Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03085/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03085-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

See In re Lakusta, 2007 WL 2255230 (N.D. Cal. August 3, 2007) (affirming bankruptcy

court's September 8, 2006 order in adversary case no. 03-3549 TC (Chapter 7 case no. 02-31521

STC) declaring Lakusta a vexatious litigant).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE

ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA, 

Debtor.

 /

No. C 07-03085 SBA

ORDER

The instant bankruptcy appeal appears to be the fourth of five cases that debtor Alexis Mager

Lakusta, who has been declared a vexatious litigant by the bankruptcy court,1 has filed in federal district

court since May of 2006, all of which appear to arise from, in one fashion or another, an underlying

bankruptcy ruling Lakusta considers unfavorable. See In re Alexis Mager Lakusta, C 06-03431-SBA

(filed May 26, 2006); Lakusta v. Evans et al, C 06-06105-PJH (filed September 29, 2006); Lakusta v. US

Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA (filed January 12, 2007); Lakusta v. Simms, 07-05161-JSW (filed October 9,

2007).

The initial bankruptcy appeal was dismissed without prejudice by this Court because, after being

granted two extensions to file his opening brief, Lakusta failed to perfect the record and filed an

unintelligible opening brief. See In re Alexis Mager Lakusta, C 06-03431-SBA, Docket No. 25. In

Lakusta v. US Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA, the Court denied Lakusta’s “emergency” request to place the

briefing schedule on hold in that action and ordered Lakusta to file an opening brief by July 16, 2007,

or be prepared to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Lakusta

v. US Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA, Docket Nos. 21 & 22. Because Lakusta failed to file an opening brief,

that case was dismissed for failure to prosecute on September 25, 2007.

Lakusta commenced the instant bankruptcy appeal pro se in this Court on June 13, 2007. Lakusta

again appeals the bankruptcy court’s May 12, 2006 Order Denying Debtor’s Motion for Abandonment.

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On November 6, 2007 – nearly five months after this case was initially filed – the Court ordered Lakusta

to file an opening brief by no later than December 5, 2007. Specifically in light of Lakusta’s repeated

history of requesting extensions to file opening briefs, the order unambiguously stated: “If appellant fails

to file a brief by this date, this case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” See Docket No. 14 at 1

(emphasis in original).

True to form, rather than file an opening brief, and in direct violation of this Court’s order, on

December 5, 2007, Lakusta filed an “Application for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief, ” “Judge

Armstrong’s order not withstanding.” Docket No. 15 at 1. The gravamen of this motion appears to be that

Lakusta has so multiplied the proceedings related to the underlying bankruptcy case (he has, by his own

tally, one appeal pending before the California Court of Appeal, two appeals pending before this Court,

and two appeals pending before the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit) that he cannot keep

up with the briefing schedule in all of them. However, while Lakusta states that “an extension of time

to file and serve his opening brief in this appeal is not unreasonable in light of the concurrent filing

deadlines in immediately related cases,” Lakusta identifies no such “concurrent filing deadlines,” and,

in any case, Lakusta was afforded nearly six months from the date he filed the instant appeal to file an

opening brief.

Despite the Court’s admonition that if he failed to timely file an opening brief this case would be

dismissed, Lakusta failed to timely file an opening brief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED. Lakusta’s bankruptcy appeal is dismissed, this

time WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/10/08 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IN RE: ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-03085 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 10, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

 U.S. Bankruptcy Court, No. District of CA (San Francisco)

Clerk’s Office

235 Pine Street

P.O. Box 7341

San Francisco, CA 94120-7341

 U.S. Trustee

Office of the U.S. Trustee/SF

235 Pine Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

Alexis Mager Lakusta

1259 El Camino Real #245

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Thomas E. Carlson

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

USBC-San Francisco

235 Pine St

P.O. Box 7341

San Francisco, CA 94104

Dated: January 10, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 3 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

See In re Lakusta, 2007 WL 2255230 (N.D. Cal. August 3, 2007) (affirming bankruptcy

court's September 8, 2006 order in adversary case no. 03-3549 TC (Chapter 7 case no. 02-31521

STC) declaring Lakusta a vexatious litigant).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE

ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA, 

Debtor.

