Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Tonii Greene and Tricia Greene,

Civil File No. 09-CV-719 (DWF/JJK)
Plaintiffs,

v.

Home Loan Services, Inc. d/b/a First

Franklin Loan Services, and U.S. Bank,
N.A., as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage
Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2005-FF10,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Rules 6, 26, 31, 33, 36, and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of Court, and pursuant to this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling

Order of August 1, 2010, Plaintiffs Tonii Greene and Tricia Greene move this Court to

Compel Defendant U.S. Bank as trustee of First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage

Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-FF10’s to fully answer Admissions Number 5,

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35,

Special Interrogatory, Interrogatories Number 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 17 and provide all

documents responsive to Document Request Number 1 and to award sanctions.

1
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 16

FACTS

Defendant First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass Through

Certificates, Series 2005-FF10 (“Trust”) foreclosed on Plaintiffs’ home by sheriff’s sale

on September 30, 2008. Defendant U.S. Bank National Association, is the trustee of the

Trust.

First Franklin was the Plaintiffs’ original lender and original holder of the

Plaintiffs’ note and incident mortgage. Plaintiffs’ home is located on certain real

property at 4670 Stonecliffe Drive, Eagan, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 4, Block

2, Pinetree Pass 3rd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County,

Minnesota (“Home” or “Property”). On August 9, 2005 the Greenes received a loan from

First Franklin in the form a promissory note in the amount of $737,820 (“Greene Note”).

In exchange for the note, the Greenes executed a mortgage to the benefit of First Franklin

on August 9, 2005 in the original amount of $737,820 (“Greene Mortgage”)

The Trust asserts that it had the power and the right to foreclose of the Green

Mortgage, in part, by way of the chain of assignment. On January 5, 2006, First Franklin,

a Division of National City Bank of Indiana, assigned the subject mortgage to First

Franklin Financial Corporation, by Assignment of Mortgage, recorded January 30, 2006

as Document No. 2401422 (hereinafter “First Assignment”). On February 1, 2008, First

Franklin Financial Corporation assigned the subject mortgage to U.S. Bank National

Association, as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass Through

Certificates, Series 2005-FF10, by Assignment of Mortgage, recorded March 17, 2008 as

Document No. 2577936 (hereinafter “Second Assignment”).

2
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 3 of 16

However, the Greenes assert that the chain of assignment of the Greene mortgage

proffered by Defendants to foreclose is not consistent with the Trust, which goes to

whether the Trust is the proper party to foreclose on the Greene Home. The Trust is a

real estate mortgage investment conduit or “REMIC.” The Greenes assert that the Trust

is governed by the Pooling and Servicing agreement (“PSA”). The PSA makes certain

representations that contradict the chain of title proffered by Defendants to foreclose.

Those representations are as follows:

1. The Trust is Governed by the PSA and by the IRS code:

• First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2005-FF10 is a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit organized

under sections 860A through 860G of Subchapter M of Chapter 1 of the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (“the Code”).

• First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2005-FF10 is governed by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement

(“PSA”) that is Exhibit 4.1 of the 8K Securities and Exchange filing of

November 10, 2005.

2. The PSA Warrants that All Interests that form the Trust Came arose out of a Chain

of Negotiation of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. to Structured Asset Securities

Corporation to the Trust:

3
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 4 of 16

• The PSA, like most mortgage backed securities, creates a chain that goes from

original lender to seller1, seller to depositor, and depositor to trust. The following

is a simple representation of that process:

Seller Depositor Trust

• The PSA indicates that any interests forming the corpus of the trust go from the

“Seller” as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., to the “depositor,” Structured

Asset Securities Corporation, to the Trust.

• On the execution of the PSA, October 1, 2005, Structured Asset Securities

Corporation warranted that it conveyed all right, title, and interest of the

Depositor in the mortgage loans, which are defined as the related notes and

other evidences of indebtedness secured by each mortgage conveyed or

deposited with the Trustee pursuant to Section 2.01(a) of the PSA.

