Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00312/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00312-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 46:31301 Federal Maritime Lien Act

---

1

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, 

a California Limited Liability 

Company,

Plaintiff,

v.

S/V GLORI B, a 1977 Sailing 

Vessel of Approximately 27-Feet 

in Length, U.S.C.G. Official No. 

598405 and All of Her Engines, 

Tackle Accessories, Furnishings 

and Appurtenances, in rem,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv312-WQH-AGS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Order of Sale filed by Plaintiff GB 

Capital Holdings, LLC. (ECF No. 26). 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 2, 2018, Plaintiff GB Capital Holdings, LLC, as the agent of San Diego 

Mooring Company, initiated this action by filing a verified Complaint. (ECF No. 1). 

Jeffrey G. Heston, proceeding pro se, filed a Statement of Interested Parties stating “I, 

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 11
2

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

Jeffrey G. Heston, am the sole owner of the Sailing Vessel ‘Glori B’, document number 

598405 and herein-named Defendant in this matter before this Court.” (ECF No. 16). 

On April 10, 2018, an arrest warrant for the Defendant Vessel was issued, and Pier 

32 Marina was appointed as substitute custodian. (ECF No. 6). 

On November 29, 2018, the Court denied (ECF No. 25) a motion to dismiss filed by 

Heston (ECF No. 21).

On December 6, 2018, GB Capital filed an ex parte Motion for Order of Sale, 

moving the Court to order an interlocutory vessel sale and authorize a credit bid. (ECF 

No. 26). GB Capital requests that the Court enter an Order directing the United States 

Marshal to sell the Defendant Vessel at public auction. GB Capital further requests that 

the Court authorize GB Capital to credit bid an amount up to the lien amount attested to 

under oath in the verified Complaint ($55,728.51), plus the actual and demonstrable costs 

of suit, including U.S. Marshal, substitute custodian, and other custodia legis expenses, at 

the auction of the Defendant Vessel. 

On December 21, 2018, Heston filed an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 28). 

The Answer “enters a general denial of lack of jurisdiction and . . . submits an affirmative 

defense of res judicata to all allegations made in the Complaint.” Id. at 1. The Answer 

states that there is no evidence of a maritime lien in this case, and “begs the Court to release 

the vessel from her bonds, order the Plaintiff to restore her taken value, and return to the 

contracted status quo prior to the resolution of this controversy.” (ECF No. 28).

On December 28, 2018, GB Capital filed a Reply in support of the Motion for Order 

of Sale, stating that there was no timely response to the Motion for Order of Sale, which 

the Court should construe as consent to the granting of the motion. (ECF No. 29). 

On January 4, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Motion for Order of Sale. (ECF 

No. 31).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In the verified Complaint, GB Capital alleges that San Diego Mooring Company 

(SDMC) supplied the Defendant Vessel, “a 1977 Sailing Vessel of Approximately 27-Feet 

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 11
3

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

in Length, U.S.C.G. Official No. 598405,” a berth in San Diego Bay. (ECF No. 1 at 1–2). 

GB Capital alleges that under the moorage contract, the vessel must undergo an annual 

safety inspection. Id. at 2–3. GB Capital alleges that the owner of the boat, Heston,

declined the inspection. Id. at 3–4. GB Capital alleges that SDMC ordered Heston to 

remove the boat, and that Heston refused. Id.

GB Capital alleges that the boat was towed to an impound location on March 25, 

2016 and has not been retrieved. Id. at 4, 8. GB Capital alleges that Heston “has repeated 

and consistently refused to submit his claims for resolution in binding arbitration,” as 

ordered in the prior litigation. Id. at 7–8. GB Capital alleges that Heston has declined GB 

Capital’s repeated offers to waive its claims against Heston and the vessel if Heston 

“simply retrieves and relocates his vessel.” Id. GB Capital seeks in rem relief against the 

vessel for breach of maritime contract, trespass, and quantum meruit. GB Capital alleges 

damages of $55,728.51 in accrued wharfage fees and other costs as of February 7, 2018. 

Id. at 9.

