Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01967/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01967-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Pollutants &amp; Permit Violations

---

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

366988.02

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

JEFFREY R. CHANIN - #103649 

DANIEL PURCELL - #191424 

DAN JACKSON - #216091 

KHARI J. TILLERY - #215669 

710 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

Emails: jchanin@kvn.com; dpurcell@kvn.com; 

djackson@kvn.com; ktillery@kvn.com

LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD 

ANDREW L. PACKARD - #168690 

294 Page Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Telephone: (415) 431-2970 

Facsimile: (415) 431-0410 

Email: packardal@mindspring.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

WATERKEEPERS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

and BILL JENNINGS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

WATERKEEPERS NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, a non-profit corporation dba 

BAYKEEPER; and BILL JENNINGS, an 

individual, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

AG INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, 

INC., a corporation; and CLAUDE E. 

BROWN, an individual, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:00-cv-1967-MCE-PAN 

CONSENT DECREE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 12
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

1 366988.02

WHEREAS, plaintiff BayKeeper (hereinafter, “BAYKEEPER”), formerly 

WaterKeepers Northern California, is a non-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation, 

protection, and defense of the environment, the wildlife, and the natural resources of the San 

Francisco Bay and the Delta estuary; 

WHEREAS, plaintiff WILLIAM JENNINGS (hereinafter, “JENNINGS”) was formerly 

the Director and a member of the DeltaKeeper Chapter of BAYKEEPER; 

WHEREAS, plaintiffs BAYKEEPER and JENNINGS shall be collectively referred to 

hereinafter as “PLAINTIFFS”; 

WHEREAS, defendant AG INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, INC. (hereinafter, 

“AIM”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California engaged in the 

manufacture and fabrication of agricultural machinery and equipment at 110 South Beckman 

Road, Lodi, San Joaquin County, California (hereinafter, “the Facility”); 

WHEREAS, defendant Claude E. Brown (hereinafter, “BROWN”) is the Chief 

Executive Officer and fifty-percent shareholder of AIM; 

WHEREAS, defendants AIM and BROWN shall be collectively referred to hereinafter 

as “DEFENDANTS”; 

WHEREAS, non-party Paul Burkner is the remaining fifty-percent shareholder of AIM 

and its Vice President; 

WHEREAS, the discharge of “storm water associated with industrial activity” (as 

defined in General Permit No. CAS000001, Attachment 4, Definition 9, hereinafter referred to as 

“Storm Water”) is regulated pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(“NPDES”) General Permit No. CAS000001 [State Water Resources Control Board] Water 

Quality Order No. 91-13-DWQ (as amended by Water Quality Order 92-12 DWQ and 97-03-

DWQ), issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 

§ 1342 (hereinafter “General Permit”); 

WHEREAS, on June 28, 2000, BAYKEEPER served AIM and BAYKEEPER 

represents that it has also served the United States Attorney General, the national and Region IX 

offices of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 12
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

2 366988.02

Control Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region, the San 

Joaquin County District Attorney, and the Lodi City Attorney with a Notice of Violation and 

Intent to File Suit (“60-Day Notice”) under Sections 505(a)(1) and (f) of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (the “Act” or “Clean Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1) and (f); 

WHEREAS, the 60-Day Notice alleged that AIM had violated and continued to violate 

Sections 301(a) and 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) and 1342(p), due to the 

Facility’s discharges of Storm Water containing pollutants and discharges of non-Storm Water to 

the Mokelumne River and ultimately into the Delta in violation of the effluent limits, permit 

conditions, and reporting and monitoring requirements of the General Permit; 

WHEREAS, on September 12, 2000, PLAINTIFFS filed a complaint against 

DEFENDANTS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California entitled 

WaterKeepers Northern California, et al. v. AG Industrial Manufacturing, et al., Case No. CIV. 

S-00-1967 MCE PAN (hereinafter, “Complaint” or “Action”); 

WHEREAS, AIM disputed the allegations set forth in the 60-Day Notice and Complaint 

but immediately began efforts to comply with the General Permit and the Act by: (1) filing a 

Notice of Intent To Comply with the General Permit in July 2000; (2) hiring a storm water 

consultant to assist in the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (hereinafter, 

“SWPPP”) and a Monitoring & Reporting Program in August 2000; (3) installing a three-stage 

Jensen Storm Water Interceptor at the Facility in October 2000; (4) later, over time, constructing 

a series of berms to better control and direct storm water flows at the Facility in general; (5) 

developing and implementing non-structural Best Management Practices; and (6) developing a 

record keeping process to assist in the continuous re-evaluation of all of AIM’s storm water 

compliance efforts by BROWN; 

WHEREAS, AIM represents that it has, consistent with its General Permit sampling 

frequency obligations, attempted to collect at least two storm water samples during each of the 

past five Wet Seasons (reporting periods ending June 30, 2001-2005) and provided all storm 

water sample results to the Regional Board with its Annual Reports; 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 12
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

3 366988.02

WHEREAS, DEFENDANTS contend that they have not been in material violation of 

the General Permit or the Act since filing their Notice of Intent To Comply with the General 

Permit and adopting their initial SWPPP; 

WHEREAS, PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANTS (hereinafter, the “SETTLING 

PARTIES”) filed cross-motions for summary judgment and evidentiary objections (including 

PLAINTIFFS’ Motion to Strike the Declaration of DEFENDANTS’ chief expert) beginning in 

March 2002; PLAINTIFFS’ Motion sought the imposition of a civil penalty against the 

DEFENDANTS in excess of $5,000,000.00; 

WHEREAS, on November 25, 2002 the Court issued a Minute Order notifying the 

parties that the cross-motions were submitted without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 28-

230(h). By order of December 3, 2002, the Court granted DEFENDANTS’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment, solely on jurisdictional grounds, finding that PLAINTIFFS’ 60-Day Notice 

of Violation failed to satisfy the notice requirements of the Clean Water Act; the Court expressly 

declined to rule on the merits of PLAINTIFFS’ motion, the evidentiary objection raised, or 

PLAINTIFFS’ Motion to Strike the Declaration of DEFENDANTS’ chief expert); 

WHEREAS, PLAINTIFFS appealed the December 3, 2002 Order, and on July 16, 2004 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that PLAINTIFFS’ 60-Day Notice of 

Violation fully satisfied the notice requirements of the Clean Water Act and that BAYKEEPER’s 

Notice of Violation notice was sufficient to permit AIM to identify the dates on which 

BAYKEEPER alleged that AIM violated the Act under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A) and 40 C.F.R 

§ 135.3(a); 

WHEREAS, AIM filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme 

Court (No. 04-468), which was denied; 

WHEREAS, upon remittitur, the parties again brought on for hearing previously filed 

cross-motions for summary judgment, evidentiary objections, and a motion to strike, which 

motions were heard on May 16, 2005; 

WHEREAS, on August 19, 2005, the Court issued an order denying PLAINTIFFS’ 

motion for summary judgment, granting DEFENDANTS’ motion for summary adjudication that 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 4 of 12
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

4 366988.02

no proof of unauthorized non-storm water discharge existed and granting, in part, and denying, 

in part, DEFENDANTS’ remaining motion for summary adjudication; 

WHEREAS, the SETTLING PARTIES have agreed that it is in the parties’ mutual 

interest to avoid the costs of further litigation in this matter and to enter into a Consent Decree 

setting forth terms and conditions appropriate to resolving the allegations set forth in the 

Complaint without further proceedings; 

WHEREAS, this Consent Decree was served on the United States Department of Justice 

and the national and Region IX offices of the United States Environmental Protection Agency for 

the statutory review period pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c); and, 

WHEREAS, all actions taken by AIM pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be taken in 

compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations; 

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN THE SETTLING 

PARTIES AND ORDERED AND DECREED BY THE COURT AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the SETTLING 

PARTIES hereby agree that this action shall be dismissed with prejudice upon the following 

stipulations and conditions. 

2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the 

parties consenting hereto pursuant to Section 505(a)(1)(A) of the Act, 33 U.S.C.§ 1365(a)(1)(A). 

3. Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District pursuant to Section 505(c)(1) of the 

Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because the Facility at which the alleged violations have taken place 

is located within this District. 

4. The Complaint states claim(s) upon which relief may be granted against AIM 

pursuant to Section 505 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365. 

5. PLAINTIFFS have standing to bring this Action. 

COMMITMENTS OF DEFENDANTS

6. Full compliance with the requirements of the General Permit and the Clean 

Water Act. This decree shall remain in effect through June 30, 2007. During the approximately 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 5 of 12
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

5 366988.02

18-month duration of this Consent Decree, AIM agrees to maintain the Facility in full 

compliance with the requirements of the General Permit. 

7. AIM agrees that the Facility’s Storm Water discharges and authorized non-Storm 

Water discharges (1) shall not “cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance” 

within the meaning of the General Permit; (2) shall not “adversely impact human health or the 

environment” within the meaning of the General Permit; and (3) shall not “cause or contribute to 

the exceedance of any applicable water quality standard contained in a Statewide Water Quality 

Control Plan or the applicable Regional Board’s Basin Plan” within the meaning of the General 

Permit. 

8. Continuing Implementation Of Current Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

Plan (“SWPPP”). AIM agrees, for the life of this decree, to continue to implement its current 

SWPPP for the Facility (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”), incorporating such site improvements 

and Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) as necessary to comply with the General Permit and 

the Act. This Consent Decree does not constitute an acknowledgement or admission on the part 

of BAYKEEPER that AIM’s current SWPPP complies with the General Permit and does not 

constitute agreement with any particular term of the SWPPP. Likewise any failure on the part of 

BAYKEEPER to object to any future version of the SWPPP shall not constitute an 

acknowledgement or admission on the part of BAYKEEPER that such SWPPP complies with 

the General Permit and shall not constitute agreement with any particular term of such SWPPP. 