1
The negotiation from original lender to seller can have unlimited intermediaries. For
simplification purposes, this illustration represents this step of the chain as one step. In practice, small
lenders lent money from third-party entities who would buy the loans back from the originating lenders
and sell them off for securitization. The practice of original lenders lending money originating from a
third-party is called “table funding” and was a common practice in the mortgage loan lending heyday of
1995 to 2005.

4
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 5 of 16

• These mortgage loans conveyed by Structured Asset Securities Corporation on

October 1, 2005 include the Greene note and mortgage.

• In connection with the conveyance, above, On October 1, 2005, Structured

Asset Securities Corporation delivered to and deposited with U.S. Bank and/or

the Custodian the original Greene Note endorsed to U.S. Bank without

recourse pursuant to Section 2.01(b)(i) of the PSA.

• In connection with the conveyance, above, On October 1, 2005, Structured

Asset Securities Corporation delivered to and deposited with U.S. Bank and/or

the Custodian the original Greene mortgage assigned to U.S. Bank without

recourse pursuant to Section 2.01(b)(i) and 2.01(b)(v) of the PSA.

• The Greene mortgage loan documents that Structured Asset Securities

Corporation delivered to U.S. Bank were part of the “Mortgage File” as

defined by the PSA.

• U.S. Bank or its agent currently possesses the Mortgage File for First Franklin

Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-FF10.

3. The Trust has a Specific Procedure for Accepting Assets; Any Assets Acquired

After Formation Must Follow Certain Protocols and Be Accompanied by Certain

Documents:

• In connection with the conveyance, above, if any mortgage documents were

discovered that did not appear regular on their face (i.e. mutilated, damaged,

5
Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 6 of 16

defaced, torn, or otherwise physically altered), Structured Asset Securities

Corporation had a duty to cure such defect within 90 days.

• In connection with the conveyance above, On October 1, 2005, Structured

Asset Securities Corporation represented that all assignments of the Greene

mortgage had been recorded pursuant to Section 2.01 (c)(i) of the PSA.

• First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2005-FF10 is a special purpose vehicle that holds the Greene note.

• First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2005-FF10 has a cut-off date of October 1, 2005.

• First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2005-FF10 has a closing date of October 28, 2005.

• The closing date is designated as the “Startup Day” of the trust as a REMIC

with in meaning of section 860G(a)(9) of the Code.

• In connection with the conveyance in admission number 14, above, if any

mortgage documents were discovered that did not appear regular on their face

(i.e. mutilated, damaged, defaced, torn, or otherwise physically altered),

Structured Asset Securities Corporation had a duty to cure such defect within

90 days.

• In connection with the conveyance in admission number 14, above, On

October 1, 2005, Structured Asset Securities Corporation represented that all

assignments of the Greene mortgage had been recorded pursuant to Section

2.01 (c)(i) of the PSA.

6
Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 7 of 16

• On October 1, 2005, Structured Asset Securities Corporation delivered a

Opinion of Counsel addressed to U.S. Bank stating that recording the Greene

mortgage was not required to protect the trustee’s interest in the Greene

mortgage pursuant to Section 2.01(c)(1) of the PSA.

• 45 days after October 28, 2005, U.S. Bank ascertained that, after reviewing all

notes and mortgages received from Structured Asset Securities Corporation, it

possessed all of the notes and mortgage pursuant to Section 2.01 and Section

2.02 of the PSA, including the Greene Note and Mortgage.

• The PSA expressly prohibits U.S. Bank from acquiring an assets for any

REMIC or accepting any contributions to any REMIC after October 28, 2005.

• The only contributions allowed to the trust allowed after October 28, 2005 are

those that fulfill the definition of a “qualifying substitute mortgage loan” as

defined by the PSA.

• A qualified substitute mortgage loan is one that conforms to each

representation and warranty applicable to the deleted mortgage loan in the

mortgage loan sale agreement dated as October 1, 2005 for the sale of the

Mortgage Loans by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. to Structured Asset

Securities Corporation.

• A deleted mortgage loan is a Mortgage Loan that is repurchased from the Trust

Fund pursuant to the terms hereof or as to which one or more Qualifying

Substitute Mortgage Loans are substituted for.

7
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 8 of 16

4. If the Trust Took The Mortgage on February 1, 2008, the Greene Mortgage Would

Have to be a Qualified Substitute Mortgage Loan.