GB Capital provides the declaration of Ray Jones, President of Long Beach Yacht 

Sales, stating, 

[I]f [the Defendant Vessel] is permitted to lay idle without routine 

maintenance and without proper lay-up preparations, the vessel’s engines 

might (even if now operational) rust and freeze up, necessitating costly 

overhaul. I understand the engines were not, as I believe is usual in vessel 

arrest cases, conditioned for lay-up. . . . [I]t is unavoidable that the Defendant 

Vessel will deteriorate in condition and value as she sits idle in salt water, and 

that the longer the vessel remains under arrest and therefore idle the greater 

the deterioration will be, and that therefore, in the interest of preserving the 

value of the Defendant Vessel, she should be sold as soon as possible. 

(Decl. of Ray Jones ¶ 3, ECF No. 26-2). The declaration further states that Jones estimates 

the fair market value of the Defendant Vessel to be approximately $6,000, based on 

“photographs taken by the Substitute Custodian” after the arrest of the Defendant Vessel, 

comparisons to other vessels, and “other information and evidence available to [him].” Id.

¶ 4. GB Capital submits the declaration of Jimi Laughery, Assistant Marina Manager at 

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 11
4

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

Pier 32 Marina, filed in support of GB Capital’s Application for Appointment of Substitute 

Custodian. (Decl. of Jimi Laughery, ECF No. 3-1). The declaration states that the 

substitute custodian “provide[s] ongoing wharfage and custodial services at the rate of 

$3.00 per foot of vessel length per day (i.e., 27 ft. x $3.00 = $81.00 per day).” Id. ¶ 4. 

III. THE PRIOR LITIGATION

On April 15, 2016, Heston sued GB Capital under admiralty and maritime 

jurisdiction to recover possession of the vessel and damages. Heston v. GB Capital 

Holdings, LLC, Civ. No. 16cv912. 

On July 1, 2016, GB Capital filed a motion to compel arbitration. Heston did not 

file a response. On August 23, 2016, the Court ordered arbitration as to the moorage 

contract. 

On September 13, 2016, Heston filed a motion for relief from the Court’s August 

23, 2016 Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)–(3). On December 

15, 2016, the Court denied Heston’s motion for relief from judgment. 

On October 23, 2017, Heston filed a second motion for relief from the Court’s 

August 23, 2016 Order, on various grounds, including that the “Maritime Contract for 

Private Wharfage” is not cognizable in admiralty. On January 5, 2018, the Court denied 

Heston’s motion for relief. 

On January 26, 2018, Heston filed a notice of appeal. On August 21, 2018, the Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded this Court did not abuse discretion by denying 

relief from the August 23, 2016 Order. On September 4, 2018, Heston filed a petition for 

panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals. On January 

3, 2019, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for rehearing en banc. 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Interlocutory Sale

GB Capital contends that the Court should authorize sale of the Defendant Vessel 

on the grounds that the statutory conditions for sale are met. GB Capital asserts that the 

Defendant Vessel is deteriorating in condition and value while detained in custody. GB 

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 11
5

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

Capital asserts that there is an unreasonable delay in this case because no person or entity 

has posted or sought to post security for the release of the Defendant Vessel or requested a 

hearing pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule E(9)(b). GB Capital asserts that that 

there is no realistic prospect of an attempt to secure release of the vessel in this action. GB 

Capital asserts that the expense of keeping the Defendant Vessel is excessive and 

disproportionate because at least $18,792 in substitute custodian fees has accrued, over 

three times the presumed value of the Defendant Vessel. 

The Answer filed by Heston contends that the contract at issue in this case is not a 

maritime lien, and that jurisdiction does not exist absent evidence of a maritime lien.1 The 

Answer asserts that GB Capital has stripped the Defendant Vessel “of any and all of the 

gear that makes her seaworthy and navigable” and “all the comforts that gave her character 

and value.” (ECF No. 28 at 3). The Answer asserts that GB Capital “has repeatedly refused 

to honor its obligations,” “has evaded every effort to settle this matter equitably,” “refuses 

to mediate, and agrees to arbitrate only after profiting greatly though the unlawful 

application of brute force and when threaten by legal action.” Id. at 3–4. The Answer 

asserts that the issue of whether the Defendant Vessel violated the wharfage contract has 

only been raised in proceedings before this Court, and “was never raised in a matter 

consistent with either the (unapproved) mooring contract or Port District procedure.” Id.

at 3. The Answer asserts that “[t]he Defendant has repeatedly demonstrated the willingness 

to resolve this matter in accordance with the law and the contractual rights of all parties.” 

Id. at 3–4. The Answer asserts that “nothing has been decided, yet GB Capital always

 

1 The Court assesses the Motion for Order of Sale on the merits and does not construe any failure to file a 

timely response as consent to granting the Motion. See Narog v. Certegy Check Servs., Inc., 759 F. Supp. 

2d 1189, 1193 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (addressing motion to dismiss on the merits “[c]onsidering the Court’s 

obligation to afford pro se plaintiffs the benefit of any doubt” and in light of “the Ninth Circuit’s 

unequivocal pronouncement that a court may not grant a motion for summary judgment merely because 

the nonmoving party failed to file opposition papers” (first citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 

n.1 (9th Cir. 1985), then citing Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 11
6

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

proceeds as if it is already the recipient of a favorable judgment from a competent tribunal.” 

Id. at 4.

Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule E(9)(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure states,

On application of a party, the marshal, or other person having custody of the 

property, the court may order all or part of the property sold--with the sales 

proceeds, or as much of them as will satisfy the judgment, paid into court to 

await further orders of the court--if:

(A) the attached or arrested property is perishable, or liable to deterioration, 

decay, or injury by being detained in custody pending the action;

(B) the expense of keeping the property is excessive or disproportionate; or

(C) there is an unreasonable delay in securing release of the property.

Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp. Adm. R. E(9)(a)(i). The applicant is required to satisfy one of the 

three listed criteria to justify an interlocutory sale. See, e.g., Cal. Yacht Marina--Chula 

Vista, LLC v. S/V OPILY, No. 14-CV-01215-BAS BGS, 2015 WL 1197540, at *2 (S.D. 

Cal. Mar. 16, 2015) (citing Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Dredge Gen. G. L. Gillespie, 

663 F.2d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir. 1981)). “The interlocutory sale of a vessel is not a 

deprivation of property but rather a necessary substitution of the proceeds of the sale, with 

all of the constitutional safeguards necessitated by the in rem process.” Ferrous Fin. Servs. 

Co. v. O/S Arctic Producer, 567 F. Supp. 400, 401 (W.D. Wash. 1983). 

GB Capital has presented evidence that Defendant Vessel was not conditioned for 

lay-up, “as usual in vessel arrest cases.” There are no facts in the record to the contrary. 

The Court finds the Defendant Vessel is liable to deterioration within the meaning of 

Supplemental Admiralty Rule E(9)(A)(i)(a). Compare Cal. Yacht, 2015 WL 1197540, at 

*3 (finding defendant vessel liable to deterioration or injury based on expert evidence of 

possible costly overhaul, and electric equipment susceptibility to corrosion, rust, and 

general deterioration) (citing Merchants, 663 F.2d at 1342 (“The engines were not properly 

conditioned for lay-up . . . . The court’s assessment that each of the vessels was ‘liable to 

deterioration . . . or injury by being detained in custody’ was not clearly erroneous.”)), with 

Vineyard Bank v. M/Y Elizabeth I, U.S.C.G. Official No. 1130283, No. 08CV2044 BTM 

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 11
7

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

WMC, 2009 WL 799304, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2009) (concluding that “a generalized 

assertion that idle vessels will deteriorate,” absent “other evidence that the Defendant 

Vessel is liable to decay,” did not satisfy Rule E(9)(a)(i)).

Courts generally allow at least four months for the provision of a bond to secure the 

release of a vessel before granting an interlocutory sale on grounds of unreasonable delay. 

See Vineyard Bank, 2009 WL 799304, at *2 (citing Bank of Rio Vista v. Vessel Captain 

Pete, 2004 WL 2330704, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct.14, 2004)). In this case, the record shows 

no attempts to secure the Defendant Vessel after the April 2018 arrest. There are no facts 

in the record to the contrary. The Court finds an unreasonable delay has occurred within 

the meaning of Supplemental Admiralty Rule E(9)(A)(i)(c). See Ferrous, 567 F. Supp. at 

401 (concluding, when defendants had appeared in the action, that no attempt to secure 

release of vessel within four months since arrest was unreasonable delay); Merchants, 663 

F.2d at 1341–42 (failing to secure the release of the vessel eight months after arrest is

unreasonable delay); Vineyard Bank, 2009 WL 799304, at *2 (concluding four-month 

delay was unreasonable when no person had attempted to secure the release of the vessel).

