alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Detroit_950011_1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

BASSAM SWAYDAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS 

SERVICING, LP, 

Defendant. 

_____________________________________/

Case No. 2: 09-cv-11760 

Hon. Bernard A. Friedman 

Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk 

 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL and REMANDING PLAINTIFF’S 

STATE LAW CLAIMS TO STATE COURT

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Count I (accounting), Count II (wrongful foreclosure), 

Count III (violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1639), Count V (violation of Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1601 et seq.), Count VIII (defamation of credit/violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act), and 

Count XII (usury/violation of Usury Act, MCL § 438.31 et seq.) are dismissed against Defendant 

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s remaining claims (Counts IV, VI, VII, 

Count IX, Count X, XI, and XIII), as against Defendant Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, 

LP, are remanded to the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan. 

 s/Bernard A. Friedman_________ 

United States District Court Judge 

September 8, 2009 

Case 2:09-cv-11760-BAF-MJH Document 16 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 1 of 2
Detroit_950011_1 

Stipulated as to entry:

LANDIS & DAY, PLC 

By: /s/ with consent of Kassem M. Dakhlallah

 Kassem M. Dakhlallah (P70842) 

614 S. Main Street 

Plymouth, Michigan 48170 

(734) 667-5310 

kassemd@landisday.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BODMAN LLP 

By: /s/ Michelle T. Thomas 

Michelle T. Thomas (P70907) 

6th Floor at Ford Field 

1901 St. Antoine Street 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 259-7777 

mthomas@bodmanllp.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Countrywide Home 

Loans Servicing, LP 

Case 2:09-cv-11760-BAF-MJH Document 16 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21  SUBSIDIARIES OF SAMSONITE CORPORATION (Delaware)
 
 (Ownership Interest of 100% Unless Otherwise Indicated)


|                                                 | 
|------------------------------------------------ | 
|Samsonite Europe N.V.                            | 
|Samsonite S.A.                                   | 
|Samsonite Limited                                | 
|Samsonite B.V.                                   | 
|Samsonite Ges.m.b.H.                             | 
|Samsonite GmbH                                   | 
|Samsonite Hungaria Borond KFT                    | 
|Samsonite Finanziaria S.r.l.                     | 
|Samsonite SpA (60% joint venture)                | 
|Samsonite Espana S.A.                            | 
|Samsonite AB (Aktiebolag)                        | 
|Samsonite A/S                                    | 
|Samsonite AG                                     | 
|Samsonite Slovakia S.r.o.                        | 
|Samsonite Sp. z o.o.                             | 
|Samsonite Finland Oy                             | 
|Samsonite CZ spol. s.r.o.                        | 
|Samsonite Mauritius Limited                      | 
|Samsonite India
     Limited (60% joint venture) | 
|Samsonite Singapore Pte Ltd (80% joint venture)  | 
|Samsonite Asia Limited                           | 
|Samsonite Hong Kong
     Limited                 | 
|Samsonite Korea Limited (80% joint venture)      | 
|Samsonite Latinoamerica, S.A. de C.V.            | 
|Samsonite Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                   | 
|Samsonite Comercio E Participacoes Ltda.         | 
|Samsonite Industrial E Comercial Ltda.           | 
|Samsonite Canada Inc.                            | 
|Samson S.A. de C.V.                              | 
|Samsonite Mercosur Limited (51% joint venture)   | 
|Samsonite Brasil Ltda.                           | 
|Samsonite Argentina S.A.                         | 
|Lonberg
     Express S.A.                        | 
|Samsonite Company Stores, Inc.                   | 
|Samsonite Pacific Ltd.                           | 
|Direct Marketing Ventures, Inc.                  | 





|Samsonite Holdings Inc.   |  | Delaware | 
|------------------------- |  | -------- | 
|Astrum R.E. Corp.         |  | Delaware | 
|McGregor II, LLC          |  | Delaware | 
|Hortex
     Incorporated  |  | Texas    | 
|McGregor China
     Corp. |  | Delaware | 
|Jody Apparel II, LLC      |  | Delaware | 
|WMI II, LLC               |  | Delaware |
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3900

