Law as = preempting=20 a claimant, such as appellant, from choosing to pursue his claim = as a=20 common‑law action in the courts of this state. A claimant = will ultimately=20 have to choose which remedy to accept; however, in the present = case, [the=20 claimant] withdrew his claim from [the Commission] before becoming = final=20 and, therefore, chose instead to pursue the remedies available to = him at=20 common law.  (Emphasis=20 added)

 

Holmans v. Transource Polymers, Inc., supra at = 193-94.

Unlike=20 the claimant in Holmans, Igal did not withdraw his administrative = wage claim=20 prior to the Commission=3Ds=20 issuance of its final determination. =20 Appellees cite Holmans for the proposition that = Igal cannot pursue a common-law debt action = after=20 obtaining a final determination of his administrative claim from = the=20 Commission.  Igal responds to this contention by = asserting that the=20 Commission did not have jurisdiction in light of its determination = that he=20 did not timely file his claim.  =20 He further contends that the Commission=3Ds=20 decision was void since the Commission did not have jurisdiction = over his=20 claim.  See = Blount=20 v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 677 S.W.2d 565, 574 = (Tex.App. - Austin 1984), rev=3Dd=20 on other grounds, 709 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.1986). 

The=20 Thirteenth Court of Appeals recently addressed a similar set of = facts in=20 Simonson.  = The claimant=20 in Simonson initially filed an administrative wage claim = with the=20 Commission.  11th = Street=20 Bingo Association v. Simonson, supra at *1.  The Commission issued a=20 preliminary wage deter-mination order = finding=20 that the claimant was not entitled to the wages which she claimed = were=20 unpaid because she was a volunteer rather than an employee.  11th Street Bingo = Association=20 v. Simonson, supra at *1. =20 The claimant contested the preliminary wage determination = by=20 requesting a hearing.  = 11th=20 Street Bingo Association v. Simonson, supra at *1.  Upon considering the = claimant=3Ds=20 contest, the Commission determined that the claimant did not = timely file=20 her claim for wages.  = 11th=20 Street Bingo Association v. Simonson, supra at *1.  In its decision, the = Commission=20 concluded that it did not Ahave=20 jurisdiction over the wages in question and the wage claim will be = dismissed@=20 and affirmed the preliminary wage determination order denying the=20 claimant=3Ds=20 claim.  11th = Street Bingo=20 Association v. Simonson, supra at *1.

The=20 claimant in Simonson subsequently filed a common-law debt = action in=20 district court.  = 11th=20 Street Bingo Association v. Simonson, supra at *2.  Relying upon Holmans, the court of appeals = determined=20 that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to = consider=20 the claimant=3Ds=20 claim because the claimant failed to exhaust her administrative = remedies=20 with respect to the administrative wage claim.  11th Street Bingo = Association=20 v. Simonson, supra at *2. =20 The court stated as follows: =20

[B]y=20 initiating and proceeding with her administrative remedies under = the=20 statute, [the claimant] chose to forego her common-law causes of = action=20 and elected the alternative remedy provided by statute[.]...A = party may=20 not initially elect one remedy and then choose the other remedy = when=20 dissatisfied with the first result. =20 Had [the claimant] wanted to pursue her common-law = remedies, she=20 was required to withdraw her claim with [the Commission] before = the=20 [C]ommission=3Ds=20 decision became final.

 

[The=20 claimant] argues that an unsuccessful attempt at obtaining relief = through=20 [the Commission] is equivalent to not pursuing an administrative=20 remedy.  We = disagree.  If [the claimant=3Ds]=20 argument prevailed, then a party would be able to pursue both an=20 administrative remedy and a common law remedy as long as one = pursuit was=20 unsuccessful.  = However, the=20 law allows a choice between the two remedies but prohibits = pursuing both=20 actions.  (Citations = omitted)

 

11th=20 Street Bingo Association v. Simonson, supra at *3.

Justice=20 Castillo filed a dissenting opinion in Simonson.  11th Street Bingo = Association=20 v. Simonson, supra at *3-4. =20 She concluded that the election of remedies doctrine did = not apply=20 because the claimant did not obtain a recovery from the = Commission.  11th Street Bingo = Association=20 v. Simonson, supra at *3-4. =20 Justice Castillo based her conclusion on the = Commission=3Ds=20 statement that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the = claimant=3Ds=20 untimely filed claim.  = 11th=20 Street Bingo Association v. Simonson, supra at *4.

We=20 agree with the majority=3Ds=20 reasoning in Simonson. =20 A claimant in Igal=3Ds=20 position should not be permitted to obtain a final determination = from the=20 Commission and then be permitted to pursue a common-law claim = because the=20 administrative claim was unsuccessful.  The doctrine of res judicata = prevents=20 parties and their privies from re-litigating a claim with a final=20 adjudication from a competent tribunal.  Ingersoll-Rand Company v. = Valero=20 Energy Corporation, 997 S.W.2d 203, 206-07 (Tex.1999). The = rationale=20 supporting the doctrine is to prevent splitting claims, thus = curbing=20 vexatious litigation and promoting judicial economy. = Ingersoll-Rand=20 Company v. Valero Energy Corporation, supra at = 206-07.

In=20 order for the doctrine of res judicata to be applicable, the first = tribunal must be=20 one of competent jurisdiction.  =20 Ingersoll-Rand Company v. Valero Energy Corporation, = supra=20 at 206-07. We disagree with Igal=3Ds=20 contention that the Commission did not have subject-matter = jurisdiction to=20 consider his administrative wage claim.  We acknowledge that the = Commission=20 expressly stated in its final determination that it did not have=20 jurisdiction to consider Igal=3Ds=20 claim because it was not timely filed.  Irrespective of the=20 Commission=3Ds=20 Ano=20 jurisdiction@=20 statement, the untimeliness of an = administrative=20 wage claim is not a component of the Commission=3Ds=20 subject-matter jurisdiction.  =20 The Labor Code vests the Commission with jurisdiction to = consider=20 claims of Texas employees for unpaid wages.  The parameters of the=20 Commission=3Ds=20 subject-matter jurisdiction over wage claims is outlined in 40 = TEX. ADMIN.=20 CODE '=20 821.3 (1998) (Texas Workforce Commission, Jurisdiction):

Section=20 821.3.  = Jurisdiction

 

(a)=20 The Commission shall exercise jurisdiction over wage claims in = which:

 

(1)=20 the work is performed exclusively in Texas;

 

(2)=20 the work is performed in part in Texas and in part in other states = within=20 the United States and where the wages would be reportable to Texas = for=20 Unemployment Insurance purposes pursuant to Texas Labor Code '=20 201.043; or

 

(3)=20 the work is performed by an individual who is a Texas resident at = the time=20 the work is performed and the work is performed outside Texas for = a Texas=20 employer or a non‑resident employer over whom Texas = exercises jurisdiction=20 pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.

 

(b)=20 The Commission shall exercise jurisdiction over a = non‑resident employer=20 pursuant to the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Chapter = 17,=20 Subchapter C, also known as the ATexas=20 Long‑Arm Statute,@=20 when all three of the following are met:

 

(1)=20 the employer purposely does some act or consummates some = transaction in=20 Texas;

 

(2)=20 the wage claim arises from the employer=3Ds=20 act or the employer=3Ds=20 contact with Texas is continuing and systematic; and

 

(3)=20 exercising jurisdiction is consistent with:

 

(A)=20 fair play and justice as determined by the quality, nature and = extent of=20 the employer=3Ds=20 activities in Texas including the extent to which the employer = avails=20 itself of the benefits and protections of Texas law; and

 

(B)=20 the relative convenience of the parties.

 

(c)=20 The Commission shall not exercise jurisdiction over wage claims to = the=20 extent the wages are for work performed outside the United = States.

 

In=20 spite of its Ano=20 jurisdiction=94 statement, the Commission issued a final decision = on the=20 merits with respect to Igal=3Ds=20 claim.  Harrison = v. Gemdrill International, Inc., 981 S.W.2d = 714,=20 716-17 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] = 1998,=20 pet=3Dn=20 den=3Dd),=20 involved a situation wherein the Commission actually did not have = subject=20 matter jurisdiction because the wages which were sought in the = claim were=20 earned in a foreign country. =20 See Section 821.3(c). The Commission in = Harrison=20 dismissed the claim for want of jurisdiction and voided its = previous=20 decision when it determined that it lacked subject matter = jurisdiction to=20 consider the claim.  = The=20 Commission did not do either of these acts with respect to Igal=3Ds=20 claim.  Igal=3Ds=20 sole issue on appeal is overruled.

The=20 judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

W. = G. ARNOT, III

CHIEF=20 JUSTICE

 

June=20 30, 2004

Panel=20 consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright,=20 J., and McCall, J.

     [1]BRBA,=20 Inc. was Igal=3Ds original employer.  Brightstar Information Technology Group, = Inc.=20 subsequently acquired 100 percent of BRBA, Inc.=3Ds stock. =20 The Commission determined that BRBA, Inc. and Brightstar Information Technology Group, = Inc. were=20 co-employers of Igal.

     [2]Appellees continued to pay Igal from January 2000 through April=20 2000.

     [3]The=20 record neither contains a copy of the preliminary wage = determination order=20 nor indicates the basis upon which the Commission denied Igal=3Ds claim at the preliminary=20 stage.

     [4]Each=20 of the three hearing notices issued by the Commission advised the = parties=20 that Atimeliness is an issue in this = case.@

<= /HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8AD28.63A03540 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.11thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8AD28.63A03540 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.11thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/images/icons/close.gif R0lGODlhFwAPAMQAAMDAwP//nP/OnPf39+/v5+/e3ufn5+fWxt7e3s7OY6+vMpycAISEhISEAFlN MkpCQkpCOTEhAAAAhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEA AAAALAAAAAAXAA8AQAVxICCOJMCU6KgMQesGArwYUTouCTMAgzQMBkijYRMtYkgYTLCoFQGLqA74 eIoU0aw2ijBUbYuXEsl0Fh3otNqKYgTZt0Rut/PCF25DQUKQHAxBRCkKIj88IwIJCwcIXyhhLTFj iU1FYZJJSJWWW51mIiEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8AD28.63A03540 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.11thcoa.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_0009_01C8AD28.63A03540--