9. Site Conditions and Best Management Practices. AIM agrees, for the life of 

this decree, to maintain its current structural BMPs, including, but not limited to, the Facility’s 

storm water interceptor and drainage system and all associated berms directing storm water 

flows at the Facility, and to continue to incorporate structural and non-structural BMPs into its 

SWPPP as is necessary to comply with the General Permit and the Act 

10. Continuing Implementation Of Storm Water Monitoring & Reporting 

Program (“M&RP”) for the Facility. AIM agrees, for the life of this decree, to continue to 

implement its current Monitoring and Reporting Program (“M&RP”), including, but not limited 

to, all required visual observations of Storm Water discharges from the Facility. The M&RP 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 6 of 12
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

6 366988.02

shall continue to provide a rationale and description of the visual observation methods, location 

and frequency, the sampling methods, and the analytical methods and corresponding method 

detection limits used to detect pollutants in Storm Water discharges. This Consent Decree does 

not constitute an acknowledgement or admission on the part of BAYKEEPER that AIM’s 

M&RP complies with the General Permit and does not constitute agreement with any particular 

term of the M&RP. Likewise any failure on the part of BAYKEEPER to object to any future 

version of the M&RP shall not constitute an acknowledgement or admission on the part of 

BAYKEEPER that such M&RP complies with the General Permit and shall not constitute 

agreement with any particular term of the M&RP. 

11. Nothing herein shall abrogate AIM’s responsibility and authority to modify its 

SWPPP or M&RP as required by section C. 11. of the General Permit or modify the Reporting 

Requirements imposed upon AIM in Section C.11 of the General Permit. 

12. Storm Water Sampling By AIM. AIM agrees to collect and analyze a minimum 

of two storm water samples (no more than one sample from each storm event) from the discharge 

point at the Facility’s Storm Water Interceptor during each of the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 Wet 

Seasons under the terms and conditions required by General Permit. AIM further agrees to 

collect a voluntary third sample during each of the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 Wet Seasons, 

which may be collected at anytime during AIM’s normal business hours as soon as possible after 

it has started to rain. 

13. Parameters/Target Levels. It is the mutual goal of the SETTLING PARTIES, in 

entering into this Consent Decree to ensure that the Facility’s Storm Water discharges and 

authorized non-Storm Water discharges (1) shall not “cause or threaten to cause pollution, 

contamination, or nuisance” within the meaning of the General Permit; (2) shall not “adversely 

impact human health or the environment” within the meaning of the General Permit; and (3) 

shall not “cause or contribute to the exceedence of any applicable water quality standard 

contained in a Statewide Water Quality Control Plan or the applicable Regional Board’s Basin 

Plan” within the meaning of the General Permit. 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 7 of 12
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

7 366988.02

14. Ongoing Employee Education. AIM shall conduct regular training sessions to 

educate its employees about their respective roles in implementing the various measures required 

by the General Permit, SWPPP, and this Consent Decree. 

FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

15. To help defray BAYKEEPER’ investigative, consultant, expert and attorneys’ 

fees and costs incurred as a result of investigating, bringing this matter to AIM’ attention, 

litigating, and negotiating a settlement in the public interest, AIM agrees to partially reimburse 

BAYKEEPER in the amount of $50,000. Payment shall be made in the form of a check payable 

to The Attorney-Client Trust Account of the Law Offices of Andrew Packard within five (5) 

calendar days of final approval and entry of this Consent Decree by the Clerk of the Court. 

RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND TERMINATION

16. This Court shall retain jurisdiction in this matter from the date of entry of the 

Decree through the date of its termination, for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this 

Consent Decree. In addition, following the date of termination of this Decree, this Court shall 

retain jurisdiction for the purpose of disposing of any motion to enforce this Decree, or any 

contempt petition filed on or before the date of termination of this Decree. 

17. This Consent Decree shall terminate as to each of its provisions on the earlier of 

June 30, 2007, or two months after AIM is no longer conducting any operations at the Facility, 

all “Significant Materials,” as defined in the General Permit, from the Facility’s operations have 

been removed from the Facility, and the obligations set forth herein have been fulfilled. In the 

event that there are any unresolved matters concerning compliance with the terms of this Consent 

Decree at the time of its termination, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to assist the parties in 

resolving such matters. 

18. In any proceeding to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree the substantially 

prevailing party, the costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) 

may be awarded in accordance with the terms of 33 U.S.C. §1365(d). 