Maintenance expenses of several thousand dollars per month are excessive and 

disproportionate when a defendant has made no attempt to secure the vessel’s release. In 

this case, GB Capital has presented evidence $18,792 in accrued fees, which will increase 

$2,430 each month. GB Capital has presented evidence that the estimated fair market value 

of the Defendant Vessel is $6,000. There are no facts in the record to the contrary. The 

Court finds that the accrued costs excessive and disproportionate to the estimated fair 

market value of the Defendant Vessel. See Cal. Yacht, 2015 WL 1197540, at *4 

(concluding $6,000 in custodial fees, which would continue accruing, was excessive and 

disproportionate to the vessel’s maximum fair market value of $12,000); Merchants, 663 

F.2d at 1342 (concluding interlocutory sale justified based on $17,000 in monthly costs 

and an eight-month delay in attempting to secure release); Ferrous, 567 F. Supp. at 401 

(concluding $166,000 in annual maintenance costs was excessive when there was no 

attempt to secure the vessel’s release for four months). 

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 11
8

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

Taking into account the disproportionate cost of maintaining the Defendant Vessel, 

the unreasonable delay in securing its release, and the likelihood of deterioration, the Court 

finds interlocutory sale warranted under Rule E(9)(a)(i) and grants Plaintiff’s motion for 

interlocutory sale of the Defendant Vessel.

B. Credit Bid

GB Capital asserts that it is the only party who has asserted a maritime lien claim 

against the Defendant Vessel, and is by definition senior to all other claims in this action. 

GB Capital contends that the Court should authorize GB Capital to bid up to the lien 

amount in the verified Complaint ($55,728.51), plus the actual and demonstrable costs of 

suit, including U.S. Marshal, substitute custodian, and other custodia legis expenses, 

pursuant to the Local Admiralty rules. GB Capital asserts it will establish the lien amount 

by affidavit as required by Local Admiralty Rule E.1(e)(2). 

As detailed above, the Answer “enters a general denial of lack of jurisdiction, 

“submits an affirmative defense of res judicata to all allegations made in the Complaint,” 

states that there is no evidence of a maritime lien in this case, and “begs the Court to release 

the vessel from her bonds, order the Plaintiff to restore her taken value, and return to the 

contracted status quo prior to the resolution of this controversy.” (ECF No. 28 at 1–4). 

“When a vessel is sold by order of a district court in a civil action in rem brought to 

enforce a preferred mortgage lien or a maritime lien,” a “preferred mortgage lien . . . has 

priority over all claims against the vessel (except for expenses and fees allowed by the 

court, costs imposed by the court, and preferred maritime liens).” 46 U.S.C. § 31326(a), 

(b)(1). A preferred maritime lien is defined as “a maritime lien on a vessel[,] (A) arising 

before a preferred mortgage was filed . . .; (B) for damage arising out of maritime tort; (C) 

for wages of a stevedore . . . ; (D) for wages of the crew of the vessel; (E) for general 

average; or (F) for salvage, including contract salvage.” § 31301(5). According to the 

local rules for admiralty actions, 

When the court determines on the merits that a plaintiff or plaintiff in 

intervention has a valid claim senior in priority to all other parties, that 

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 11
9

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

plaintiff in intervention foreclosing a properly recorded and endorsed 

preferred mortgage on, or other valid security interest in the vessel may bid, 

without payment of cash, certified check or cashier’s check, up to the total 

amount of the secured indebtedness as established by affidavit filed and 

served on all other parties no later than seven (7) days prior to the date of sale.

S.D. Cal. Civ. R. E.1(e)(2). After process has been executed, parties have fourteen days, 

or the time allowed by the court, to file a verified statement of right or interest. Fed. R. 

Civ. P., Supp. Adm. R. C(6)(a). 

In this matter, Heston disputes the wharfage contract at issue in this case on multiple 

grounds. However, Heston provides no evidence that GB Capital does not hold a preferred

maritime lien on the Defendant Vessel. Heston does not oppose the request to credit bid. 

The evidence in the record shows that GB Capital holds a preferred maritime lien on the 

Defendant Vessel. (Wharfage Contract, Ex. A to Compl., ECF No. 1-2). No party other 

than GB Capital has asserted a maritime lien claim within the time allowed by Fed. R. Civ. 

P., Supp. Adm. R. C(6)(a). The Court finds that GB Capital has a preferred maritime lien 

claim with priority over all other claims against the Defendant Vessel, except for the 

expenses and fees allowed by the Court and costs imposed by the Court in this action. See 

Vineyard Bank, 2009 WL 799304, at *3. Provided GB Capital complies with Local Rule

E.1(e)(1)–(2), the Court grants GB Capital’s request to authorize a credit bid up to the 

amount of secured indebtedness at the sale of the Defendant Vessel. See id.; Bank of Rio 

Vista, 2004 WL 2330704, at *2–3 (authorizing credit bid when defendants did not oppose 

the request to credit bid and argued only that interlocutory vessel sale was premature).

V. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Order of Sale filed by Plaintiff GB 

Capital Holdings, LLC (ECF No. 26) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with Supplemental Admiralty Rule 

E(9)(B) and Local Admiralty Rule E.1(e) the United States Marshal be and hereby is 

directed and empowered to sell said DEFENDANT VESSEL and her engines, tackle, 

accessories, equipment, furnishings and appurtenances, as is, where is, at public sale at the 

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 11
10

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

first available time and date, after having first caused notice of said sale to be published 

daily in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of San Diego, California for at 

least seven days immediately before the date of sale; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that such public notice specify the date, time and 

location for the sale of the DEFENDANT VESSEL; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with Local Admiralty Rule E.1(e)(2), 

such public notice specify that the last and highest bidder at the sale will be required to 

deposit with the U.S. Marshal a certified check or a cashier’s check in the amount of the 

full purchase price not to exceed $500, and otherwise $500 or ten percent (10%) of the bid, 

whichever is greater, and that the balance, if any, of the purchase price shall be paid by 

certified check or cashier’s check before confirmation of the sale or within three days of 

dismissal of any opposition which may have been filed, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays 

and legal holidays; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any proceeds of said sale shall be held by it or 

deposited by the United States Marshal in the Registry of this Court, pending further Order 

of this Court; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PLAINTIFF, having a secured maritime lien 

interest in the DEFENDANT VESSEL pursuant to the Commercial Instruments and 

Federal Maritime Lien Act (46 U.S.C. § 31301, et seq.) and being the only claimant in this 

action asserting a maritime claim against her, is authorized pursuant to Local Admiralty 

Rule E.1(e)(2) to credit bid at the auction of the DEFENDANT VESSEL, without payment 

of cash, a sum equal to its secured interest in the DEFENDANT VESSEL as established 

by affidavit filed and served on all other parties no later than seven (7) days prior to sale 

pursuant to Local Admiralty Rule E.1(e)(2), consisting of the lien amounts specified in 

PLAINTIFF’s Verified Complaint, totaling $55,728.51 (calculated through February 7, 

2018), plus its actual costs of suit through the date of the sale, including U.S. Marshal and 

other custodia legis expenses, with such costs and expenses to be calculated at the rates 

specified and authorized in the Order appointing the Substitute Custodian. However, as 

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 11
11

18cv312-WQH-AGS

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

27

28

PLAINTIFF’s maritime necessaries lien interest in the DEFENDANT VESSEL does not, 

as a matter of law, include attorneys’ fees, such fees are not to be included in any credit 

bid Plaintiff makes; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Local Supplemental Admiralty Rule 

E.1(e)(2), that if within three days of the auction date, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, 

and legal holidays, no written objection is filed, the sale shall stand confirmed as of course, 

without the necessity of any affirmative action thereon by a judge, except that no sale shall 

stand confirmed until the buyer has complied fully with the terms of the purchase.

Dated: January 22, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00312-WQH-AGS Document 32 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 11