• The assignment from First Franklin Financial Corporation to the Trust dated

February 1, 2008 is contribution to the Trust after October 28, 2005.

• Any contributions after October 28, 2005 must be a qualified substitute

mortgage loan.

• First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2005-FF10 acquired the Greene mortgage interest more than 45 days

after October 28, 2005.

• To be a valid Qualified Substitute Mortgage Loan, the assignment from First

Franklin Financial Corporation to the Trust dated February 1, 2008 must be

accompanied by a letter of counsel stating that it was acquiring that interest as

a qualifying substitute mortgage loan.

• The letter of counsel would have to address whether the assignment from First

Franklin Financial Corporation to U.S. Bank dated February 1, 2008 is an

adverse REMIC event within the meaning of Section 860D of the IRS Code.

• Under the PSA, U.S. Bank cannot knowingly take any action, cause any

REMIC to take any action or fail to take (or fail to cause to be taken) any

action that if taken or not taken, as the case may be, could result in an Adverse

REMIC Event unless U.S. Bank has received an Opinion of Counsel addressed

to it to the effect that the contemplated action will not result in an Adverse

REMIC Event.

8
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 9 of 16

• First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2005-FF10 is a trust governed by the laws of New York.

• Under New York law, any actions taken by a trust that are not specifically

authorized by the governing trust agreement are void.

Defendant U.S. Bank as trustee for the Trust has steadfastly refused to answer any

admissions related to the chain of negotiation of the note and chain of assignment of the

mortgage vis-à-vis the PSA. Additionally Defendant U.S. Bank as trustee for the Trust

has also refused to answer relevant Interrogatories and Document Requests.

Additionally, U.S. Bank and the Trust have not answered discovery. Rather,

Select Portfolio Servicing, as the purported attorney in fact of U.S. Bank has answered in

U.S. Banks’ stead.

Finally, at some point in the pendency of this litigation, Home Loan Services, Inc.

purportedly assigned its interest in the Greene Mortgage and Note to Select Portfolio

Servicing.

ARGUMENT

I. DEFENDANT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THEIR ONGOING INTENT TO

EVADE THE GREENES’ LEGITIMATE DISCOVERY REQUESTS

Defendant U.S. Bank as trustee of the Trust continues to flout the Rules of Civil

Procedure by refusing to provide relevant information that is responsive to Plaintiffs’

legitimate discovery requests. The Rules of Civil Procedure are liberal in their

application. Ward Coves Packing, Inc. v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642, 657 (1989) (“[L]iberal

civil discovery rules give plaintiffs broad access to [civil rights defendants’] records to

9
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 10 of 16

document their claims.”); Kramer v. Boeing Co., 126 F.R.D. 690, 692 (D. Minn. 1989)

(“[D]iscovery [is to] be self-effectuating, without need to resort to the court, and [] its

scope [is to] be liberal, extending to all matters reasonably calculated to lead to

admissible evidence.”); MINN. R. CIV. P. 26.02(a) (2006) (“Parties may obtain discovery

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense of any party.”).

See also Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978); Hickman v.

Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947).

Here, the Trust attempts to assert substantive arguments as a reason to refuse the

Greene’s discovery requests. The Trust takes inconsistent positions to attempt to avoid

answering admissions, interrogatories, and document requests: “Your clients seem to

argue the Green Mortgage is not properly included within the Trust, a claim that the Trust

disputes. That being said, your client does not have the right or the power to object to the

inclusion of the Greene Mortgage within the Trust.” See Exs. H and J.

The Trust’s basis for refusing to answer discovery requests are misplaced. First,

admission are a tool for establishing facts. If the Trust truly believes that the Greenes are

making factual assertions in their admissions, then they can admit or deny those facts.

Second, the Greenes want the Trust to support that it had the right and the power to

foreclose their home. If the Trust asserts that the Green mortgage and note truly does

belong to it, then the Greenes have the absolute right and power to ask the Trust to

demonstrate that, especially because the representations that the Trust has made regarding

the chain of assignment of the mortgage and chain of negotiation of the note contradict

those made by the PSA.

