IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

WILLIAM DEMARSE,

Plaintiff VS.

COLLECTIVE ACTION CASE NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

CRACKER BARREL OLD
COUNTRY STORE, INC.,

Defendant.
-----------------------1
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, WILLIAM DEMARSE, by and through his

undersigned attorney, and sues the Defendant, CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY

STORE, INC. (hereinafter CRACKER BARREL), and alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

This is a Collective Action seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief

and costs and attorneys' fees for the age discrimination suffered by Plaintiff and those

applicants as a result of the actions of the Defendant.

2.

This action is brought to remedy discrimination on the basis of age in d1.e

terms, conditions and privileges of employment in violation of the Age Discrimination In

Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.c. § 621, et~.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

3.

Plaintiff, WILLIAM DEMARSE, has complied with all administrative

prerequisites as follows:

A. Plaintiff, WILLIAM DEMARSE, f:tled charges of discrimination on

the basis of age discrimination against the Defendant, CRACKER BARREL, with the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on or about July 1, 2006 and a

Notice of Right To Sue was issued by the EEOC on March 29, 2007, a copy of which is

attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The 180-day exclusive jurisdictional period of the Florida

Commission on Human Relations expired on or about January 10,2007. Accordingly,

Plaintiff has filed appropriately with this Court under the Age Discrimination In

Employment Act.

4.

Jurisdiction over this claim is conferred on this Court by 28 U.s.c. § 1331, in

that this action arises under the laws of the United States.

5.

Declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief is sought pursuant to 28 US.c. §

2201,2202 and 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(g).

6.

Costs and attorneys' fees may be awarded pursuant to 42 US.c. § 2000e-5(k)

and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54.

VENUE

7.

This action properly lies in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division,

pursuant to 28 US.c. § 1391 (b) because the claull arose in this judicial district and pursuant

to 42 US.c. § 2000e-5(f)(3) because the unlawful employment practice was committed in

this judicial district.

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

8.

This action is brought for declaratory judgment of the Plaintiff and all

applicants of Defendant who are sunilarly situated, and for a permanent injunction

restraining Defendant from maintaining a policy, practice and/or custom of discriminating

against Plaintiff and all applicants because of age, with respect to the privileges of

employment and in ways which deprive Plaintiff and all applicants of equal employment

opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants because of age. This

2

Complaint also seeks restitution to Plaintiff and all applicants of all rights, privileges, bendits

and income that would have been received by them but for Defendant's unlawful and

discriminatory practices.

PLAINTIFF

9.

Plaintiff, WILLIAM DEMARSE, is a citizen and resident of the United

States and acts herein as representative Plaintiff as regards claulls against the Defendant,

CRACKER BARREL, who has been discrllninated against in the hiring process with

Defendant based upon his age.

DEFENDANT

10. Defendant, CRACKER BARREL, is an employer, engaged in an industry

affecting commerce, and employs more than fifteen (15) regular employees.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

11. On or about February 10,2005, Plaintiff, WILLIAM DEMARSE, took a

test, as a pre-requisite for employment, for the Defendant, CRACKER BARREL. At the

end of the test, Plaintiff was to answer several questions about hilnself, one of which was his

age. Plaintiff answered the questions. Shortly after taking tl1e test, Plaintiff received a call

from the Defendant stating that they were not interested in hiring hUll. Thus, the test

specifically asked Plaintiff, WILLIAM DEMARSE, as well as all applicants, to state their age as follows: 1

1 Counsel has redacted by marking through personal information of Plaintiff, William DeMarse. 3

, 4!t~. 1,f"~'Y
Vi£. ..la'Lill

~.,."
~J

Background Verification

All applicants 1i,1' employment by Craey.ef Barrel Old

Onmuy StoretE•must cotrscnt to hac~oun.d verifications.

This fOrm scrY<:S to provide necessary mft.:m1"laricm in order

to ctmduct the h a . d verificat1t)ns. Your :accurncv
tmd thor()ug~ness \VI help expoo.it'e the processing o(

your applicanon.

Pie.1Se (orrlplete the fo ' infol'mari.on. It is requested

rnat you complete aU

n on chis sheet even ifit is

already included on )tour application form or r~ume.

Nt)te: Date ofbtrtn and rty.lido) naEne are nor considered

the employment: ded:<:lon. lbis infi)rm~ldon is utili':tA:d

acCUrate records veriflcadons only.

Location

-~-----~-.------------

Date of Birch.

Drivers Licensc I:

Mt<iclcn Name or

Name Used

Year this narne \\";\$ l:t'it used

(Exhibit A)

4

The Defendant, CRACKER BARREL, when challenged with the need for this

information by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, related that:

The recruiter explains that this section ofthe assessment is information being collected to track candidates in order to complY with Federal and State Equal Emplqyment Opportuniry record keeping requirements.

This, of course, is at odds with any federal or state law that requires or suggests such

tracking is necessary or appropriate. Furthermore, the background verification form all

applicants are asked to complete, specifically request that they list their date of birth as

follows:

Demographic Information

0 1 000 00 0000 2 000 00 0000 3 000 00 0000 4 000 00 0000 5 000 00 0000 6 000 00 0000 7 000 00 0000 8 000 00 0000 9 000 00 0000
Most Recent Managerial Experience
o Assistant-Manager
@ General Manager (Single Unit)
o Multi-Unit SupelVisor o Owner/Operator

Last Name

,

First Name

,

Gender
o Female
@Male

Age

!

020 or Under

o621 to 29 II 30to 39
o 40to 49 II o SOto 59
• -",-., 0.1'

Years in Most Recent

I'

Managerial Position

o 'Less than 1

I

@Atleast1butlessthan2\'
o At least 2 but less than 5 ,

05 or more

I

i

i

I ! I I I I Ii

;i
)1

I I I II

: ~"i:I,1
(',; ,

\~ :;

;A ;1

Ethnic Group

'il1,

o Ii o Black/African Americ3'n!

American Indian

j

!: o As.ian~acili~ ISJande"~;

L o Hlspamcllatmo

"

I; 8'WhiteiCaucasian

1 i

o Other

~!i

tl tr :I Highest LBvei of i,!11 i
o I Education Comple~ i
0 2HiYgeh aSr CChoOl l eOgIel GDE~ggH'~e
• 4Year College D~gy~~ o Advanced Degre~~'l:';
. ~:J\:

See Exhibit B attached hereto.

12. Plaintiff, WILLIAM DEMARSE, comes forward and alleges age

discrimination by the Defendant, CRACKER BARREL, in hiring. Specifically, Defendant,

CRACKER BARREL, had a nationwide pattern or practice of asking for and illegally

considering the age of all applicants for its employment in violation of the federal Age

Discrimination In Employment Act.

5

COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIMS

13. In addition to Plaintiff, numerous employees and former employees of the

Defendant are similarly situated to Plaintiff, in that they have been denied equal treatment as

regards their application and consideration for employment with Defendant based upon

their age.

COUNT I AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT

14. Plaintiff, WILLIAM DEMARSE, avers that Defendant, CRACKER

BARREL's unlawful and discriminatory practice of maintaining a policy, practice and/or

custom of discriminating against Plaintiff and other applicants on account of their age

violates the provisions of the Age Discrimination In Employment Act ("ADEA"), as

amended, 28 U.S.c. § 621, et~.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, WILLIAM DEMARSE, hereby demands a trial by

jury and a judgment against the Defendant, CRACKER BARREL, as follows:

A. For a money judgment representing all lost wages and all other sums of

money;

B. For a money judgment representing liquidated damages;

C. For a money judgment representing all damages Plaintiff may avail himself of

under the respective cause of action alleged as available;

D. For a money judgment representing prejudgment interest;

E. That the Court retain jurisdiction over this action until the Defendant has

fully complied with the Orders of this Court and that the Court require the Defendant to file

such reports as may be necessary to supervise such compliance;

F.