NO ADMISSION OR FINDING

19. Neither the Consent Decree nor any payment pursuant to the Consent Decree shall 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 8 of 12
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

8 366988.02

constitute or be construed as a finding, adjudication or acknowledgment of any fact, law or 

liability, nor shall it be construed as an admission of violation of any law, rule or regulation. 

RELEASE OF LIABILITY

20. Upon entry of this Consent Decree, PLAINTIFFS hereby release AIM, its 

successors and assigns, shareholders, partners, officers, directors, employees, agents, Board 

Members, and attorneys (including, but not limited to Paul Burkner), and BROWN, from all 

claims for damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs or any other relief asserted by 

PLAINTIFFS in the above-entitled Action, pertaining to violations of the General Permit taking 

place on or before June 30, 2005. 

21. Upon entry of this Consent Decree, DEFENDANTS hereby release 

BAYKEEPER, its successors and assigns, shareholders, partners, officers, directors, employees, 

agents, Board Members, and attorneys, and JENNINGS from all claims which arise from or 

pertain to this Action and its resolution. 

22. PLAINTIFFS, acting as individuals and not on behalf of the general public, 

covenant not to sue AIM, its successors and assigns, shareholders, partners, officers, directors, 

employees, agents, Board Members and attorneys (including, but not limited to Paul Burkner), or 

BROWN for violations of California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.5 et seq. taking 

place on or before June 30, 2005. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

23. Construction. The language in all parts of this Consent Decree shall be 

construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, except as to those terms defined in the 

General Permit or the Act. 

24. Confidentiality. For a period of four months following final Court and 

Governmental Agency approval of the settlement agreement, the parties agree not to make any 

public comments about the terms of settlement, except to refer the inquirer to the express terms 

of the agreement and/or to say that the matter has been settled to the mutual satisfaction of the 

parties. Further, all confidential documents and/or information produced by DEFENDANTS in 

discovery, including, but not limited to, business records, financial information, and photographs 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 9 of 12
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

9 366988.02

and video obtained during formal site inspections of the Facility shall remain confidential while 

this Consent Decree remains in effect. If PLAINTIFFS’ or their counsel wish to disclose these 

documents and/or information to a third-party, DEFENDANTS shall be provided with 

reasonable notice and an opportunity to object to the disclosure. Upon termination of this 

Consent Decree, PLAINTIFFS shall either destroy said confidential documents and/or 

information or return them to DEFENDANTS. 

25. Severability. In the event that any provision, section, or sentence of this Consent 

Decree is held by a court to be unenforceable, the validity of the enforceable provisions shall not 

be adversely affected. 

26. Correspondence. All notices required herein or any other correspondence 

pertaining to this decree shall be sent by regular or certified mail as follows: 

If to BAYKEEPER: 

Mr. Leo O’Brien 

Executive Director, BAYKEEPER 

785 Market St., Suite 850 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

And to: 

Andrew L. Packard, Esq. 

Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard 

294 Page Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

If to AIM: 

ATTN: Mr. Claude E. Brown, President 

AG Industrial Manufacturing, Inc. 

110 S. Beckman Rd. 

Lodi, CA 95240 

And to: 

Dennis M. Hauser, Esq. 

Hauser & Mouzes 

18826 N. Lower Sacramento Road, Suite H 

P.O. Box 1397 

Woodbridge, CA 95258-1397 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 10 of 12
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

10 366988.02

Any change of address or addresses shall be communicated in the manner described 

above for giving notices. 

27. Full Settlement. The parties intend this Consent Decree to be the entire 

agreement of the parties, and are not relying upon any representations or agreements of the 

parties not explicitly set forth herein. 

28. Authority. The undersigned representatives for SETTLING PARTIES each 

certify that he/she is fully authorized by the party whom he/she represents to enter into the terms 

and conditions of this Consent Decree. 

29. The SETTLING PARTIES hereto enter into this Consent Decree, Order and Final 

Judgment and submit it to the court for its approval and entry as a final judgment. 

Dated: AG INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, 

INC., AND CLAUDE BROWN 

By: __________________________________

Claude E. Brown, President 

Dated: BAYKEEPER 

By: __________________________________

Leo O’Brien, Executive Director 

Dated: WILLIAM JENNINGS 

By: __________________________________

William Jennings 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 11 of 12
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

11 366988.02

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:

Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c), this Consent Decree, which was filed with the Court and 

served on the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the national and Region IX offices 

of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 1, 2006, shall be entered 

by the Clerk of the Court on April 17, 2006, if no objections have been filed and served by the 

DOJ and/or the EPA. If the DOJ and/or the EPA do file and serve objections to the Consent 

Decree before April 17, 2006, the Court will set a Case Management Conference to determine 

how best to proceed. 

Dated: March 7, 2006 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-01967-MCE -PAN Document 181 Filed 03/08/06 Page 12 of 12