10
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 11 of 16

Additionally, the Trust seems to imply that the Greenes do not have “standing”

to inquire into the trust and its relationship with the Greene Mortgage and Note because

they are not a party to the trust: this is also misplaced on the law. Any allegation that the

Greenes do not have “standing” to bring its evidence is contrary to the rules of evidence

In an action related the enforcement of an instrument, the Rules of Evidence dictate what

evidence is admissible related to evaluating a party’s power and right to enforce an

negotiable instrument. The Uniform Commercial Code, Article 3, is the appropriate law

under which to evaluate a negotiable instrument and a purported holder’s right to enforce

it or the incident security instrument. U.C.C. codified at Minn. Stat. § 336 et seq. A

mortgage is a security instrument incident to a promissory note. See Hatlestad v. Mut.

Trust Life Inc. Co., 197 Minn. 640, 647, 268 N.W. 665, 668 (1936); Hayes v. Midland

Credit Co., 173 Minn. 554, 556, 218 N.W.2d 106, 107 (1928). A person or entity is

entitled to enforce that instrument if she is the holder of that instrument. Minn. Stat. §

336.3-301 (2008).

To bring a mortgage foreclosure, the party holding the security instrument must

also hold the note. Under the common law, the collateral security for a debt is an

incident of the debt. Van Diest Supply Co. v. Adrian State Bank, 305 N.W.2d 342, 346

(Minn. 1981). One consequence of this principle is that the transfer of collateral

unaccompanied by a transfer of the debt is a nullity. Id. (citing Sobel v. Mutual

Development, Inc., 313 So.2d 77 (Fla.App.1975); 6 Am.Jur.2d Assignments s 26 (1963);

69 Am.Jur.2d Secured Transactions s 449 (1973); 14 C.J.S. Chattel Mortgages s 316

(1939)).

11
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 12 of 16

Therefore, under the rules of evidence, the evidence related to the PSA and its

acquisition of the Greene Mortgage and Note is relevant. Evidence is relevant when it

has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

determination of the action more probably or less probable than it would be without the

evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Here, the evidence that the Trust, First Franklin Mortgage

Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-FF10, foreclosed on the

Greene Property brings the issue of its relationship to the Greene Note and Mortgage into

play. The Trust proffered a assignment of mortgage to avail itself of Minnesota’s

Foreclosure by Advertisement statute. Minn. Stat. § 580.

However, the information contained in the PSA related to the chain of

negotiation of the note and the chain of assignment of the mortgage tends to contradict

the documents proffered to foreclose. The PSA is the document that governs all actions

of the Trust. The PSA details how it has taken title to all assets in the trust. Defendants

allege that the Greene Note and Mortgage belongs to the trust. Therefore, the PSA has a

tendency to make the existence of any fact related to the ownership of the Greene

mortgage loan more probable then it would be without the evidence.

Because the PSA tends to make the existence of any fact related to the

ownership of the Greene Mortgage more probable then it would without the evidence, it

is relevant to this matter, and Plaintiffs’ may seek discovery related to the PSA and the

Trust.

12
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 13 of 16

II. THE GREENES ARE ENTITLED TO AN ORDER COMPELLING

RESPONSES TO ALL ANSWERS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS,
INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3) entitles the Greene to an order

compelling discovery when Defendants have failed to answer discovery requests. In

addition, the Greenes are entitled to expenses and sanctions for having to bring this

motion to compel Defendant’s compliance with the discovery rules. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(3); see also Capellupo v. FMC Corp., 126 F.R.D. 545, 551 (D. Minn. 1989) (“This

Court has a broad canvas upon which to paint in determining sanctions.”).

The Greenes have tried to resolve the discovery issues that make this motion

necessary. (Christensen Decl. ¶ 7, 8, 13; Exhs. E, F, I). The correspondence between the

parties is replete with the evidence of the Greenes’ efforts to resolve this matter without

turning to the Court. The Defendant attempts to characterize itself as complying with

discovery. It asserts that it “answered some questions that were objectionable in the

interests of avoiding discovery disputes.” However, Defendants assertions are

disingenuous. Here, it has created a very elaborate mechanism for holding the interest in

Plaintiffs’ home, and now it asserts that Plaintiffs have no power or right to request

credible information that tends to contradict the Trust’s assertions.