AN ACT

To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act

other purposes.to provide greater planting flexibility, and for
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3900

AN ACT

To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to provide

greater planting flexibility, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION. 1. INCREASED PLANTING FLEXIBILITY.—

4 Section 118 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7
2

•HR 3900 EH

1 U.S.C. 7218) is amended by adding the following new

2 paragraph to subsection (b)(2):

3 ‘‘(D) by a producer on contract acreage

4 following a crop that fails due to conditions be5 yond the producer’s control.’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection

7 118(b)(2) is amended:

8 (a) at the end of paragraph (B), by striking ‘‘or’’;

9 and

10 (b) in clause (ii) of paragraph (C), by striking ‘‘vege11 table.’’ and inserting ‘‘vegetable; or’’.

12 SEC. 3. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM REGU13 LATIONS.—Not later than September 15, 1996, the Sec14 retary shall issue regulations to implement the Conserva15 tion Reserve Program (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.), as amend16 ed by section 332 of the Federal Agricultural Improve17 ment and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–127,

18 April 4, 1996).

Passed the House of Representatives July 26, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
125519.1 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit A Summons and Complaint in American Media, Inc. v. Epic Media Group 

Exhibit B March 2012 e-mail from Vito Lella to David Graff 

Exhibit C E-mail Notification of lawsuit filed by David Halliday against Connexus 

Corporation 

Exhibit D Blog Article entitled “Former Epic Execs: Leaving A Sinking Ship?” 

Exhibit E Blog Article entitled “Epic Fails: Who Is Next?” 

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM Doc # 287-1 Filed 05/15/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 7518
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 15, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00596

- CV

BROWN SIMS, P.C . and Nelson D. Skyler

, Appellant s

v.

L.W. MATTESON, INC ., AGCS Marine Insurance Company, and New York Marine and

General Insurance Company,

Appell ee s

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 18

- 55

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Jud ge Presiding



### ORDER

On September 28, 2018, appellants filed a letter informing this court that the reporter’s

record was incomplete. The same day, the court reporter filed an additional record, completing

the reporter’s record. Thus, appellants’ brief became due on October 12, 2018.

On October 2, 2018, appellants filed a motion for extension of time, requesting a forty

(40) day extension from October 3, 2018. Appellants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART. We

extend appellants’ briefing deadline by twenty (20) days from the current deadline. Accordingly,

appellants’ brief is due on or before November 1, 2018.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of October, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

RUTH MOSHOLDER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-11829

PATRICIA BARNHARDT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE

AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE

On October 5, 2010, the court conducted a telephone conference in this case.

During the conference, Defendants’ counsel agreed that Defendants would not need to

admit into evidence the results of the arbitration if the parties are able to reach a

mutually acceptable stipulation related to whether Plaintiff alleges any violation of the

collective bargaining agreement. Counsel for both parties indicated that such a

stipulation was likely, and would be included within the jointly-prepared jury instructions. 

Thus, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion in limine seeking to exclude the arbitration

results without prejudice to the right of Plaintiff to reinstate the motion if a stipulation is

not reached.

Further, the court discussed with the parties Defendants’ recently-filed motion in

limine. Counsel agreed that the outcome of the motion is potentially dispositive of the

case. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he would file a response to the motion by Friday,

October 8, 2010. Counsel also agreed to attempt to stipulate to a list of facts which are

undisputed for the purposes of this motion only. If counsel are able to stipulate to such
2

facts, the court will endeavor to treat the motion in limine as one filed under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion in limine [Dkt. # 19] is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendants’ motion

in limine [Dkt. # 20] by October 8, 2010. Counsel shall also attempt to file a joint

statement of facts by October 8, 2010. Defendants shall file their optional reply by

October 13, 2010. Unless otherwise ordered, the court will not conduct a hearing on

this motion. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2).

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 7, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, October 7, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-11829.MOSHOLDER.MIL.wpd
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 149 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44986-44987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17638]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13194-000]


FFP Missouri 13, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

July 25, 2008.
    On April 22, 2008, FFP Missouri 13, LLC (Free Flow Power 
Corporation) filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the 
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Missouri 
River 13 Project, to be located in the Missouri River in Gasconade and 
Montgomery Counties, Missouri.

[[Page 44987]]

    The proposed Missouri River 13 project consists of: (1) 3,960 
proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total 
installed capacity of 79.2-megawatts, (2) a mooring system, (3) a 
proposed transmission line, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The 
proposed Missouri River Project 13 would have an average annual 
generation of 346,896-gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local 
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irwin, Free Flow Power 
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, phone: 978/
232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis (202) 502-8735.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13194) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17638 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of China
Southern Airlines Company Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tan Wan Geng, President of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
my knowledge, that:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: April 30, 2015 | By:                | /s/Tan Wan Geng
|-------------------- | ------------------ | ---------------
|                     | Name: Tan Wan Geng
|                     |                   
|                     | Title: President  



* This certification accompanies the Report
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



* A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3920

To amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known

as the Paperwork Reduction Act, to require that collections of information that ask a respondent to specify a racial classification or ethnic

classification from among a list of classifications shall provide an opportunity for the respondent to specify, respectively, ‘‘multiracial’’ or ‘‘multiethnic’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 30, 1996

Mr. PETRI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act, to require

that collections of information that ask a respondent

to specify a racial classification or ethnic classification

from among a list of classifications shall provide an

opportunity for the respondent to specify, respectively,

‘‘multiracial’’ or ‘‘multiethnic’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3920 IH

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO

2 SPECIFY ‘‘MULTIRACIAL’’ OR ‘‘MULTIETHNIC’’,

3 RESPECTIVELY, AS RACIAL OR ETHNIC CLAS4 SIFICATION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3507 of title 44, United

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow7 ing new subsection:

8 ‘‘(k) The Director may not approve a collection of in9 formation that would request or direct a respondent to

10 specify a racial classification from among a list of racial

11 classifications, or an ethnic classification from among a

12 list of ethnic classifications, the approval of such a collec13 tion of information by the Director shall not be inferred,

14 and an agency shall not sponsor or conduct such a collec15 tion of information, unless the list provides an opportunity

16 for the respondent to specify ‘multiracial’, in the case of

17 a list of racial classifications, or ‘multiethnic’, in the case

18 of a list of ethnic classifications.’’.

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

20 subsection (a) shall take effect January 1, 1997.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

WILLARD L. SLOAN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-10918 –PDB-MKM 

 ) 

BORGWARNER INC., et al. ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

STIPULATION BETWEEN NON-PARTY UAW, PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 

FOR THE ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER

1. On September 1, 2011, Defendants served on non-party International Union, 

United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers (UAW) a Subpoena to 

Produce Documents, Information, or Objects. 

 2. On September 16, 2011, the UAW served its objections to the subpoena in which 

it represented that, notwithstanding its objections, it would produce documents that are relevant 

to the subject matter of the litigation or calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence 

at a mutually agreed time and place. 

 3. In its subpoena, Defendants requested that the UAW produce documents which 

are confidential in nature and therefore the appropriate subject of a protective order. The UAW 

is willing to produce such documents subject to a protective order to be entered by the Court. 

 4. The parties agree to comply with the terms of the attached protective order with 

respect to documents produced by the UAW that contain confidential information. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 90 Filed 12/13/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1643
 IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED that the attached protective order 

may be entered by the Court to govern the production of the documents described therein. 

Dated: December 13, 2011 

s/ with consent of Barry A. Macey s/Joshua David Rogaczewski

Barry A. Macey, (Ind. Bar No. 8964-49) Joshua David Rogaczewski 

MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

445 N. Pennsylvania Street 600 13th Street N.W. 

Suite 401 Washington, D.C. 20005 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (202)756-8195 

Telephone: (317) 637-2345 Email: jrogaczewski@mwe.com

Email: bmacey@maceylaw.com 

Attorneys for UAW Attorneys for Defendants 

s/ with consent of David Radtke

David Radtke 

KLIMIST, McKNIGHT, SALE, McCLOW & 

CANZANO, P.C. 

400 Galleria Officentre, Suite 117 

Southfield, MI 48034 

Telephone: (248) 354-9650 

Email: dradtke@kmsmc.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 90 Filed 12/13/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1644
AO 440 (Rev. 02/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Eastern District of Michigan

Clifton E Jackson, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:09−cv−11529−DML−VMM

Hon. David M. Lawson

Segwick Claims Management Services,

Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc.

 A lawsuit has been filed against you.

 Within 20 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

Marshall D. Lasser

P.O. Box 2579

Southfield, MI

48037

If you fail to respond, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You

also must file your answer or motion with the court.

DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT By: s/ L. Behringer 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Date of Issuance: May 8, 2009

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 05/08/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 68
AO 440 (Rev. 02/09) Summons in a Civil Action

Summons and Complaint Return of Service

Case No. 2:09−cv−11529−DML−VMM

Hon. David M. Lawson

A copy of the Summons and Complaint has been served in the manner indicated below:

Name of Defendant Served: Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc.

Date of Service:

Method of Service

Personally served at this address:

Left copies at defendant's usual place of abode with (name of person):

Other (specify):

Returned unexecuted (reason):

Service Fees: Travel $ Service $ Total $ 

Declaration of Server

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the information contained in this Return of Service is true and correct.

Name of Server:

Signature of Server:

Date:

Server's Address:

2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 05/08/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 69
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID J. SCOTT, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-CV-12129

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.

BERNADETTE STONE, MICHAEL

LEWIS, JAN BIGELOW, and TRACIE

SHAW, 

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF TRIAL DATE

[#41], CONDITIONALLY GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL [#42] AND RESCHEDULING FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

On May 28, 2010, this court entered an order granting plaintiff’s renewed motion to

reopen case, scheduled a final pretrial conference for June 22, 2010, and a trial date of

July 6, 2010. Defendants filed a motion for adjournment of trial date on June 7, 2010.

Defendants request that the court postpone trial until the week of July 19, 2010 due to

scheduling conflicts with the July 6, 2010 trial date. The court grants defendants’ motion

for adjournment of trial date and trial shall commence on July 19, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.

On June 17, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, arguing that

he is unable to afford counsel and that he has limited knowledge of the law. The court

notes that in case number 03-75123, which involved the same claims and parties that are

present in this matter, Kurt Koehler, at the court’s request agreed to represent plaintiff at
-2-

trial. However, on the day of trial, plaintiff requested that Mr. Koehler move for voluntary

dismissal of the case pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which

the court granted. Hours later that same day, plaintiff initiated the instant action. Based

on this procedural history, the court conditionally grants plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of counsel. The court will attempt to locate an attorney willing to represent

plaintiff on a pro bono basis, however should this endeavor be unsuccessful, the court will

require plaintiff to proceed with the presentation of his case, up to and including

representing himself at trial. 

On June 22, 2010, the court was advised that plaintiff was detained at the Livingston

County Jail and would be unable to attend the pretrial conference. Therefore, the final

pretrial conference in this matter is rescheduled to July 8, 2010 at 11:00 a.m.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for adjournment of trial date is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is

CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final pretrial conference is scheduled for July

8, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that trial shall commence on July 19, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.

Dated: June 23, 2010

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of

record on

June 23, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk