MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - … for Partial Summary Judgment. ... Florida attorney whose office is in downtown Jacksonville, to represent the Navajo Children and Family Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

RONALD COLBERT, andJERRI COLBERT,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No.: 3:09-cv-998-HES-JRK

The UNITED STATES OFAI”IERICA, KANDIS MARTINE,and PV HOLDING CORP.,d/b/a BUDGET RENT-A-CARSYSTEM, INC., a foreigncorporation,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW Defendant Kandis Martine, by and through her

undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56 moves the Court for the entry of Partial Summary

Judgment in her favor. As grounds in support of her Motion,

Defendant STATES:

1. There is no genuine issue of material fact and

Defendant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law that she

is deemed to be an employee of the United States because she

was performing work under a 93-638 Contract with the United

States when the accident that is the subject of this dispute

occurred.

1

Case 3:09-cv-00998-HES-JRK Document 46 Filed 10/25/10 Page 1 of 21 PageID 557



was not acting in her individual capacity when the accident

that is the subject of this dispute occurred.

3. All Plaintiffs and Defendants, with the exception of

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA concur in this Motion.

4. Because of the nature of the relief requested, the

concurrence of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in this Motion was

not sought.

5. A Memorandum of Legal Authority in support of the

above requested relief follows below.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs sue for the injuries allegedly suffered by

them due to an accident that occurred on April 2, 2007 in

Jacksonville, Florida. Defendant Kandis Martine, was in the

area to observe a hearing on behalf of the Navajo Children and

Family Services Program (ICWA), a program administered

pursuant to a 638 Contract with the United States Department

of the Interior1. Ms. Martine mistakenly turned the wrong way

on a one-way street. A vehicle driven by James Murphy, was

1 The Indian self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975(“Indian Self Determination Act”), which is codified at 25 u.s.c. §~45oato 450n, was enacted by Public Law No 93-638, and contracts between theunited States of America and Indian Tribes are known as “638 contracts”.

2


able to stop and avoid the vehicle being driven by Ms.

Martine, but a third vehicle being driven by Plaintiff Ronald

Colbert was unable to stop in time and rear-ended the Murphy

vehicle. Ms. Martine is being sued both as an individual and

as an employee of the Navajo Nation that was working pursuant

to a 638 Contract with the United States of America.

On this date, Defendant Kandis Martine hereby files a

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. There are certain

material facts that are not in dispute and she is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law that she is deemed to be an

employee of the United States because she was performing work

under a 638 Contract when the accident that is the subject of

this dispute occurred, and that no claims remain against her

as an individual.

II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

For purposes of this Summary Judgment proceeding2

Defendants contend there are no genuine issues as to the

following material facts:

1. On March 09, 2006, the Navajo Nation entered into a

model contract with the United States Department of the

2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of civil Procedure 56, “[tlhe judgment soughtshould be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosurematerials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuineissue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled tojudgment as a matter of law.”

3


Interior to administer the Navajo Children and Family Services

Program (ICWA) . See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at

¶3 and Exhibit 1 attached thereto (93-638 Contract with the

United States Department of the Interior)

2. This 93-638 Contract incorporates by reference the

annual funding agreement that was in effect in 2007 (the year

the accident giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred) . See

Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶4 and Exhibit 2

attached thereto (2007 Annual Funding Agreement)

3. Pursuant to the 2007 Annual Funding Agreement,

“[flor purposes of Federal Tort Claims Act coverage, the

Navajo Nation and its employees are deemed to be employees of

the Federal government while performing work under the

contract. This status is not changed by the source of the

funds used by the Navajo Nation to pay the employee’s salary

and benefits unless the employee receives additional

compensation for performing covered services from anyone other

than the Navajo Nation.” See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina

Yazzie at ¶s and Exhibit 2, p. 13, attached thereto (2007

Annual Funding Agreement)

4. Pursuant to Attachment A of 2007 Annual Funding

Agreement, “[t]he goal of the Navajo Children and Family

Services (NCPS) Program, Indian Child Welfare Act Unit, is to

4


prevent the break up of Navajo families, to protect the best

interest of Navajo children and to promote the stability of

Navajo families.” See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at

¶s and last two pages of Exhibit 2 attached thereto (“Scope of

Work”, Attachment A to the 2007 Annual Funding Agreement).