CONCLUSION

Defendant continues to evade and obstruct Plaintiff’s legitimate discovery.

Therefore, Schultz respectfully requests that this Court compel Defendant U.S. Bank to

produce all outstanding discovery requests that The Greenes has served, in compliance

13
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 14 of 16

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, the Greenes respectfully request

an award for expenses and sanctions for having to bring this motion.

Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order:

1. Compelling U.S. Bank as trustee of the Trust to fully answer all discovery and not

Select Portfolio Servicing or any other entity not-named in this action purporting

to operate on behalf of the Defendant.

2. Compelling Defendants to fully answer Admissions Number 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, and Special

Interrogatory of Plaintiffs’ first set of discovery requests, which Plaintiffs served

on Defendants’ attorney on February 10, 2010.

3. Compelling Defendants to fully answer Interrogatories Number 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and

17 and Compelling Defendant to fully answer Document Request Number 1 of

Plaintiffs’ first set of discovery requests, which Plaintiffs served on Defendants’

attorney on February 10, 2010..

4. Establishing for purposes of this action that any responses provided to Admissions

Number 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30,

31, 32, 33, 35, Special Interrogatory, Interrogatories Number 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and

17 and provide all documents responsive to Document Request Number 1 of

Plaintiffs’ first set of discovery requests shall be in accordance with any defenses

asserted by Defendant, or any evidence related to their defenses, including and not

14
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 15 of 16

limited to defenses standing or being the proper party to foreclose on the Greene

Mortgage and note if Defendants fail to provide complete responses.

5. Prohibiting Defendant from asserting defenses to Plaintiffs’ actions, including and

not limited to evidence of its status as a holder of the Greene note or the proper

party to bring the foreclosure on the Greene mortgage with defenses, information,

or evidence that should have been provided in response to Admissions Number 5,

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33,

35, Special Interrogatory, Interrogatories Number 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 17 and

provide all documents responsive to Document Request Number 1 of Plaintiffs’

first set of discovery requests if complete responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery are not

provided within fifteen (15) days.

6. Finding that if Defendants do not provide complete responses to Admissions

Number 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30,

31, 32, 33, 35, Special Interrogatory, Interrogatories Number 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and

17 and provide all documents responsive to Document Request Number 1 in

Plaintiffs’ first set of discovery requests within fifteen (15) days, a request by

Plaintiffs for a default judgment against Defendant on all relevant counts shall be

considered.

7. Requiring Defendant Trust to pay to Plaintiffs a reasonable sum as and for

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred incident to this motion.

8. Amending the scheduling order to accommodate Defendant’s fulfillment of this

order including, but not limited to, extending the scheduling order to provide for

15
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 16 of 16

new expert disclosure deadlines if the operation, governance, and powers of the

trust remains in dispute related to its standing to foreclose on the Greene Mortgage

interest.

9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, fair and equitable.

SAID MOTION is based on the attached affidavits and arguments of counsel,

together with all the pleadings, records and files herein.

CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICE PLLC

Dated: May 4, 2010 By: ___/s/ Carl Christensen_________

Carl Christensen (# 0350412)
1422 West Lake Street, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
(612) 823-4016
(612) 823-4777 fax
carl@clawoffice.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs

16
 Case 0:09-cv-00719-DWF-JJK Document 16-1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Tonii Greene and Tricia Greene,

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Plaintiffs,
Civil File No. 09-CV-719
v. (DWF/JJK)

Home Loan Services, Inc. d/b/a First Franklin

Loan Services, and U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee
for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2005-FF10,

Defendants.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion and brief complies with the volume
limitation set forth in local rule 7.1(c) and the type size limitation of 7.1(e). The
Planitiffs’ brief contains 3,626 words. The type size is a minimum of 13 point and
double spaced, except for headings and footnotes. This brief was prepared on
Microsoft Word 2008 for Macintosh.

CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICE PLLC

Dated: April 4, 2010 ______/s/Carl E. Christensen ________

Carl E. Christensen (#0350412)
1422 West Lake Street, Suite 216
Minneapolis, MN 55408
(612) 823-4016
(612) 823-4777 fax
carl@clawoffice.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs