Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 25
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. ______________________ COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit Corporation, TIMOTHY J. COENEN, JULIE REISKIN, and LORAINE A. JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, CUSA PARTS, LLC, D/B/A, POWDER RIVER TRANSPORTATION, a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD., D/B/A BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa
corporation, and TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin and Loraine A. Johnson, by and through their attorneys, Kevin W. Williams, Legal Program Director, and Carrie Ann Lucas, Equal Justice Works Fellow, of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition and Fox & Robertson, P.C., hereby submit their Complaint for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. As grounds for this Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the following
INTRODUCTION 1. Despite he passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, 42 U.S.C. §

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 25
12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act in 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., Defendants, all overthe-road bus transportation (“OTRB”) companies, still discriminate against persons with disabilities in ways that include but are not limited to: (1) failing to acquire accessible vehicles; (2) failing to reserve buses with wheelchair lifts when asked; (3) failing to allow passengers who use wheelchairs off the bus at stops; (4) failing to schedule all legs of a trip with one phone call; (5) failing to maintain wheelchair lifts in working order; (6) failing to remain courteous and respectful to passengers with disabilities; (7) failing to maintain the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities; and (8) failing to provide alternative transportation as required by the regulations.
2. Plaintiffs and their attorneys have contacted these entities, in an effort to stave off litigation, but the companies that responded claimed they were in compliance with the law. Greyhound Lines, Inc. never responded.
3. As a result of Defendant OTRB companies’ actions, Plaintiffs, who use wheelchairs, have been stranded without transportation, have been forced to remain on buses for long hours when non-disabled passengers were free to get off the bus, and have had to spend an enormous amount of time scheduling trips that, by law, should only require a single call.
4. Plaintiffs seek to ensure that OTRB transportation is accessible to people who use wheelchairs throughout Colorado and bring this Complaint seeking injunctive relief, damages and recovery of their reasonable attorneys’s fees and costs.
JURISDICTION 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 25
§§ 1331 and 1343 and pursuant to its pendent jurisdiction over claims brought under the laws of the State of Colorado.
6. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. PARTIES
7. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) is a Colorado non-profit corporation whose members are persons with disabilities and their non-disabled allies.
8. Timothy J. Coenen was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado residing at 3490 West Quincy Avenue, Apartment 108, Englewood, Colorado 80110. Mr. Coenen is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Timothy J. Coenen is a CCDC member.
9. Julie Reiskin was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado residing at 3645 Milwaukee Street, Denver, Colorado 80205. Ms. Reiskin is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Julie Reiskin is CCDC’s Executive Director and a CCDC member.
10. Loraine A. Johnson was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado residing at 2716 Abrams Avenue, Montrose, Colorado 81401. Ms. Johnson is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Loraine A. Johnson is a CCDC member.
11. Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. (“Greyhound”) is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 15110 N. Dallas Parkway, Dallas, TX 75248. Greyhound is licensed to do business in Colorado. Greyhound is a subsidiary of Laidlaw International, Inc.,
3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 25
d/b/a in Colorado as Laidlaw Transit, Inc. 12. Defendant CUSA Parts, LLC, d/b/a, Powder River Transportation (“Powder
River”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 5430 LBJ Freeway, #1075, Dallas, TX 75240. Powder River is licensed to do business in the state of Colorado.
13. Defendant Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc. (“TMN&O") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1313 13th St, Lubbock, TX 79401. TMN&O is licensed to do business in the state of Colorado. TMN&O is a subsidiary of Greyhound.
14. Defendant Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., d/b/a Burlington Trailways (“Burlington”), is an Iowa corporation, which conducts business in Colorado, with its principal place of business at 906 Broadway, West Burlington, IA 52655. On information and belief, Burlington is not registered to do business in the state of Colorado.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 15. On information and belief, Greyhound has “interline agreements” with Powder River and Burlington to provide transportation throughout Colorado and other states. 16. On information and belief, Greyhound, through its subsidiary TMN&O, operates OTRB buses under the TMN&O name, and/or has an interline agreement with TMN&O to provide transportation throughout Colorado and other states. 17. “Interline agreements” are governed by 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(a). 18. Each of the defendants operates OTRB services, regulated under 49 C.F.R., pt. 37, and, on information and belief, each of the defendants receives federal financial assistance,
4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 25
as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., in the form of grants from federal agencies. 19. Tim Coenen, who uses a wheelchair, contacted Greyhound to make a reservation
for a June 5, 2006 trip. Mr. Coenen can walk very little and does so with great difficulty. Greyhound reserved tickets for him for a Powder River bus to depart from Denver at approximately 10:00 p.m. on June 5, 2006. His destination was Butte, Montana. He told the sales agent that he would need a bus with a wheelchair lift. He was told to call again within one week of his trip and tell them again he needed an accessible bus. He did so. On information and belief, Mr. Coenen never received a communication confirming his request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
20. During the long trip (24 hours total), there were four different drivers on the Powder River portion of the trip. There were five or six rest stops or intermediate stops during the time Mr. Coenen was on the Powder River trip. Only once was Mr. Coenen allowed to leave the vehicle. He was not asked or given the opportunity to exit the vehicle at other rest stops. He was left alone on the bus at times, which was very uncomfortable for him.
21. On Mr. Coenen’s return trip from Butte, Montana to Colorado on June 28, 2006, Greyhound scheduled Mr. Coenen on a Rimrock Stages, Inc. (“Rimrock”)1 bus at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Coenen called Rimrock twice before his return trip to confirm that the bus would be accessible. The first driver Mr. Coenen encountered, named Jim, said he could not find the key to unlock the wheelchair lift door. He did not find the key. The driver said he was going to leave, and Mr.
1 Rimrock is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit because it does not do business in the state of Colorado.
5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 25
Coenen explained his bags were already on the bus. The driver removed Mr. Coenen’s bags and left without him. The Rimrock office closed at 5:00 p.m., so Mr. Coenen was unable to call anyone to solve this problem or try to get another bus. He stayed in Butte an additional night.
22. Mr. Coenen called Rimrock at 8:15 a.m. the next day and explained what had happened. A woman named Heather told Mr. Coenen to be at the bus stop at 2:30 p.m. that day, and an accessible bus would be there. He did so. The bus that arrived did not have a wheelchair lift. Mr. Coenen called Heather again and told her the bus had no lift. Heather told him Greyhound made a mistake. The next bus was scheduled at approximately 7:30 p.m. Mr. Coenen waited in the rain for that bus.
23. The 7:30 p.m. bus arrived, and the driver was Jim again, the same driver Mr. Coenen encountered the previous day. Jim could not figure out how to open the lift door. Mr. Coenen’s nephew was at the bus stop with him and went to look for the opening mechanism and found the keyhole. The driver had to go look for the key. He did not know where it was. He eventually found it, and Mr. Coenen boarded the bus; however, if Mr. Coenen’s nephew had not determined how to operate the lift, Mr. Coenen likely would have been left again.
24. The bus arrived in Billings, Montana at approximately 12:45 a.m., and Mr. Coenen was scheduled to change buses there. The driver of the bus he was scheduled to ride was named Corey. Corey said Powder River did not send an accessible bus and berated Mr. Coenen for not having called for an accessible bus. Mr. Coenen explained that he spoke with the woman named Heather, and she was supposed to call Powder River to change the day for the accessible bus because the Rimrock bus was not accessible the day before. Corey informed Mr.
6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 25
Coenen that he would have to wait forty-eight hours for the next accessible bus to Colorado. Mr. Coenen was upset. Corey said Mr. Coenen could either get out of his chair and walk on the bus, or wait for the next bus. Mr. Coenen did not have the resources to stay in Billings, so with great difficulty and pain, he got out of his wheelchair and on to the bus.
25. Greyhound through its interline agreements with Powder River and Rimrock was responsible for notifying Powder River and Rimrock of Mr. Coenen’s need for accessible buses on each leg of Mr. Coenen’s trip. Greyhound failed to do so.
26. Powder River was required to allow Mr. Coenen to exit the bus during intermediate rest stops.
27. As a result of Greyhound’s and Powder River’s failures, Mr. Coenen suffered injuries and damages. Mr. Coenen would like to use the services of the OTRB companies and will do so if the OTRB companies stop discriminating against him on the basis of his disability.
28. Plaintiff Julie Reiskin is the Executive Director of CCDC, and she uses a motorized wheelchair. Her job requires her to travel around the state of Colorado. She is a frequent user of Greyhound, TNM&O, and other OTRB companies. Over the years, Ms. Reiskin has experienced numerous problems with wheelchair access with these transportation services including, without limitation, the following: drivers not knowing how to operate wheelchair lifts and securement devices; scheduling accessible buses forty-eight hours in advance and having the bus arrive with no wheelchair lift; and not being permitted to leave the bus on rest breaks when all other passengers were permitted to do so. She has reported some of these problems on behalf of herself and other CCDC members for years, including filing a Department of Justice
7

