Preview
1 MICHAEL S. DANKO, ESQ. (SBN 111359)
mdanko@dankolaw.com
2 MICHAEL S. SMITH, ESQ. (SBN 268756)
msmith@dankolaw.com
3 DANKO MEREDITH
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145
4 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 453-3600
5 Facsimile: (650) 394-8672
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
11 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO, Case No. 18CIV01901
Honorable Nancy Fineman, Dept.4
12 Plaintiffs,
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. SMITH IN
13 v. SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO
DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC
14 STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S SECOND
CLUB, INC., AND DOES 1 - 50, AMENDED ANSWER
15
Defendants
16 Date: April 5, 2022
Time: 2:00 p.m.
17 Dept.: 4
18 Complaint filed: April 17, 2018
Trial Date: TBD
19
20
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. SMITH REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH MEET
21 AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.41
22
23 I, Michael S. Smith, declare as follows:
24 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of
25 California and an associate with the Danko Meredith Law firm, attorneys of record for plaintiffs
26 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO in the above-captioned action.
27
28
-1-
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS STEPHEN
MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER
1 2. On January 10, 2022, defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING
2 CLUB, INC. served me with their second amended answer to plaintiffs’ complaint via electronic
3 email.
4 3. On January 13, 2022, which was at least five days before any responsive pleading
5 was due (which pursuant to CCP §1010.6(a)(4)(B) is January 24, 2022), I conferred by email with
6 defense counsel to determine whether an agreement could be reached that would resolve the
7 objections raised herein this demurrer as to the fourteenth affirmative defense.
8 4. On January 14, 2022, I further conferred via telephone with defense counsel, and sent
9 follow up emails on January 14 and 18, 2022. Defense Counsel responded on January 18, 2022
10 with, inter alia, proposed language for a third amended answer. We exchanged additional emails on
11 January 18 and 19, 2022, before I informed defense counsel that I would be filing this demurrer the
12 next day. Attached, as Exhibit A, is a true an accurate copy of the written correspondence described
13 above.
14 5. I clearly identified the legal support for the alleged deficiencies. However, we were
15 not able to reach an agreement resolving the objections that were to be raised herein this demurrer.
16
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
18 true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on January 20, 2022 at Redwood Shores,
19 California.
20 DANKO MEREDITH
21
22 By:____ __________________________
23 MICHAEL S. DANKO
MICHAEL S. SMITH
24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO
25
26
27
28
-2-
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS STEPHEN
MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Exhibit A
27
28
-3-
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS STEPHEN
MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER
From: Michael Smith
To: John H. Moon; Garry L. Montanari
Cc: Mike Danko; Fusi Hokafonu
Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:10:00 PM
John,
Thanks for your thoughts, but I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Harris does not
involve demurrers or other challenges at the pleading stage. The amended answer is uncertain –
and there’s no facts alleged to give plaintiffs notice of your defense. But assuming arguendo, that
your amended answer/proposed answer pleads a supporting fact(s), it still fails to constitute a
defense.
I’ll get the demurrer on file so we can get a ruling on this.
Thank you,
Michael
From: John H. Moon
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:02 PM
To: Michael Smith ; Garry L. Montanari
Cc: Mike Danko ; Fusi Hokafonu
Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero
External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Michael,
Defendants’ position is that the amended answer is presently sufficient to overcome a demurrer.
(See Weil & Brown et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2021) p. 6-
145, ¶ 6:472, citing Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240 (pleading permissible if
sufficient notice is given to enable plaintiff to prepare defense).) The issue of equitable estoppel has
been extensively briefed and argued ad nauseam.
Defendants’ proposed amendment also satisfies the pleading requirement since it pleads ultimate
facts, rather than evidentiary matters or a legal conclusion. We also note that FPI Development, Inc.
v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367 endorses defendants’ position where pleadings are
required to minimally advise an opposing party of the nature of the defense and provide sufficient
notice of a potentially meritorious defense. (Id. at 385.)
From: Michael Smith
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 5:53 PM
To: Garry L. Montanari
Cc: Mike Danko ; John H. Moon ; Fusi Hokafonu
Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero
Garry,
Thank you. What authority do you rely on that states notice only is sufficient for an answer to a
complaint and supporting facts are not needed?
My read of FPI Development, Inc vs. A1 Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367 along with Butler vs.
Wyman, (1933) 128 Cal.App. 736 is that Answers that offer “Allegations of mere conclusions of law
tender no issue and must be disregarded, and a complaint [or an Answer] which depends upon such
conclusions and does not state the facts upon which the legal conclusions are based, is insufficient
upon general demurrer." FPI Development, Inc vs. A1 Nakashima, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at 384
(emphasis added).