For the costs of suit, including an award of reasonable attorneys' fees; and

G. For such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and all applicants similarly situated who join in this action

pray for this Court:

A. To issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its agents, successors,

employees, attorneys, and those acting in concert with them, from engaging in each of the

unlawful practices set forth in this Complaint, and from continuing other practices shown to

be in violation of the law;

B.

Grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper, including

hiring, front pay, back pay and liquidated damages to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated

applicants;

C. Award Plaintiff and other similarly situated applicants their costs in this

action and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.S.c. § 216(b);

D. To award such other damages and further relief as this Court may deem

appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff and other similarly situated applicants of Defendant, CRACKER

BARREL, hereby demands a trial of their claims by jury to the extent authorized by law.

Dated: June 8, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID J. LINESCH Florida Bar No. 0376078 The Linesch Firm 700 Bee Pond Road Palm Harbor, FL 34683 Voice: (727) 786-0000 Facsinllle: (727) 786-0974 Email: laborlaw@lineschflrm.com Attorney for Plaintiff
7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Tampa Division

WILLIAM DEMARSE, Plaintiff,
v.
CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Case No. 8:07-cv-00981-SDM-MSS

)

)

)

)

)

)

CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Cracker

Barrel"), and hereby responds to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff William DeMarse ("Plaintiff')

as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, costs

and attorneys fees for purported age discrimination against Plaintiff "and those applicants."

Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in

Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff alleges violations of the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et. seq. ("ADEA"), but denies that any such

1

violations occurred. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remammg allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
PURPORTED EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
3.
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging age discrimination against Defendant with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ("EEOC") on or about June 29, 2005. Also upon information and belief, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue on or about March 29, 2007. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4.
Defendant admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5. Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief pursuant to 28 US.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 US.C. § 2000e-5(k), but denies that Plaintiff is entitled to such relief under these statutes, or under any other laws. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
6.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff seeks costs and attorneys' fees pursuant 42 US.C. § 2000e-5(k) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, but denies that Plaintiff is entitled to such
2

relief under this statute, or under any other law. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
VENUE
7.
Defendant admits that venue is appropriate with respect to those allegations concerning the restaurants it owns and operate within the Middle District of Florida. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
ALLEGED NATURE OF THIS ACTION
8.
Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports in this lawsuit to seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of Plaintiff and "all applicants of Defendant who are similarly-situated," and "restitution" on behalf of Plaintiff and "all applicants," but denies that Plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Defendant expressly denies the existence of any purported group of individuals similarlysituated to Plaintiff. Defendant further denies that Plaintiff s claims are appropriate for collective treatment. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
PLAINTIFF
9.
Upon information and belief, Defendant admits Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the United States of America. Defendant denies that Plaintiff may properly act as a "representative Plaintiff' in this action, and it expressly denies the existence of any group of individuals
3

purportedly similarly-situated to Plaintiff. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
DEFENDANT
10. Defendant admits that it is an "employer" as defined by the ADEA, that it engages in an industry affecting commerce and that it employs 15 or more regular employees. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
ALLEGED FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11. Defendant admits that Plaintiff completed Cracker Barrel's Management Assessment Test on or about November 17, 2004, and that this test was a part of Defendant's interview process for managerial applicants. Defendant further admits that a series of voluntary "Demographic Information" questions appeared at the end of the Management Assessment Test completed by Plaintiff, on which Plaintiff opted to provide information about himself, including his approximate age. Defendant further admits that it later informed Plaintiff that he had not been selected to join Defendant's Management-In-Training Program. Defendant admits that the italicized excerpt from its position statement included in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint is accurate. Defendant further admits that a redacted copy of the Background Verification Form completed by Plaintiff appears on page four of the Complaint, and that a redacted copy of the "Demographic Information" questions completed by Plaintiff appear on page 5 of the Complaint.
4

Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
12. Defendant admits that Plaintiff alleges in this lawsuit that Defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination in its hiring practices, but explicitly denies any such wrongdoing. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
ALLEGED COLLECTIVE ACTION CLAIMS
13.
Defendant expressly denies that Plaintiff is similarly-situated to the alleged class of persons he purports to represent, the existence of which is expressly denied. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
COUNT I: AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT 14.
Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. Defendant further denies Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in subparagraphs (A) through (G) following Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in the Complaint, subparagraphs (A) through (D) inclusive, or to any relief of any nature whatsoever.
5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND Defendant acknowledges Plaintiff s demand but denies the propriety of a trial, by jury or otherwise, on any or all of Plaintiffs allegations.
GENERAL DENIAL To the extent not already specifically addressed above, Defendant denies each and every allegation not expressly admitted herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST DEFENSE
Some or all of Plaintiffs claims fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted by this Court.
SECOND DEFENSE In the event that Defendant discovers or otherwise learns of evidence to which the "after acquired" evidence doctrine applies, as per McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 115 S. Ct. 879 (1995), Plaintiff shall be then and thereafter barred or limited from recovery or remedy pursuant to said doctrine.
THIRD DEFENSE To the extent Plaintiff failed to satisfy some or all of the conditions precedent and/or other statutory prerequisites required under the ADEA, such claims are barred.
FOURTH DEFENSE Plaintiff is not entitled to some or all of the relief required in the Complaint because neither Defendant nor any of its officers, directors, or managing agents committed any act or
6

omission with willful, malicious, or reckless disregard for Plaintiff s rights, nor did Defendant authorize or ratify any such act or omission.
FIFTH DEFENSE Defendant denies that Plaintiff s age played any impermissible role in the employment decision(s) relating to Plaintiff and that every action taken by Defendant with regard to Plaintiff s employment was taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons, unrelated to Plaintiff s age. Alternatively, even if some impermissible motive were a factor in any of those decisions, which Defendant denies, the same decisions would have been reached for one or more legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons.
SIXTH DEFENSE Even if Defendant is found to have violated the ADEA, which Defendant expressly denies, the alleged violation was not willful and was contrary to Defendant's good-faith efforts to comply with federal and/or state law such that liquidated damages may not be imposed against it. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support recovery of such damages.
SEVENTH DEFENSE Some or all of Plaintiffs claims are barred or reduced by his failure to exercise reasonable diligence to mitigate his alleged damages. Alternately, any claim for damages must be reduced by any pay, benefits or other compensation earned by Plaintiff for any period in question.
7

EIGHTH DEFENSE Plaintiffs recovery is barred and/or limited to the extent he failed to accept an offer of employment in Defendant's Management-In-Training program on August 25,2006, per Ford Motor Company v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982).
NINTH DEFENSE The group of persons whom Plaintiff purports to represent, the existence of which is expressly denied, is barred from pursuing their claims by their failure to abide by all the requirements of29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
TENTH DEFENSE This action is not appropriate for collective treatment because the group of individuals Plaintiff purports to represent is not similarly-situated and/or the claims asserted are matters in which individual questions predominate and are not appropriate for collective treatment.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE The damages claimed by Plaintiff and the alleged group of persons which Plaintiff purports to represent, the existence of which is expressly denied, are barred to the extent they are speculative in nature.
TWELFTH DEFENSE Notice to the alleged group which Plaintiff purports to represent, the existence of which is expressly denied, would be a violation of Defendant's due process rights.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE To the extent Plaintiff and the alleged class of persons in Plaintiff s alleged collective action (the existence of which is expressly denied) have failed to comply with the statutory
8

prerequisites and conditions precedent to bringing a collective action complaint against Defendant under the ADEA, the claim is barred.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE Some or all of Plaintiff s claims are barred to the extent they exceed the scope of any charge or complaint filed by Plaintiff with the EEOC and thus exceed the scope of any investigation reasonably related thereto.
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE Any claim of Plaintiff, including a collective claim, which was not timely commenced within the limitations period provided by law is barred; in addition, the claims of members of the alleged collective action (the existence of which is expressly denied) are barred to the extent that such claims concern events which allegedly occurred more than 300 days preceding the filing of the Plaintiff s charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction with respect to those claims.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Cracker Barrel respectfully requests that at the conclusion of this action, the Court grant it the following relief: A. Dismiss all of Plaintiffs claims in their entirety and with prejudice; B. Deny each and every prayer for relief identified in Plaintiff s Complaint; and C. Award against Plaintiff, Cracker Barrel's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
associated with defending this action, along with such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
9