5. On April 2, 2007, in furtherance of this goal, Lucy

Laughter Begay and Defendant Kandis Martine were in

Jacksonville, Florida, to observe the adoption hearing of

“Baby Boy Billy” on behalf of the Navajo Children and Family

Services Program (ICWA) . See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina

Yazzie at ¶~j7, 8 and 9; Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine

at fl4, S and 6; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana

Martine, pp. 14-15, 63-66, and 75-80; and Exhibit 0,

deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16, 18-19, and 34-

36.

6. Specifically, and pursuant to the scope of work of

the Navajo Children and Family Services Program, Kandis

Martine was:

a. Attempting to look out for the best interest

of “Baby Boy Billy” and to promote the Navajo

family by attempting to have him placed with a

Navajo family. See Exhibit A, Affidavit of

Regina Yazzie at ¶9(a); Exhibit B, Affidavit

5


of Kandis Martine at ¶6(a); Exhibit C,

deposition of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 14-15,

63-66, and 75-SO; and Exhibit ID, deposition of

Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16, and 34-36.

b. Working at the direction of Navajo Children

and Families Services to whom the Florida

adoption case had been referred. See Exhibit

A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶9 (b)

Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at

¶6(b); Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana

Martine, pp. 75-SO; and Exhibit 0, deposition

of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16, and 34-36.

c. Provide case management services to “Baby Boy

Billy”. See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina

Yazzie at ¶9(c); Exhibit B, Affidavit of

Kandis Martine at ¶s (c) ; Exhibit C, deposition

of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 75-SO; and

Exhibit 0, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay,

pp. 15-16, and 34-36.

d. Coordinating with Navajo Children and Families

Services on behalf of Navajo children and

families. See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina

Yazzie at ¶g (d) ; Exhibit ~, Affidavit of

S


Kandis Martine at ¶6(d); Exhibit C, deposition

of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 75-80; and

Exhibit 0, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay,

pp. 15-16, and 34-36.

e. Providing education and training on the

provisions of ICWA to Jodi Seitlin. See

Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at

¶9(e); Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine

at ¶6 (e) ; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis

Shana Martine, pp. 75-80; and Exhibit ID,

deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16,

and 34-36.

f. And monitoring the efforts of the State of

Florida to comply with the ICWA. See Exhibit

A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶9(f);

Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at

¶6(f); Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana

Martine, pp. 75-80; and Exhibit 0, deposition

of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16, and 34-36.

7. In the performance of the above work, Ms. Martine

and Ms. Begay, had retained the services of Jodi Seitlin, a

Florida attorney whose office is in downtown Jacksonville, to

represent the Navajo Children and Family Services Program

7


interests in the scheduled adoption hearing. See Exhibit B,

Affidavit of Icandis Martine at ¶7; and Exhibit C, deposition

of Kandis Shana Martine, p. 25.

8. On April 2, 2007, Ms. Martine and Ms. Begay were

scheduled to meet with their attorney prior to the start of

the adoption hearing, and afterwards they were to proceed to

the courthouse for the hearing. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of

Kandis Martine at ¶11; and Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis

Shana Martine, pp. 25-26.

9. Ms. Martine and Ms. Begay were on route to their

attorney’s office in downtown Jacksonville in a rental car,

which had been rented by Ms. Begay, but was being driven by

Ms. Martine, an authorized driver. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of

Kandis Martine at ¶~ja and 9; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis

Shana Martine, pp. 15-16; and Exhibit 0, deposition of Lucy

Laughter Begay, p. 20.

10. Defendant Kandis Martine is an employee of the

“Contractor”, i.e. the Navajo Nation. See Exhibit B, Affidavit

of Kandis Martine at ¶3; and Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis

Shana Martine, pp. 13, 60.

11. Ms. Martine was drivinq at the request of Ms. Beqay

due to the fact that Ms. Begay was uncomfortable driving in

city traffic. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at

S


¶9; and Exhibit D, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp. 31-

32.

12. At that time, Ms. Martine, while looking for

parking, accidentally turned the wrong way down a one way

street. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at ¶118 and

9; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 15-16;

26-27; and Exhibit D, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, p.

20.

III. ARGUNENT

A. THE NAVAJO NATION AND ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE NAVAJO NATIONWHO IS DOING WORK PURSUANT TO A 638 CONTRACT IS DEEMED TO BEAN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF SUIT, WILL BEDEFENDED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND WILL BE AFFORDED THEFULL PROTECTION AND COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT

It is Defendant Kandis Martine’s contention that

liability for Plaintiffs’ claims have, by operation of law,

been assumed by the United States under the Federal Tort

Claims Act and Plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is against the

United States in Federal Court. This Motion for Summary

Judgment centers around the construction of a contract entered

into between the Navajo Nation and the United States

Department of the Interior. The construction of this contract

is a question of law and is suitable for summary judgment.

Cent. Nat. Bank v. Palmer, 806 F. Supp. 253, 256 (M.D. Fla.

S


1992); Quayside Associates, Ltd. v. Harbour Club Villas

Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 419 So.2d 678 (3d DCA Fla.1982)

The Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance

Act of 1975 (“Indian Self Determination Act”), which is

codified at 25 U.S.C. §~45Oa to 450n, was enacted by Public

Law No 93-638. On March 09, 2006, the Navajo Nation entered

into a model Indian Self-Determination Act (93-638) contract

(hereinafter “638 Contract”) with the United States Department

of the Interior to administer the Navajo Children and Family

Services Program (ICWA) , and this contract incorporates by

reference the 2007 annual funding agreement, which was in

effect at the time of the accident that gave rise to the

Plaintiffs’ claims. See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie

at ¶3 and Exhibit 1 attached thereto (93-638 Contract with the

United States Department of the Interior)

Public Law No 101-512, Title III, § 314 provides that the

638 Contractor (i.e., the Navajo Nation) and its employees are

afforded the full protection and coverage of the Federal Tort

Claims Act:

With respect to claims resulting from theperformance of functions during the fiscal year1991 and thereafter resulting from theperformance of functions . . . under a contract

• authorized by the Indian Self Determinationand Education Assistance Act of 1975 . . . anIndian tribe, tribal organization or Indian

10


contractor is deemed hereafter to be a part ofthe Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department ofthe Interior . while carrying out any suchcontract . . . and its employees are deemedemployees of the Bureau . . . while acting withinthe scope of their employment in carrying out thecontract . . . [Amy civil action or proceedinginvolving such claims brought hereafter againstany tribe, tribal organization, Indian contractoror tribal employee covered by this provisionshall be deemed to be an action against theUnited States and will be defended by theAttorney General and be afforded the fullprotection and coverage of the Federal TortClaims Act.

Congress’ purpose in extending FTCA coverage to Indian tribes

carrying out 638 Contract was (1) to allow the federal

government to maintain the same level of exposure associated

with the operation of federal Indian programs, such as health

care and law enforcement, that it had before the enactment of

the Indian Self-Determination Act and (2) to give the tribes

the protective benefit of the FTCA. See S. Rep. No. 100-274,

100th Cong. 2d Sess. (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.S.N.

2620, 2646—2647.

Further guidance on this issue is given by section 25

C.F.R. § 900.197:

§ 900.197 Does FTCA cover employees of thecontractor3 who are paid by the contractor from

3 Note that pursuant to 25 c.F.R. § 9Do.6, “contractor” means an Indiantribe to which a contract has been awarded. 25 c.F.R. § 900.6. In thepresent case, the “contractor” is the Navajo Nation. See Exhibit A,Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶3 and Exhibit 1 attached thereto (93-638contract with the United States Department of the Interior)

11


funds other than those provided through the self-determination contract?

Yes, as long as the services out of which theclaim arose were performed in carrying out theself-determination contract.

25 C.F.R. § 900.197 (emphasis added).

In the present case, both of the above laws and

regulations are emphasized in the 2007 Annual Funding

Agreement for the 638 Contract, which states that

For purposes of Federal Tort Claims Act coverage,the Navajo Nation and its employees are deemed tobe employees of the Federal government whileperforming work under the contract. This statusis not changed by the source of the funds used bythe Navajo Nation to pay the employee’s salaryand benefits unless the employee receivesadditional compensation for performing coveredservices from anyone other than the NavajoNation.

See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶4 and Exhibit 2

attached thereto (2007 Annual Funding Agreement)

There is no dispute in this case that Kandis Martine is,

and was at the time of the accident, an employee of the

Contractor, the Navajo Nation. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of

Kandis Martine at ¶3; and Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis

Shana Martine, pp. 13, 60. The only questions that remains is

whether Defendant Kandis Martine was performing work pursuant

to the 638 Contract at the time of the accident that gave rise

to this suit.

12


B. DEFENDANT KANDIS MARTINE WAS PERFORMING WORK UNDER THECONTRACT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THAT GIVES RISE TOPLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM.

Attachment A to this Annual Funding Agreement is entitled

“Scope of Work”, and this attachment sets forth in specific

detail the goals and work to be undertaken by the Navajo

Nation under that particular 638 Contract. See Exhibit A,

Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶6 and last two pages of Exhibit

2 attached thereto (“Scope of Work”, Attachment A to the 2007

Annual Funding Agreement) . In particular, the scope of work

states that “[t]he goal of the Navajo Children and Family

Services (NCPS) Program, Indian Child Welfare Act Unit, is to

prevent the break up of Navajo families, to protect the best

interest of Navajo children and to promote the stability of

Navajo families.” Id.

Ms. Martine, in her attached Affidavit, and her

Deposition on August 26, 2010, stated that she and Ms. Bagay

were specifically working to further this goal by “attempting

to look out for the best interest of [Baby Boy Billy] and

promote the Navajo family by having that child placed with a

Navajo family.” See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at

¶1J7, S and 9; Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at ¶~4, S

and 6; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 14-

13


15, 63-66, and 75-80; and Exhibit D, deposition of Lucy

Laughter Begay, pp. 15-16, 18-19, and 34-36.

The Scope of Work further specifies the particular

activities to be undertaken by the Navajo Nation and its

employees in furtherance of the 638 Contract:

1. NCFS Program receives written/oral referralson Navajo children whose cases are pending instate court due to neglect, abuse, terminationof parental rights and/or adoption.

2. NCFS Program maintains a master file on allICWA referrals and cases.

3. Coordinate with the Navajo Nation Office ofVital Records of each referred child’seligibility of enrollment with the NavajoNation,

4. Provide case management services to eligibleNavajo children and families.

5. Request coordination of legal services fromthe Navajo Nation Department of Justice onbehalf of Navajo children and families, whenapplicable.

6. Identify and recruit potential adoptive andkinship homes for Navajo children.

7. Provide special needs assistance to Navajochildren and families depending onavailability of funds.

8. Monitor and facilitate existingIntergovernmental Agreements (IGA) withapplicable states.

9. Provide education and training on theprovisions of ICWA.

14


10. Provide statistical reports in accordance tothe Government Performance and Results Act of1993 on a quarterly basis.

11. Monitor the efforts made by the State tocomply with the ICWA4, such as, placementpreference and whether active efforts arebeing provided.

4 Note that “IcwA” here refers to the Indian child Welfare Act andnot the 638 program. ICWA is a federal law that the Navajo Nation hastaken partial responsibility in enforcing. This law was passed in orderto protect Indian tribes and Indian children, and it is part statesthat:

Recognizing the special relationship between the UnitedStates and the Indian tribes and their members and theFederal responsibility to Indian people, the congressfinds—

***

(2) that congress, through statutes, treaties, and thegeneral course of dealing with Indian tribes, has assumedthe responsibility for the protection and preservation ofIndian tribes and their resources;

(3) that there is no resource that is more vital to thecontinued existence and integrity of Indian tribes thantheir children and that the United States has a directinterest, as trustee, in protecting Indian children whoare members of or are eligible for membership in anIndian tribe;

(4) that an alarmingly high percentage of Indian familiesare broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of theirchildren from them by nontribal public and privateagencies and that an alarmingly high percentage of suchchildren are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptivehomes and institutions; and

(5) that the States, exercising their recognizedjurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedingsthrough administrative and judicial bodies, have often

uc Lecoynize Lue essenuidi Litbal aelaLioubIndian people and the cultural and social standardsprevailing in Indian communities and families.

25 U.S.c.A. § 1901 (emphasis added)

15


See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at ¶s and last two

pages of Exhibit 2 attached thereto (“Scope of Work”,

Attachment A to the 2007 Annual Funding Agreement).

When asked about which of these sections related to the

work being undertaken by Ms. Martine at the time of the

accident, she replied that she was undertaking “one, four,

five, nine and eleven”. Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis

Martine, p. 77. Specifically, she testified:

[GOAL] Attempting to look out for the bestinterest of “Baby Boy Billy” and to promote theNavajo family by attempting to have him placedwith a Navajo family;

[1] Working at the direction of Navajo Childrenand Families Services (ICWA) to whom the Floridaadoption case had been referred;

[4] provide case management services to “Baby BoyBilly”;

[5] Coordinating with Navajo Children andFamilies Services on behalf of Navajo childrenand families;

[9] Providing education and training on theprovisions of ICWA to Jodi Seitlin; and

[11] Monitoring the efforts of the State ofFlorida to comply with the ICWA.

See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at ¶6(a); Exhibit

C. d~nn~itHnn of Tcandis Shana Martine. rn. 14-15. 63-66. and

75-80; and Exhibit ID, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, pp.

16


15-16, and 34-36. (bracketed numbers added for easy reference

back to the “Scope of Work”)

In the performance of this work, Ms. Martine and Ms.

Begay, had retained the services of Jodi Seitlin, a Florida

attorney whose office is in downtown Jacksonville. See Exhibit

B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at ¶7; and Exhibit C,

deposition of Kandis Shana Martine, p. 25. They specifically

retained her to represent the Navajo Children and Family

Services Program interests in the “Baby Boy Billy” adoption

hearing. Id. On April 2, 2007, Ms. Martine and Ms. Begay were

set to meet with Ms. Seitlin prior to the start of the

adoption hearing, and afterwards they were to proceed to the

courthouse for the hearing. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis

Martine at ¶11; and Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana

Martine, pp. 25-26.

Ms. Martine and Ms. Begay were in route to their

attorney’s office in downtown Jacksonville in a rental car,

which had been rented by Ms. Begay, but was being driven by

Ms. Martine, an authorized driver. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of

Kandis Martine at ¶~js and 9; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis

Shana Martine, pp. 15-16; and Exhibit 0, deposition of Lucy

Laughter Begay, p. 20. Ms. Martine was driving at the request

of Ms. Begay due to the fact that Ms. Begay was uncomfortable

17


driving in city traffic. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis

Martine at ¶9; and Exhibit 0, deposition of Lucy Laughter

Begay, pp. 31-32. At that time, Ms. Martine, while looking for

parking, accidentally turned the wrong way down a one way

street. See Exhibit B, Affidavit of Kandis Martine at ¶~j8 and

9; Exhibit C, deposition of Kandis Shana Martine, pp. 15-15;

26-27; and Exhibit D, deposition of Lucy Laughter Begay, p.

20. It is this action that Plaintiffs’ say is the primary

cause of their injuries.

Based on these undisputed facts, Defendant Kandis

Martine, an employee of the Contractor (i.e., the Navajo

Nation) , was doing work under and in furtherance of the 638

Contract with the United States Department of the Interior,

and so this action must be deemed to be an action against the

United States, be defended by the Attorney General and be

afforded the full protection and coverage of the Federal Tort

Claims Act. Public Law No 101-512, Title III, § 314; See also

25 C.F.R. § 900.197; Exhibit A, Affidavit of Regina Yazzie at

¶4 and Exhibit 2 attached thereto (2007 Annual Funding

Agreement)

18


IV. CONCLUSION

Liability for Plaintiffs’ claims have, by operation of

law, been assumed by the United States under the Federal Tort

Claims Act and Plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is against the

United States in Federal Court. The Navajo Nation has an

Indian Self-Determination Act (93-638) contract with the

Department of the Interior of the United States of America to

administer the Navajo Children and Family Services Program

(ICwA) . The law and this 638 Contract specifically provide

that any employee of the Navajo Nation that is doing work in

furtherance of this 638 Contract is deemed to be an employee

of the United States for purposes of suit.

The undisputed facts of this case clearly show that

Defendant Kandis Martine was acting pursuant and in

furtherance of this 638 Contract when the accident that gives

rise to this suit occurred. As such, this civil action must be

deemed an action against the United States, defended by the

Attorney General, and afforded the full protection and

coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Kandis Martine respectfully requests

that the Court enter partial Summary Judgment in her favor,

and find that:

19




is deemed to be an employee of the United States because she

was performing work under a 93-638 Contract with the United

States when the accident that is the subject of this dispute

occurred.



was not acting in her individual capacity when the accident

that is the subject of this dispute occurred.

Respectfully submitted,MASON & ISAAC5ON, P.A.

-4,ByPab~acic)~..— . ãsoNew Mexico Bar #: 27091Federal Bar ID: #9mc5-167104 E AztecPC Box 1772Gallup, NM 87305p. mason@milawf irm . net(505) 722-4463fax: (505) 722-2629


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof hasbeen furnished by ELECTRONIC SERVICE via the Courts ElectronicFiling and Service to:

R Frank Myers, Esq.Pearson & Myers, P.A.703 N. Monroe St.Tallahassee, FL 32303-6138

Matthew N. Posgay, Esq.Coker, Schickel, Sorenson & Posgay, PA,136 E. Bay St.Jacksonville, FL 32201

Ronnie Carter, Esq.United States Attorney’s Office300 N. Hogan St., Suite 700Jacksonville, FL 32202

jA

this cZc~~day of October, 2010

Mason


Documents

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - … for Partial Summary Judgment. ... Florida attorney whose office is in downtown Jacksonville, to represent the Navajo Children and Family Services