And yet, your proposal does not include any of the required factual allegations. What are the
“action(s) or performing acts” that you believe Plaintiffs committed that support your defense? I
don’t think your Answer, on its face, meets the requirements.
Do you want to try again or agree to disagree and let the Court rule on a demurrer? While I think my
deadline to file a demurrer is January 24, 2022, I want to file it by January 20, 2022 lest the court not
add the extra two court days for service by email. So please let me know by 12pm tomorrow,
January 19th, so I have enough time to draft the demurrer and get it on file by January 20th.
Thank you,
Michael
From: Garry L. Montanari
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:21 PM
To: Michael Smith
Cc: Mike Danko ; John H. Moon ; Fusi Hokafonu
; Garry L. Montanari
Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero
External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Michael:
As stated, we continue to believe that the Fourteenth Affirmative defense of estoppel in the second
amended answer is sufficient in putting the plaintiffs on notice of the defense. Notwithstanding, we
are agreeable to revising the Fourteenth Affirmative defense to read as follows:
“As a separate and affirmative defense, defendants contend that plaintiffs’ complaint, each cause of
action thereof, and/or remedies sought are barred by the doctrine of estoppel including but not
limited to instituting an action(s) or performing acts in pursuit of the remedies for a private,
continuing nuisance which has gained an advantage over defendants and occasioned defendants’
damage by causing defendants to incur the costs of abatement, loss of use and other property
damage either directly or by paying indemnity for such remedies to plaintiffs’ insurer in a
subrogation action.”
If this is acceptable to plaintiffs, we will prepare a stipulation and proposed order to file a third
amended complaint.
Garry L. Montanari
Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson
4333 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 100
Westlake Village, CA 91361
818.865.0444
www.mmjlaw.net
*********************************************************************************
**
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. If you are not the
named
recipient, or have otherwise received this communication in error, please delete it from your inbox,
notify
the sender immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any
purpose,
or store or copy them in any medium.
Thank you for your cooperation.
*********************************************************************************
**
From: Michael Smith
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 2:47 PM
To: Garry L. Montanari
Cc: Barbara Haussmann ; Mike Danko ; John H. Moon
; Fusi Hokafonu
Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero
Garry,
Friendly reminder. Are you sending a proposed amended Answer today?
Michael
From: Michael Smith
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 11:37 AM
To: Garry L. Montanari
Cc: Barbara Haussmann ; Mike Danko ; John H. Moon
; Fusi Hokafonu
Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero
Garry,
Good talk, thanks. I disagree with your position that ‘putting us on notice’ is sufficient for
defendants’ answer, but I appreciate your willingness to try to resolve this without motion practice.
I look forward to your proposed amended Answer on Tuesday.
Thank you,
Michael
From: Garry L. Montanari
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Michael Smith
Cc: Barbara Haussmann ; Mike Danko ; John H. Moon
; Fusi Hokafonu
Subject: Re: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero
External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Michael,
Let’s talk today. I am not available after 2:30
Garry Montanari
On Jan 13, 2022, at 1:38 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
Garry,
I reviewed Defendants’ Second Amended Complaint and found their Fourteenth
Affirmative Defense – Estoppel, deficient. Pursuant to CCP 430.41, I am attempting to
meet and confer in an attempt to avoid having to file a demurrer.
In short, Defendants fail to provide any factual basis; it reads, in whole “As a separate
and affirmative defense, defendants contend that plaintiffs’ complaint, each cause of
action thereof and/or remedies sought are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.” This
unsupported legal contention does not satisfy the requirements of section 430.20 et
seq.
Let’s connect on the phone so we can discuss further. How does your schedule look
this afternoon, tomorrow, or Monday? Let me know the best number to call you.
My deadline to file a demurrer is January 24 (10 + 2 court days after you served the 2nd
Amended Answer), so we need to meet and confer no later than January 19 - but I do
not want to wait until the last minute and drag this out. If you disagree with the dates,
please let me know.
Thank you,
Michael
From: Barbara Haussmann
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:11 PM
To: Mike Danko ; Michael Smith
Cc: Garry L. Montanari ; John H. Moon
; Fusi Hokafonu
Subject: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero
External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Counsel:
See attached copy of Defendants Stephen Magee and Sac Aero Flying Club, Inc.’s
Second Amended Answer to Unverified Complaint; Demand for Jury Trial in the above
matter. A hard copy has also been mailed to your office today.
Barbara, Paralegal/Legal Assistant
Garry L. Montanari
Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson
4333 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 100
Westlake Village, CA 91361
818.865.0444
www.mmjlaw.net
**********************************************************************
*************
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. If you are
not the named
recipient, or have otherwise received this communication in error, please delete it from
your inbox, notify
the sender immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any other person, use them
for any purpose,
or store or copy them in any medium.
Thank you for your cooperation.
**********************************************************************
*************
Preview
1 MICHAEL S. DANKO, ESQ. (SBN 111359) mdanko@dankolaw.com 2 MICHAEL S. SMITH, ESQ. (SBN 268756) msmith@dankolaw.com 3 DANKO MEREDITH 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145 4 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 453-3600 5 Facsimile: (650) 394-8672 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 11 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO, Case No. 18CIV01901 Honorable Nancy Fineman, Dept.4 12 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. SMITH IN 13 v. SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC 14 STEPHEN MAGEE, SAC AERO FLYING AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S SECOND CLUB, INC., AND DOES 1 - 50, AMENDED ANSWER 15 Defendants 16 Date: April 5, 2022 Time: 2:00 p.m. 17 Dept.: 4 18 Complaint filed: April 17, 2018 Trial Date: TBD 19 20 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. SMITH REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH MEET 21 AND CONFER REQUIREMENTS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.41 22 23 I, Michael S. Smith, declare as follows: 24 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of 25 California and an associate with the Danko Meredith Law firm, attorneys of record for plaintiffs 26 BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO in the above-captioned action. 27 28 -1- DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER 1 2. On January 10, 2022, defendants STEPHEN MAGEE and SAC AERO FLYING 2 CLUB, INC. served me with their second amended answer to plaintiffs’ complaint via electronic 3 email. 4 3. On January 13, 2022, which was at least five days before any responsive pleading 5 was due (which pursuant to CCP §1010.6(a)(4)(B) is January 24, 2022), I conferred by email with 6 defense counsel to determine whether an agreement could be reached that would resolve the 7 objections raised herein this demurrer as to the fourteenth affirmative defense. 8 4. On January 14, 2022, I further conferred via telephone with defense counsel, and sent 9 follow up emails on January 14 and 18, 2022. Defense Counsel responded on January 18, 2022 10 with, inter alia, proposed language for a third amended answer. We exchanged additional emails on 11 January 18 and 19, 2022, before I informed defense counsel that I would be filing this demurrer the 12 next day. Attached, as Exhibit A, is a true an accurate copy of the written correspondence described 13 above. 14 5. I clearly identified the legal support for the alleged deficiencies. However, we were 15 not able to reach an agreement resolving the objections that were to be raised herein this demurrer. 16 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 18 true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on January 20, 2022 at Redwood Shores, 19 California. 20 DANKO MEREDITH 21 22 By:____ __________________________ 23 MICHAEL S. DANKO MICHAEL S. SMITH 24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BRYAN TRUJILLO and CINDY TRUJILLO 25 26 27 28 -2- DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit A 27 28 -3- DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS STEPHEN MAGEE AND SAC AERO FLYING CLUB, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER From: Michael Smith To: John H. Moon; Garry L. Montanari Cc: Mike Danko; Fusi Hokafonu Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:10:00 PM John, Thanks for your thoughts, but I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Harris does not involve demurrers or other challenges at the pleading stage. The amended answer is uncertain – and there’s no facts alleged to give plaintiffs notice of your defense. But assuming arguendo, that your amended answer/proposed answer pleads a supporting fact(s), it still fails to constitute a defense. I’ll get the demurrer on file so we can get a ruling on this. Thank you, Michael From: John H. Moon Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:02 PM To: Michael Smith ; Garry L. Montanari Cc: Mike Danko ; Fusi Hokafonu Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Michael, Defendants’ position is that the amended answer is presently sufficient to overcome a demurrer. (See Weil & Brown et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2021) p. 6- 145, ¶ 6:472, citing Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240 (pleading permissible if sufficient notice is given to enable plaintiff to prepare defense).) The issue of equitable estoppel has been extensively briefed and argued ad nauseam. Defendants’ proposed amendment also satisfies the pleading requirement since it pleads ultimate facts, rather than evidentiary matters or a legal conclusion. We also note that FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367 endorses defendants’ position where pleadings are required to minimally advise an opposing party of the nature of the defense and provide sufficient notice of a potentially meritorious defense. (Id. at 385.) From: Michael Smith Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 5:53 PM To: Garry L. Montanari Cc: Mike Danko ; John H. Moon ; Fusi Hokafonu Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero Garry, Thank you. What authority do you rely on that states notice only is sufficient for an answer to a complaint and supporting facts are not needed? My read of FPI Development, Inc vs. A1 Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367 along with Butler vs. Wyman, (1933) 128 Cal.App. 736 is that Answers that offer “Allegations of mere conclusions of law tender no issue and must be disregarded, and a complaint [or an Answer] which depends upon such conclusions and does not state the facts upon which the legal conclusions are based, is insufficient upon general demurrer." FPI Development, Inc vs. A1 Nakashima, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at 384 (emphasis added). And yet, your proposal does not include any of the required factual allegations. What are the “action(s) or performing acts” that you believe Plaintiffs committed that support your defense? I don’t think your Answer, on its face, meets the requirements. Do you want to try again or agree to disagree and let the Court rule on a demurrer? While I think my deadline to file a demurrer is January 24, 2022, I want to file it by January 20, 2022 lest the court not add the extra two court days for service by email. So please let me know by 12pm tomorrow, January 19th, so I have enough time to draft the demurrer and get it on file by January 20th. Thank you, Michael From: Garry L. Montanari Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:21 PM To: Michael Smith Cc: Mike Danko ; John H. Moon ; Fusi Hokafonu ; Garry L. Montanari Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Michael: As stated, we continue to believe that the Fourteenth Affirmative defense of estoppel in the second amended answer is sufficient in putting the plaintiffs on notice of the defense. Notwithstanding, we are agreeable to revising the Fourteenth Affirmative defense to read as follows: “As a separate and affirmative defense, defendants contend that plaintiffs’ complaint, each cause of action thereof, and/or remedies sought are barred by the doctrine of estoppel including but not limited to instituting an action(s) or performing acts in pursuit of the remedies for a private, continuing nuisance which has gained an advantage over defendants and occasioned defendants’ damage by causing defendants to incur the costs of abatement, loss of use and other property damage either directly or by paying indemnity for such remedies to plaintiffs’ insurer in a subrogation action.” If this is acceptable to plaintiffs, we will prepare a stipulation and proposed order to file a third amended complaint. Garry L. Montanari Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson 4333 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 818.865.0444 www.mmjlaw.net ********************************************************************************* ** CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this communication in error, please delete it from your inbox, notify the sender immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store or copy them in any medium. Thank you for your cooperation. ********************************************************************************* ** From: Michael Smith Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 2:47 PM To: Garry L. Montanari Cc: Barbara Haussmann ; Mike Danko ; John H. Moon ; Fusi Hokafonu Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero Garry, Friendly reminder. Are you sending a proposed amended Answer today? Michael From: Michael Smith Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 11:37 AM To: Garry L. Montanari Cc: Barbara Haussmann ; Mike Danko ; John H. Moon ; Fusi Hokafonu Subject: RE: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero Garry, Good talk, thanks. I disagree with your position that ‘putting us on notice’ is sufficient for defendants’ answer, but I appreciate your willingness to try to resolve this without motion practice. I look forward to your proposed amended Answer on Tuesday. Thank you, Michael From: Garry L. Montanari Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 10:47 AM To: Michael Smith Cc: Barbara Haussmann ; Mike Danko ; John H. Moon ; Fusi Hokafonu Subject: Re: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Michael, Let’s talk today. I am not available after 2:30 Garry Montanari On Jan 13, 2022, at 1:38 PM, Michael Smith wrote: Garry, I reviewed Defendants’ Second Amended Complaint and found their Fourteenth Affirmative Defense – Estoppel, deficient. Pursuant to CCP 430.41, I am attempting to meet and confer in an attempt to avoid having to file a demurrer. In short, Defendants fail to provide any factual basis; it reads, in whole “As a separate and affirmative defense, defendants contend that plaintiffs’ complaint, each cause of action thereof and/or remedies sought are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.” This unsupported legal contention does not satisfy the requirements of section 430.20 et seq. Let’s connect on the phone so we can discuss further. How does your schedule look this afternoon, tomorrow, or Monday? Let me know the best number to call you. My deadline to file a demurrer is January 24 (10 + 2 court days after you served the 2nd Amended Answer), so we need to meet and confer no later than January 19 - but I do not want to wait until the last minute and drag this out. If you disagree with the dates, please let me know. Thank you, Michael From: Barbara Haussmann Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:11 PM To: Mike Danko ; Michael Smith Cc: Garry L. Montanari ; John H. Moon ; Fusi Hokafonu Subject: Trujillo, et al. v. Sac Aero External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Counsel: See attached copy of Defendants Stephen Magee and Sac Aero Flying Club, Inc.’s Second Amended Answer to Unverified Complaint; Demand for Jury Trial in the above matter. A hard copy has also been mailed to your office today. Barbara, Paralegal/Legal Assistant Garry L. Montanari Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson 4333 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 818.865.0444 www.mmjlaw.net ********************************************************************** ************* CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this communication in error, please delete it from your inbox, notify the sender immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any other person, use them for any purpose, or store or copy them in any medium. Thank you for your cooperation. ********************************************************************** *************