 /

No. C 07-03085 SBA

ORDER

The instant bankruptcy appeal appears to be the fourth of five cases that debtor Alexis Mager

Lakusta, who has been declared a vexatious litigant by the bankruptcy court,1 has filed in federal district

court since May of 2006, all of which appear to arise from, in one fashion or another, an underlying

bankruptcy ruling Lakusta considers unfavorable. See In re Alexis Mager Lakusta, C 06-03431-SBA

(filed May 26, 2006); Lakusta v. Evans et al, C 06-06105-PJH (filed September 29, 2006); Lakusta v. US

Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA (filed January 12, 2007); Lakusta v. Simms, 07-05161-JSW (filed October 9,

2007).

The initial bankruptcy appeal was dismissed without prejudice by this Court because, after being

granted two extensions to file his opening brief, Lakusta failed to perfect the record and filed an

unintelligible opening brief. See In re Alexis Mager Lakusta, C 06-03431-SBA, Docket No. 25. In

Lakusta v. US Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA, the Court denied Lakusta’s “emergency” request to place the

briefing schedule on hold in that action and ordered Lakusta to file an opening brief by July 16, 2007,

or be prepared to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Lakusta

v. US Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA, Docket Nos. 21 & 22. Because Lakusta failed to file an opening brief,

that case was dismissed for failure to prosecute on September 25, 2007.

Lakusta commenced the instant bankruptcy appeal pro se in this Court on June 13, 2007. Lakusta

again appeals the bankruptcy court’s May 12, 2006 Order Denying Debtor’s Motion for Abandonment.

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On November 6, 2007 – nearly five months after this case was initially filed – the Court ordered Lakusta

to file an opening brief by no later than December 5, 2007. Specifically in light of Lakusta’s repeated

history of requesting extensions to file opening briefs, the order unambiguously stated: “If appellant fails

to file a brief by this date, this case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” See Docket No. 14 at 1

(emphasis in original).

True to form, rather than file an opening brief, and in direct violation of this Court’s order, on

December 5, 2007, Lakusta filed an “Application for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief, ” “Judge

Armstrong’s order not withstanding.” Docket No. 15 at 1. The gravamen of this motion appears to be that

Lakusta has so multiplied the proceedings related to the underlying bankruptcy case (he has, by his own

tally, one appeal pending before the California Court of Appeal, two appeals pending before this Court,

and two appeals pending before the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit) that he cannot keep

up with the briefing schedule in all of them. However, while Lakusta states that “an extension of time

to file and serve his opening brief in this appeal is not unreasonable in light of the concurrent filing

deadlines in immediately related cases,” Lakusta identifies no such “concurrent filing deadlines,” and,

in any case, Lakusta was afforded nearly six months from the date he filed the instant appeal to file an

opening brief.

Despite the Court’s admonition that if he failed to timely file an opening brief this case would be

dismissed, Lakusta failed to timely file an opening brief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED. Lakusta’s bankruptcy appeal is dismissed, this

time WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/10/08 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 5 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IN RE: ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-03085 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 10, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

 U.S. Bankruptcy Court, No. District of CA (San Francisco)

Clerk’s Office

235 Pine Street

P.O. Box 7341

San Francisco, CA 94120-7341

 U.S. Trustee

Office of the U.S. Trustee/SF

235 Pine Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

Alexis Mager Lakusta

1259 El Camino Real #245

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Thomas E. Carlson

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

USBC-San Francisco

235 Pine St

P.O. Box 7341

San Francisco, CA 94104

Dated: January 10, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 6 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

See In re Lakusta, 2007 WL 2255230 (N.D. Cal. August 3, 2007) (affirming bankruptcy

court's September 8, 2006 order in adversary case no. 03-3549 TC (Chapter 7 case no. 02-31521

STC) declaring Lakusta a vexatious litigant).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE

ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA, 

Debtor.