Respectfully submitted, this 16th day of July, 2007.
FORD & HARRISON LLP By: siTodd S. Aidman
Todd S. Aidman Florida Bar No. 0173029
For the firm
101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900 Tampa, Florida 33602-5133 taidman@fordharrison.com Telephone: (813) 261-7800 Facsimile: (813) 261-7899
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.e.
David E. Gevertz, Esq. Georgia Bar No. 292430 e-mail: dgevertz@bakerdonelson.com Pro Hac Admission Pending
Erica V. Garey, Esq. Georgia Bar No. 141986 e-mail: egarey@bakerdonelson.com Pro Hac Admission Pending
Six Concourse Parkway, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Telephone: (678) 406.8700 Facsimile: (678) 406.8701
Attorneys for Defendant Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 16, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CMlECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to:
David J. Linesch The Linesch Firm 700 Bee Pond Road Palm Harbor, Florida 34683

TAMPA:231391.1

s/Todd S. Aidman Attorney

11

 
 CLOSED, MAGTRL
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:07−cv−00981−MSS

Demarse v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Mary S. Scriven Cause: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/08/2007 Date Terminated: 01/25/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

William Demarse

represented by David J. Linesch The Linesch Firm 700 Bee Pond Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683 727/786−0000 Fax: 727/786−0974 Email: laborlaw@lineschfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

represented by David E. Gevertz Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &Berkowitz, PC Suite 3100 Six Concourse Pkwy Atlanta, GA 30309 678/406−8700 Fax: 678/406−8801 Email: dgevertz@bakerdonelson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erica V. Garey Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &Berkowitz, PC* Suite 3100 Six Concourse Pkwy Atlanta, GA 30328 678/406−8700 Fax: 678/406−8701 Email: egarey@bakerdonelson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Sidney Aidman Ford &Harrison, LLP Suite 900 101 E Kennedy Blvd Tampa, FL 33602 813/261−7800 Fax: 813/261−7899 Email: taidman@fordharrison.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed #

Docket Text

06/08/2007 06/12/2007 06/13/2007 07/02/2007 07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/19/2007
07/19/2007
08/08/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/29/2007
01/14/2008 01/21/2008 01/25/2008

1 COMPLAINT against Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.; jury demand (Filing fee $350 receipt number T041851) filed by William Demarse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(ldb) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
2 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 − track 2. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 6/12/2007. (maa) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
3 Summons issued as to Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.. (apv, ) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
4 RETURN of service executed on 06/25/07 by William Demarse as to Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Summons)(Linesch, David) Modified on 7/3/2007 (apv). (Entered: 07/02/2007)
5 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to complaint by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc..(Aidman, Todd) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
6 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.. (Aidman, Todd) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
7 MOTION for David E. Gevertz to appear pro hac vice by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Aidman, Todd) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mary S. Scriven. (Entered: 07/19/2007)
8 MOTION for Erica V. Garey to appear pro hac vice by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Aidman, Todd) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mary S. Scriven. (Entered: 07/19/2007)
9 ORDER granting 7 motion to appear pro hac vice; granting 8 motion to appear pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 8/8/2007. (EKW) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
10 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Linesch, David) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
11 CONSENT to trial by U.S. Magistrate Judge by William Demarse. (Linesch, David) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
12 ORDER approving consent to jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Mary S. Scriven. NEW CASE NUMBER: 8:07−cv−981−T−MSS. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 8/28/2007. (BK) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
13 NOTICE by William Demarse Notice of Dismisal with Prejudice (Linesch, David) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
14 Amended NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by William Demarse (Linesch, David) Modified on 1/22/2008 (APV). (Entered: 01/21/2008)
15 ORDER dismissing case with prejudice. The CLERK is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mary S. Scriven on 1/24/2008. (EKW) (Entered: 01/25/2008)