 /

No. C 07-03085 SBA

ORDER

The instant bankruptcy appeal appears to be the fourth of five cases that debtor Alexis Mager

Lakusta, who has been declared a vexatious litigant by the bankruptcy court,1 has filed in federal district

court since May of 2006, all of which appear to arise from, in one fashion or another, an underlying

bankruptcy ruling Lakusta considers unfavorable. See In re Alexis Mager Lakusta, C 06-03431-SBA

(filed May 26, 2006); Lakusta v. Evans et al, C 06-06105-PJH (filed September 29, 2006); Lakusta v. US

Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA (filed January 12, 2007); Lakusta v. Simms, 07-05161-JSW (filed October 9,

2007).

The initial bankruptcy appeal was dismissed without prejudice by this Court because, after being

granted two extensions to file his opening brief, Lakusta failed to perfect the record and filed an

unintelligible opening brief. See In re Alexis Mager Lakusta, C 06-03431-SBA, Docket No. 25. In

Lakusta v. US Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA, the Court denied Lakusta’s “emergency” request to place the

briefing schedule on hold in that action and ordered Lakusta to file an opening brief by July 16, 2007,

or be prepared to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Lakusta

v. US Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA, Docket Nos. 21 & 22. Because Lakusta failed to file an opening brief,

that case was dismissed for failure to prosecute on September 25, 2007.

Lakusta commenced the instant bankruptcy appeal pro se in this Court on June 13, 2007. Lakusta

again appeals the bankruptcy court’s May 12, 2006 Order Denying Debtor’s Motion for Abandonment.

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 7 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On November 6, 2007 – nearly five months after this case was initially filed – the Court ordered Lakusta

to file an opening brief by no later than December 5, 2007. Specifically in light of Lakusta’s repeated

history of requesting extensions to file opening briefs, the order unambiguously stated: “If appellant fails

to file a brief by this date, this case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” See Docket No. 14 at 1

(emphasis in original).

True to form, rather than file an opening brief, and in direct violation of this Court’s order, on

December 5, 2007, Lakusta filed an “Application for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief, ” “Judge

Armstrong’s order not withstanding.” Docket No. 15 at 1. The gravamen of this motion appears to be that

Lakusta has so multiplied the proceedings related to the underlying bankruptcy case (he has, by his own

tally, one appeal pending before the California Court of Appeal, two appeals pending before this Court,

and two appeals pending before the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit) that he cannot keep

up with the briefing schedule in all of them. However, while Lakusta states that “an extension of time

to file and serve his opening brief in this appeal is not unreasonable in light of the concurrent filing

deadlines in immediately related cases,” Lakusta identifies no such “concurrent filing deadlines,” and,

in any case, Lakusta was afforded nearly six months from the date he filed the instant appeal to file an

opening brief.

Despite the Court’s admonition that if he failed to timely file an opening brief this case would be

dismissed, Lakusta failed to timely file an opening brief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED. Lakusta’s bankruptcy appeal is dismissed, this

time WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/10/08 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 8 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IN RE: ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-03085 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 10, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

 U.S. Bankruptcy Court, No. District of CA (San Francisco)

Clerk’s Office

235 Pine Street

P.O. Box 7341

San Francisco, CA 94120-7341

 U.S. Trustee

Office of the U.S. Trustee/SF

235 Pine Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

Alexis Mager Lakusta

1259 El Camino Real #245

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Thomas E. Carlson

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

USBC-San Francisco

235 Pine St

P.O. Box 7341

San Francisco, CA 94104

Dated: January 10, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 9 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

See In re Lakusta, 2007 WL 2255230 (N.D. Cal. August 3, 2007) (affirming bankruptcy

court's September 8, 2006 order in adversary case no. 03-3549 TC (Chapter 7 case no. 02-31521

STC) declaring Lakusta a vexatious litigant).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE

ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA, 

Debtor.

 /

No. C 07-03085 SBA

ORDER

The instant bankruptcy appeal appears to be the fourth of five cases that debtor Alexis Mager

Lakusta, who has been declared a vexatious litigant by the bankruptcy court,1 has filed in federal district

court since May of 2006, all of which appear to arise from, in one fashion or another, an underlying

bankruptcy ruling Lakusta considers unfavorable. See In re Alexis Mager Lakusta, C 06-03431-SBA

(filed May 26, 2006); Lakusta v. Evans et al, C 06-06105-PJH (filed September 29, 2006); Lakusta v. US

Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA (filed January 12, 2007); Lakusta v. Simms, 07-05161-JSW (filed October 9,

2007).

The initial bankruptcy appeal was dismissed without prejudice by this Court because, after being

granted two extensions to file his opening brief, Lakusta failed to perfect the record and filed an

unintelligible opening brief. See In re Alexis Mager Lakusta, C 06-03431-SBA, Docket No. 25. In

Lakusta v. US Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA, the Court denied Lakusta’s “emergency” request to place the

briefing schedule on hold in that action and ordered Lakusta to file an opening brief by July 16, 2007,

or be prepared to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Lakusta

v. US Trustee, C 07-00227-SBA, Docket Nos. 21 & 22. Because Lakusta failed to file an opening brief,

that case was dismissed for failure to prosecute on September 25, 2007.

Lakusta commenced the instant bankruptcy appeal pro se in this Court on June 13, 2007. Lakusta

again appeals the bankruptcy court’s May 12, 2006 Order Denying Debtor’s Motion for Abandonment.

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 10 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On November 6, 2007 – nearly five months after this case was initially filed – the Court ordered Lakusta

to file an opening brief by no later than December 5, 2007. Specifically in light of Lakusta’s repeated

history of requesting extensions to file opening briefs, the order unambiguously stated: “If appellant fails

to file a brief by this date, this case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” See Docket No. 14 at 1

(emphasis in original).

True to form, rather than file an opening brief, and in direct violation of this Court’s order, on

December 5, 2007, Lakusta filed an “Application for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief, ” “Judge

Armstrong’s order not withstanding.” Docket No. 15 at 1. The gravamen of this motion appears to be that

Lakusta has so multiplied the proceedings related to the underlying bankruptcy case (he has, by his own

tally, one appeal pending before the California Court of Appeal, two appeals pending before this Court,

and two appeals pending before the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit) that he cannot keep

up with the briefing schedule in all of them. However, while Lakusta states that “an extension of time

to file and serve his opening brief in this appeal is not unreasonable in light of the concurrent filing

deadlines in immediately related cases,” Lakusta identifies no such “concurrent filing deadlines,” and,

in any case, Lakusta was afforded nearly six months from the date he filed the instant appeal to file an

opening brief.

Despite the Court’s admonition that if he failed to timely file an opening brief this case would be

dismissed, Lakusta failed to timely file an opening brief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED. Lakusta’s bankruptcy appeal is dismissed, this

time WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/10/08 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 11 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IN RE: ALEXIS MAGER LAKUSTA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-03085 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 10, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

 U.S. Bankruptcy Court, No. District of CA (San Francisco)

Clerk’s Office

235 Pine Street

P.O. Box 7341

San Francisco, CA 94120-7341

 U.S. Trustee

Office of the U.S. Trustee/SF

235 Pine Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

Alexis Mager Lakusta

1259 El Camino Real #245

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Thomas E. Carlson

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

USBC-San Francisco

235 Pine St

P.O. Box 7341

San Francisco, CA 94104

Dated: January 10, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-03085-SBA Document 19 Filed 01/10/08 Page 12 of 12