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 25
complaint on behalf of a CCDC member in or about 2003. 29. In or about October 10, 2005, Julie Reiskin contacted Burlington to schedule an
accessible bus for a trip to Sterling, Colorado on October 19, 2005. Ms. Reiskin needed to get to Sterling and back in one day. Although the bus schedule had busses that could accomplish this, when Ms. Reiskin called Burlington, she was informed they could not schedule an accessible bus for her return trip. On October 17, 2005 , Carrie Lucas, then the Legal Program Assistant at CCDC, called Burlington to try to resolve the matter on Ms. Reiskin’s behalf. Ms. Lucas was told Burlington only had one bus with a lift, and they would not be able to provide an accessible bus for both parts of Ms. Reiskin’s trip. Ms. Lucas asked to speak with an attorney or supervisor. She spoke with someone named who she believes was named Gary who hung up on her. She called back. Ms. Lucas had to stop other needed work to address this situation. She spoke with a Julie Delaney, who was a supervisor in the “Call Center.” Ms. Lucas spent over three hours dealing with this matter and was on the phone four or five times with Burlington personnel. Eventually, Burlington agreed to provide an accessible bus for both parts of Ms. Reiskin’s trip, but not until Ms. Lucas spent several hours educating them regarding the requirements of disability discrimination laws. On information and belief, neither Ms. Reiskin nor Ms. Lucas received confirmation that Ms. Reiskin’s bus would be accessible, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
30. Ms. Reiskin experienced a discriminatory incident on July 28, 2006. Ms. Reiskin scheduled the trip from Denver to Delta, Colorado with Greyhound slightly more than fortyeight hours in advance. She called Greyhound again the day before she left on her trip to get
8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 25
confirmation that the TNM&O bus she was scheduled to transfer to in Grand Junction, Colorado, was accessible. She was told TNM&O had been notified, and the bus for her trip would be an accessible bus. Ms. Reiskin departed Denver on a Greyhound bus at approximately 12:00 a.m. She arrived in Grand Junction at approximately 4:15 a.m. As she was getting off the bus, the driver of the bus indicated to another employee that Ms. Reiskin was heading south. The driver of that bus came to Ms. Reiskin and asked where she was going. Ms. Reiskin informed the driver that she was going to Delta, scheduled at 5:30 a.m. About an hour later, Ms. Reiskin was told that there was no bus with a wheelchair lift. None of the TMN&O employees seemed to know what to do. Ms. Reiskin is familiar with transportation in the area and suggested they call Millennium Cab Service. She explained that if TNM&O could get an accessible cab, TNM&O would have to pay the fare. The TNM&O employee agreed that the fare would be paid by TNM&O and worked out a payment arrangement with the owner of the cab company. Ms. Reiskin called and spoke with Stacy at TNM&O early in the morning to report that there had not been a bus with a wheelchair lift and to find out if there was going to be an accessible bus for her trip the following day. Stacy from TNM&O called Ms. Reiskin back before 8:00 a.m. She said she was not aware that Ms. Reiskin needed an accessible bus that morning and asked her for details about how Ms. Reiskin had made the scheduling arrangements with Greyhound. After several calls with Stacy, Ms. Reiskin learned that Greyhound had faxed the request for a lift bus to TNM&O and had never called to assure someone got it. Apparently, no one received the request. Stacy told Ms. Reiskin that a manager had spoken to the Greyhound ADA office manager and required that they no longer fax such requests without also making a call to assure
9

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 25
that someone receives and acts on the information. Ms. Reiskin called Stacy a couple more times that day because she wanted to be sure that the bus for the trip on the 29th would have a lift. Ms. Reiskin was concerned because if she needed to find alternative transportation, she would have to make a reservation early. Stacy assured Ms. Reiskin the bus would have a lift.
31. Ms. Reiskin arrived at the Delta, Colorado station at approximately 9:50 a.m. The bus she was scheduled to ride on arrived and did not have a wheelchair despite Stacy’s assurances that it would. Both the person staffing the bus station, Debbie, and Ms. Reiskin asked the driver about this. The driver told them that he did receive paperwork stating that he needed a bus with a lift, but he was directed to take the bus without a lift. On information and belief, paperwork was also at the Delta station showing that Ms. Reiskin had made her reservation for an accessible bus at that time. Ms. Reiskin called the TNM&O number and was connected to the bus depot in Lubbock, Texas. After explaining what had happened to several people on the phone, she was connected to a supervisor. The supervisor said he would make some calls to figure out how to get a bus to her and call her back. Debbie had also made calls and received the same response. They waited an hour, and no one called back. Debbie called back to Lubbock and discovered that nothing had been done to get an accessible bus. Ms. Reiskin was informed she could go the next day, and TNM&O would have a bus with a lift. They agreed that if Ms. Reiskin got to Grand Junction and there was no accessible bus, the bus that took her from Delta to Grand Junction would take her to Denver. Ms. Reiskin called the cab company that brought her to Delta the day before, and they agreed to come back and transport her to Grand Junction. By the time Ms. Reiskin arrived in Grand Junction, it was 2:00 p.m. and too late for her attend
10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 25
the event for which she made the trip to Grand Junction. 32. On information and belief, Ms. Reiskin never received confirmation of her
request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
33. Ms. Reiskin has multiple sclerosis (“MS”). Like most people with MS, she is extremely sensitive to the heat. Neither the Delta or Grand Junction stations are air conditioned, so Ms. Reiskin carefully plans her trips so she does not have to spend any more time than necessary at either. On Saturday, June 29, 2006, Ms. Reiskin was forced to sit in the heat from 10:00 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. in Delta, Colorado. She was in Grand Junction forty-five minutes later, which was too late to attend the event, so she had to sit in the heat of the bus station again from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. when her next bus left. The heat affected Ms. Reiskin for days afterwards, making her less effective at her job and othrwise debilitating her.
34. Ms. Reiskin sent a letter to TMN&O on August 3, 2006, detailing the problems she had with Grand Junction and Delta trips and demanding an explanation of how TMN&O would resolve the wheelchair lift bus assignment problems. In the letter, Ms. Reiskin also requested damages for CCDC for TNM&O’s discriminatory conduct and for time and resources CCDC had expended dealing with TNM&O’s discriminatory practices. On or about September 6, 2006, Ms. Reiskin received a letter from Bobby Greenhill, Director of Operations of TNM&O explaining that a supervisor in the Albuquerque station had been replaced, and that this change in personnel should solve the wheelchair-lift bus assignment problem. TNM&O offered CCDC bus passes for TNM&O trips in the amount of $125.00, which CCDC has used.
11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 25
35. On the return trip from Grand Junction to Denver on September 8, 2006, at approximately 4:10 p.m., Ms. Reiskin encountered a Greyhound employee at the Grand Junction Greyhound station. The Greyhound employee asked Ms. Reiskin if she was going to Denver. Ms. Reiskin said that she was, and the driver asked her if she had informed Greyhound. She had and told the driver this. The employee looked at his computer, which had Ms. Reiskin’s return trip to Denver scheduled the previous day. Ms. Reiskin is meticulous about confirming trip dates and times over the phone. She received a confirmation form after her trip, and it showed the return trip was scheduled on the wrong date. The bus for this trip had a wheelchair lift, but it did not work. Employees at the station were able to repair the lift, but they were concerned about it malfunctioning again and asked Ms. Reiskin if she would mind not getting off at rest stops in case there was a lift failure. Ms. Reiskin needed the ride, so she boarded. Ms. Reiskin did not get off the bus for the five hour trip.
36. On or about September 11, 2006, Ms. Reiskin called Greyhound to schedule a trip from Denver to Sterling, Colorado for September 14, 2006. Greyhound told Ms. Reiskin to call Burlington. She did so on September 11, 2006. Burlington informed Ms. Reiskin they would not make a reservation until she purchased a ticket. She did so the next day and called back that day to make the reservation. Burlington also informed Ms. Reiskin that it could not provide an accessible bus for her return trip from Sterling on September 15, 2006. She was instructed to call “Black Hills,” which, on information and belief is “Arrow Black Hills Stage Line.” She was able to schedule a return trip.
37. On information and belief, Ms. Reiskin never received confirmation of her
12

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 25
request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
38. As a result of Defendants’ violations of law, Ms. Reiskin experienced injuries and damages. Ms. Reiskin would like to use the services of the OTRB companies and will do so if the OTRB companies stop discriminating against her on the basis of her disability.
39. In September of 2005, Plaintiff Loraine Johnson called TNM&O forty-eight hours in advance of her scheduled trip. She requested wheelchair lift-equipped buses on all legs of her trip from Montrose, Colorado to San Jose, California. Upon arriving at the bus station, Ms. Johnson was informed no lift bus would be available. At the time, Ms. Johnson got on the bus using the stairs. Because of her disabilities, doing so was very painful for Ms. Johnson. After leaving Montrose, Colorado, when she arrived in Grand Junction, Colorado, there was no bus with a lift. Ms. Johnson was told by TNM&O that the bus with a lift that was scheduled to be there had a broken lift. At that time, Ms. Johnson used a manual, collapsible wheelchair. The driver spent two-and-a-half hours trying to make the lift work. After this time, with great difficulty and effort, she was able to get on the bus. As a result of this delay, she was late getting to Los Angeles, CA. She had a six hour layover in Los Angeles, which was scheduled to be an hour and a half. All along the legs of her trip, no one along her trip knew that she needed a wheelchair accessible bus.
40. In or about September 9, 2006, Ms. Johnson called TNM&O and Greyhound to schedule a trip from Montrose to Grand Junction. She requested a bus with a wheelchair lift. Ms. Johnson also called TNM&O’s Albuquerque, New Mexico office to confirm her bus would
13

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 25
have a wheelchair, lift, which the office did confirm over the phone. When she got to the bus terminal, her scheduled bus did not have a wheelchair lift. Because of Ms. Johnson’s increasing level of disability, she was no longer able to get on the bus without her wheelchair. At this time and since, she uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. This wheelchair does not collapse. The bus was scheduled to depart at 1:20 p.m. The bus that did not have a lift left without Ms. Johnson. She waited until approximately 4:00 p.m. for TNM&O to find her an accessible bus or equivalent transportation. They provided neither. As a result, Ms. Johnson incurred hotel penalties and missed the class she wanted to attend. She contacted TNM&O again to complain about the missed trip, and she was told that her paperwork had mistakenly be sent to Colorado Springs, not Montrose.
41. Ms. Johnson would like to use the services of the OTRB companies and will do so if the OTRB companies stop discriminating against her on the basis of her disability. Ms. Johnson has been injured and harmed by Defendants’ conduct.
42. Ms. Johnson never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus within on either of her TNM&O trips, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
43. CCDC’s purpose is to work for systemic change that promotes independence, self-reliance, and full inclusion for people with disabilities in the entire community. As part of that purpose, CCDC seeks to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- the programs, activities and services provided by OTRB companies, like those owned and operated by Defendants.
14

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 25
44. CCDC engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to promote access for and combat discrimination against people with disabilities. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ violations of the laws cited herein.
45. Defendants’ actions have caused and continue to cause distinct, palpable, and perceptible injury to CCDC.
46. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to communicating with the Defendants in an attempt to secure non-discriminatory conditions for Defendants’ OTRB services.
47. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, and educational efforts, to counseling members and others who have been injured by Defendants’ discrimination.
48. Defendants’ discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to the full participation of persons with disabilities and, therefore, frustrates CCDC’s ability to achieve full inclusion for persons with disabilities.
49. Defendants’ discrimination has required and continues to require CCDC to make a greater effort -- and to allocate significant resources -- to educate the public that such discrimination is wrong and otherwise to counteract the adverse impact of such discrimination. This perceptibly impairs CCDC’s counseling, advocacy, educational, and training missions.
50. CCDC also has devoted and continues to devote resources -- including but not limited to those devoted to the present lawsuit -- to identifying and counteracting the sources of
15

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 25
discrimination in the community, including that of Defendants. 51. CCDC’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are
traceable to Defendants’ discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
52. CCDC’s members and their spouses, friends, relatives, and associates have been injured and will continue to be injured by Defendants’ discrimination.
53. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of Defendants, and the integration of persons with disabilities into all aspects of community life are at the core of CCDC’s organizational purpose.
54. The participation of individual CCDC members in the lawsuit is not required either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief.
55. Defendants acted intentionally or with reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 56. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 57. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by a private entity that is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a).
16

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 25
58. All Defendants operate specified public transportation services, OTRB services, that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and their operations affect commerce.
59. The regulations implementing 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) are found at 49 C.F.R., part 37. These regulations took effect with respect to large operators on October 30, 2000, and to small operators on October 29, 2001. On information and belief, Defendant Greyhound is a “large operator,” and Defendants Powder River, Burlington, and TNM&O are “small operators.”
60. All over-the-road, fixed route transportation providers that have purchased or leased new vehicles since the effective dates above have been required to purchase or lease accessible buses, or, in the case of small operators, they have had the option of providing equivalent service. 49 U.S.C. § 37.183. For large operators, half of their bus fleet was required to be accessible by October 30, 2006, unless an extension was requested. 49 U.S.C. § 37.185.
61. On information and belief, Defendants have not acquired accessible buses as required by the regulations.
62. With respect to interline service, “[w]hen the general public can purchase a ticket or make a reservation with one operator for a fixed-route trip of two or more stages in which another operator provides service, the first operator must arrange for an accessible bus, or equivalent service, as applicable, to be provided for each stage of the trip to a passenger with a disability.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(a). Each operator retains the responsibility for providing the transportation required by the regulations to the passenger for its portion of an interline trip. 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(b). The passenger shall be required to make only one request, which covers all
17

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 25
legs of the requested trip (e.g., in the case of a round trip, both the outgoing and return legs of the trip; in the case of a multi-leg trip, all connecting legs). 49 C.F.R. § 37.213(a). In addition, all fixed-route operators involved in interline service shall ensure that they have the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities, 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(c), and confirmation of requests for accessible buses must be communicated to the passenger in one business day, using the Service Request Form in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
63. As described in this Complaint, Defendants have failed to ensure that individuals who require accessible transportation are able to schedule accessible vehicles for all legs of their trip and have failed to maintain the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities. As described herein, Defendants have failed to communicate confirmation of accessible buses to Plaintiffs within one business day, using the Service Request Form in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
64. Until all buses in an operator’s fleet are accessible, OTRB transportation providers must make accessible buses available on request. 49 C.F.R. § 37.193(a)(1). The operator may require up to 48 hours advance notice to provide this service. 49 C.F.R. § 37.193(a)(1)(I).
65. Despite Plaintiffs’ efforts to make requests for accessible bus services 48 hours or more in advance and their repeated attempts to confirm accessible buses, Defendants failed to provide accessible buses.
66. With respect to intermediate and rest stops, “a passenger with a disability,
18

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 25
including an individual using a wheelchair, shall be permitted to leave and return to the bus on the same basis as other passengers. The operator shall ensure that assistance is provided to passengers with disabilities as needed to enable the passenger to get on and off the bus at the stop (e.g., operate the lift and provide assistance with securement; provide other boarding assistance if needed, as in the case of a wheelchair user who has transferred to a vehicle seat because other wheelchair users occupied all securement locations).” 49 C.F.R. § 37.201(a).
67. As explained in this Complaint, Defendants failed to allow Plaintiffs to leave and return to the bus on the same basis as other passengers and failed to provide other boarding assistance.
68. Wheelchair lifts are required to be maintained and inspected to ensure they are operative, and buses with inoperative lifts are to be taken out of service for maintenance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.203.
69. On information and belief, during the incidents described in this Complaint, and at other times, Defendants failed to inspect and maintain bus lifts to ensure they were operative and failed to take buses with inoperative lifts out of service.
70. Unlawful discrimination under the regulations includes, without limitation: (1) Denying transportation to passengers with disabilities; (2) requiring or requesting a passenger with a disability to reschedule his or her trip, or travel at a time other than the time the passenger has requested; (3) failing to provide reservation services to passengers with disabilities equivalent to those provided other passengers; and (4) failing or refusing to comply with any applicable provision of the regulations. 49 C.F.R. § 37.207.
19

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 25
71. Defendants, through their actions described in this Complaint, engaged in unlawful discrimination prohibited by 49 C.F.R. § 37.207.
72. All bus drivers are required to receive training in proper operation and maintenance of accessibility features and equipment, boarding assistance, securement of mobility aids, sensitive and appropriate interaction with passengers with disabilities, handling and storage of mobility devices, and familiarity with the requirements of the regulations. 49 C.F.R. § 37.209. OTRB operators shall provide refresher training to personnel as needed to maintain proficiency. Id. Entities which operate fixed route systems shall ensure that personnel are trained to proficiency, as appropriate to their duties, so that they operate vehicles and equipment safely and properly assist and treat individuals with disabilities who use the service in a respectful and courteous way, with appropriate attention to the difference among individuals with disabilities. 49 C.F.R. § 37.173.
73. On information and belief, during the incidents described in this Complaint, Defendants failed to provide appropriate training as required by the regulations.
74. Defendant’s violations of the ADA have harmed Plaintiffs, who have sustained damages as a result.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of 5he Rehabilitation Act) 75. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 76. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from
20

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 25
denying, on the basis of disability, the benefits provided by the recipient, or from subjecting persons with disabilities to discrimination. 29 U.S.C. § 794.
77. For OTRB companies entities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, compliance with applicable requirements of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37 is a condition of compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and of receiving financial assistance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.21(b).
78. On information and belief, Defendants receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation.
79. Defendant has violated Section 504 the Rehabilitation Act by denying Plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities the benefits of their OTRB services and otherwise failing to comply with the regulations applicable to OTRB companies as described in this complaint.
80. Defendant’s violations of the Rehabilitation Act have harmed Plaintiffs. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.: Colorado Consumer Protection Act)
81. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
82. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) requires that “[e]xcept in a class action, any person who, in a private civil action, is found to have engaged in or caused another to engage in any deceptive trade practice . . . shall be liable in the amount equal to the sum of . . .[t]hree times the actual damages sustained or two hundred and fifty dollars, whichever is greater; and . . . [i]n the case of a successful action to enforce said liability the costs of the
21

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 25
action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court.” 83. Plaintiffs Timothy Coenen, Julie Reiskin and Loraine Johnson seek recovery
under the CCPA. 84. In addition, the CCPA provides, “[a]ny person who violates or causes another to
violate any provision of [the CCPA] shall forfeit and pay to the general fund of this state a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars for each such violation [;] a violation of any provision shall constitute a separate violation with respect to each consumer or transaction involved; except that the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars for any related series of violations.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-112(1).
85. Section 6-1-112 is enforceable by a plaintiff in a private cause of action. 86. Under the CCPA, “[a] person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of such person’s business . . . such person:”
a. “[k]nowingly makes a false representation as to the characteristics . . . uses, alterations, or quantities of . . . services . . . ;
b. “[r]epresents that . . . services . . . are of a particular standard, quality or grade . . . if he knows or should know that they are of another;”
c. “[a]dvertises . . . services with intent not to sell them as advertised;” d. “[a]dvertises . . . services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable
public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;” e. “[e]mploys ‘bait and switch’ advertising, which is advertising
22

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 25
accompanied by an effort to sell . . .services . . .other than those advertised or on terms other than those advertised and which is also accompanied by [the] following practice . . . demonstrating defective . . . services which are unusable or impractical for the purposes set forth in the advertisement; and f. “[f]ails to disclose material information concerning . . .services . . . which information was known at the time of an advertisement or sale if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer to enter into a transaction. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1). 87. Defendants Greyhound and TNM&O advertise that they provide accessible buses with 48 hours prior notice. As set forth in this Complaint, these Defendants did not and, on information and belief, do not provide accessible buses with 48 hours prior notice. 88. Plaintiffs Timothy Coenen, Julie Reiskin and Loraine Johnson were led to believe and did believe that they would have accessible transportation based on Greyhound’s and TNM&O’s representations. Plaintiffs did not receive the service they were promised.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray: 1. That this Court assume jurisdiction. 2. That this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendants to comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the CCPA.
23

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 25
3. That this Court award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs.
4. That this Court award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
5. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper
and equitable.
JURY DEMAND: Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues which can be heard by a jury.
Dated: March 27, 2007
Respectfully submitted, /s Kevin W. Williams Kevin W. Williams Legal Program Director Carrie Ann Lucas Equal Justice Works Fellow Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 Voice: 303.839.1775 TTY: 303.839.0015 Facsimile: 303.839.1782 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org E-mail: clucas@ccdconline.org
Timothy P. Fox Amy F. Robertson Ari R. Krichiver Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910 - 16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Voice: 303.595.9700 TTY: 303.595.9703 Facsimile: 303.595.9705 E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com E-mail: arob@foxrob.com E-mail: akrichiver@foxrob.com
Address of Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition
24

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 1 Filed 03/27/07 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 25
655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 Address of Julie Reiskin 3645 Milwaukee Street Denver, Colorado 80205 Address of Plaintiff Loraine Johnson 2716 Abrams Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401
25

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-CV-598-LTB-MEH COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit corporation, TIMOTHY J. COENEN, JULIE REISKIN, and LORAINE A. JOHNSON
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, CUSA PARTS, LLC, D/B/A POWDER RIVER TRANSPORTATION, a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, D/B/A BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa
corporation, and TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants.
DEFENDANT BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendant, Burlington Stages Lines, Ltd., d/b/a Burlington Trailways (hereinafter “Burlington Trailways”), by and through its counsel, hereby answers Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. Burlington Trailways admits that it provides over-the-road bus transportation. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
1

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 13
2. Burlington Trailways admits that Kevin Williams, counsel for Plaintiffs, sent a demand letter to Burlington Trailways, and that Burlington Trailways responded. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint are directed toward Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies those allegations. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint regarding the other Defendants and, therefore, denies them.
4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to these allegations.
JURISDICTION 5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is an invocation of jurisdiction to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways denies that it committed any violations of federal law and denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 6. Burlington Trailways admits the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
PARTIES 7. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 13
8. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
9. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
10. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
11. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
12. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
13. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
14. Burlington Trailways admits that it is an Iowa Corporation with a principal business address of 906 Broadway, West Burlington, IA 52655. Upon information and belief, Burlington Trailways denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 13
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 15. Burlington Trailways admits that it interlines with Greyhound Lines, Inc. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 16. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 17. Paragraph 17 of the Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 18. Burlington Trailways admits that it operates over-the-road bus services and that it has received discrete and limited federal financial assistance. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 19-28. The allegations in Paragraphs 19 through 28 of the Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 19 through 28 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 29. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. Burlington Trailways affirmatively states that it did not (and does not) operate a bus schedule between Denver and Sterling, Colorado which allows any passenger to travel to Sterling for one day and return to Denver the same day. Further, Burlington Trailways affirmatively states that
4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 13
that it had more than one accessible bus in 2005, and that it did not employ a "Julie Delaney" or "Gary" or operate a "Call Center."
30-35. The allegations in Paragraphs 30 through 35 of the Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 30 through 35 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
36. Burlington Trailways admits that it told Ms. Reiskin she needed to purchase a ticket in order to make a reservation and that she called Burlington Trailways on September 12, 2006 to purchase a ticket and make a reservation. Burlington Trailways denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint directed towards Burlington Trailways. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 36 regarding Greyhound or Black Hills and, therefore, denies them.
37. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
38. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
39-42. The allegations in Paragraphs 39 through 42 of the Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient
5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 13
information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 39 through 42 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
43. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
44. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
45. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
46. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
47. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
48. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them. Burlington Trailways further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
49. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them. Burlington Trailways further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 13
50. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
51. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 52. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. 53. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them. Burlington Trailways further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law. 54. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 55. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 56. Burlington Trailways incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 55 as if set forth herein. 57. Paragraph 57 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 58. Burlington Trailways admits that it operates over-the-road bus services for the public and that its operations affect commerce. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. 59. The allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington
7

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 13
Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. 60. The allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint contain a legal conclusion to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
61. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 62. The allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 63. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them. 64. The allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 65. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them. 66. The allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 67. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them. 68. The allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington
8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 13
Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 69. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint are directed to
Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them. 70. The allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint contain a legal conclusion to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
71. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
72. The allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
73. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
74. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 75. Burlington Trailways incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 74 as if set forth herein. 76. The allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 77. The allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint contain a legal conclusion to
9

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 13
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
78. Burlington Trailways admits that it has received discrete and limited federal financial assistance. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Complaint.
79. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
80. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.:
Colorado Consumer Protection Act) 81. Burlington Trailways incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 80 as if set forth herein. 82 -88. The allegations in Paragraphs 82 through 88 of the Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 82 through 88 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF The paragraph immediately following Paragraph 88 of the Complaint, labeled as subparagraphs 1 through 5, constitutes a prayer for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in each
10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 13
subparagraph. Burlington Trailways denies all allegations in the Complaint not specifically admitted
herein. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitation. 3. The Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. 4. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition’s claims are barred by its lack of standing. 5. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. 6. All of Burlington Trailways' actions were taken in good faith efforts to comply with federal law. 7. Burlington Trailways reserves the right to move for separate trials under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b). 8. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the conduct of third persons over whom Burlington Trailways had no control or right to control. Burlington Trailways reserves the right to (a) rely upon such other affirmative defenses as may be supported by the facts to be determined through full and complete discovery, and (b) to voluntarily withdraw any affirmative defense.
11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, having fully answered and responded to the allegations of the Amended Complaint, Burlington Trailways hereby prays that: (1) Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice in their entirety; (2) Each and every prayer for relief contained in the Amended Complaint be denied; (3) Judgment be entered in favor of Burlington Trailways; (4) All costs, including reasonable attorney fees, be awarded to Burlington Trailways and against Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, pursuant to applicable law; and (5) Burlington Trailways be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 15th day of June, 2007.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, P.C.
s/ Susan P. Klopman David D. Powell Susan P. Klopman 410 17th Street, 22nd Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 223-1100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, d/ba/ BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS
12

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 14 Filed 06/15/07 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 15th day of June, 2007, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail address:
Kevin W. Williams Legal Program Director Carrie Ann Lucas Equal Justice Works Fellow Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203
Timothy P. Fox Amy F. Robertson Ari R. Krichiver Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910 – 16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, P.C.
s/ Susan P. Klopman David D. Powell Susan P. Klopman 410 17th Street, 22nd Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 223-1100
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, d/ba/ BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS
11229\1\1061178.1
13

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 25 Filed 07/20/07 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00598-LTB-MEH COLORADO CROSS DIABILITY COALITION et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC. et al.
Defendants.
GREYHOUND AND TNM&O’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendants, GREYHOUND LINES, INC. (“Greyhound”) and TNM&O (together, “defendants”), by undersigned counsel, submit the following answer to plaintiffs’ complaint.
1. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 1, defendants provide overthe-road bus transportation and deny all remaining allegations.
2. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 2, TNM&O responded by letter dated September 6, 2006, and explained the personnel problem and the action being taken. With respect to plaintiff CCDC’s letter to Greyhound, Greyhound forwarded it to TNM&O for a response.
3. To the extent they are directed toward defendants, deny the allegations in paragraph 3. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 3 and therefore neither admit nor deny them.

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 25 Filed 07/20/07 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
4. The allegations in paragraph 4 are not directed to defendants and therefore defendants do not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
5. Paragraph 5 is an invocation of jurisdiction to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, deny that defendants committed any violations of federal law and deny all remaining allegations.
6. Admit the allegations in paragraphs 6, 13, and 83. 7. Are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 33, 40, and 43, and therefore neither admit nor deny. 8. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 11, Greyhound is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 15110 N. Dallas Parkway, Dallas, TX 75248 and a subsidiary of Laidlaw Transportation Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. All remaining allegations are denied. 9. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 15, defendants are concurring members of the National Bus Traffic Assn. with Powder River and Burlington but deny that there are separate contracts referred to as interline agreements. 10. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 16, TNM&O operates OTRB buses and TNM&O is a subsidiary of Greyhound. Both Greyhound and TNM&O are concurring members of the National Bus Traffic Assn. whereby members agree for the convenience of passengers to sell tickets that allow a passenger to buy one ticket instead of
2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 25 Filed 07/20/07 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
multiple tickets over different lines and each member agrees they are subject to the tariff limitations for the purposes of reimbursement. Deny all remaining allegations.
11. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 17, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 76, 77, 82, and 84-86, defendants state that the applicable laws speak for themselves. Any allegations that are inconsistent or incomplete with respect to those laws are denied.
12. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 18, defendants operate over-the-road bus services, state that the applicable laws speak for themselves but to the extent plaintiffs’ allegations are inconsistent with the applicable laws, those allegations are denied. Greyhound does receive some federal grant monies. Counsel is not presently certain whether the financial assistance is as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.
13. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 19 and 25, the system in which all of the requests that Greyhound received for lift-equipped buses for travel that includes Greyhound does not show any calls or requests made by or on behalf of Mr. Coenen and defendants are thus without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them. As to the allegations regarding reservations for his June 5 trip, Mr. Coenen would not have received any communication confirming a request for a lift-equipped bus because Greyhound had no record of plaintiff Coenen making such a request. Deny all remaining allegations.
14. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 29, these allegations are not directed to defendants and therefore no response is necessary. To the extent a response is necessary, defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 25 Filed 07/20/07 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
15. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 27, deny that Greyhound caused injuries or damages to Mr. Coenen or discriminated against him. As to the remaining allegations, defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
16. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 28, to the extent they are asserted against defendants, Ms. Reiskin wrote a letter in August 2006 to which defendants responded. As to the remaining allegations, defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
17. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 30 and 31, Ms. Reiskin made a timely request for a lift-equipped bus for travel from Denver to Delta to occur on July 28, 2006. The portion of her trip handled by Greyhound was run on a lift-equipped bus. TNM&O, however, failed to have a lift-equipped bus for its portion of the trip commencing in Grand Junction and return trip from Delta to Grand Junction and provided Ms. Reiskin with cab transportation for which it made payment arrangements with the owner of the cab company. Ms. Reiskin was in contact with Stacey Lemmons of TNM&O concerning the lift problem on her trip. Upon learning from Ms. Reiskin’s August 2006 letter of TNM&O’s failure to have a liftequipped bus available for her return trip, TNM&O investigated and took personnel action to impose appropriate discipline inside its organization and sent her five (5) vouchers worth $125 each.
18. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 32, 37, and 42, state that the applicable laws speak for themselves but to the extent plaintiffs’ allegations are inconsistent
4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 25 Filed 07/20/07 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
with the applicable laws, those allegations are denied. As to the remaining allegations, defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
19. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 34, Ms. Reiskin’s and Bobby Greenhill’s letters speak for themselves but to the extent plaintiffs’ allegations are inconsistent with the letters, those allegations are denied. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph assert that TNM&O or Greyhound engaged in discriminatory conduct and/or practices, these and all other allegations are denied.
20. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 35, regarding Ms. Reiskin’s return trip from Grand Junction to Denver on September 8, 2006: Greyhound’s records show that on September 1, 2006, Mr. Reiskin made a timely request for lift-equipped buses for a round trip that would depart on September 6 and return on September 7, 2006; that Ms. Reiskin purchased her tickets on September 6, 2006 at the terminal from which she departed in Denver with a return on September 14, 2006. As to the remaining allegations, defendants either deny them or are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
21. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 36, the majority of these allegations are not directed against defendants and thus no answer is necessary. Even the material allegations of paragraph 36 pertain to another defendant, Burlington. To the extent a response is necessary, defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 25 Filed 07/20/07 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
22. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 38, deny that defendants violated any law, that they caused Ms. Reiskin to experience any injuries or damages, or that they discriminated against her. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
23. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 39, on September 9, 2005, Ms. Johnson contacted Greyhound’s travel assistance group to request a lift-equipped bus for a travel date of September 11, 2005 from San Jose, CA to Montrose, CO. Greyhound does not have a record of Ms. Johnson calling Greyhound’s travel assistance group about her outbound trip from Montrose, CO to San Jose, CA previous to the return and is therefore sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
24. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 41, deny that defendants discriminated against Ms. Johnson in violation of federal law or that she has been injured and harmed by defendants’ conduct. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
25. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 44, deny that defendants have violated any laws or that the CCDC has been or continues to be adversely affected by defendants. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 25 Filed 07/20/07 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
26. To the extent they are directed against defendants, deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 74, 79, 80, 87, and 88.
27. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 46, 47, and 50, to the extent these allegations are directed against defendants, deny that defendants discriminated against any of the plaintiffs in violation of federal law. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
28. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 53, agree with the goals plaintiffs express, but deny that these defendants engaged in discrimination.
29. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 56, defendants incorporate all their foregoing responses as if set forth herein.
30. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 58 are directed against defendants, defendants operate over-the-road bus services for the public and that their operations affect commerce. All remaining allegations are denied.
31. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 75, defendants incorporate all their foregoing responses as if set forth herein.
32. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 78, to the extent these allegations are directed toward defendants, Greyhound has received some federal grant monies for certain purposes.
33. The paragraph immediately following paragraph 88 of the complaint, labeled as subparagraphs 1 through 5, constitutes a prayer for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, deny the allegations in each subparagraph.
7

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 25 Filed 07/20/07 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
34. Any allegations not expressly admitted herein are denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statue of limitations. 3. The complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. 4. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition’s claims are barred by its lack of standing. 5. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. 6. All of defendants’ actions were taken in good faith efforts to comply with federal and Colorado law. 7. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the conduct of third persons over whom defendants had no control or right to control. 8. NOTICE OF NON-PARTIES AT FAULT: Defendants name Rimrock Stages, Inc. as a non-party whose fault or negligence caused or contributed to plaintiffs claimed injuries, if any.
WHEREFORE, having answered plaintiffs’ complaint, defendants request judgment in its favor, costs, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and such other relief as this Court may deem proper.
8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 25 Filed 07/20/07 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
DEFENDANTS REQUEST TRIAL TO A JURY Respectfully submitted, By s/Leslie L. Schluter
Leslie L. Schluter PRYOR JOHNSON CARNEY KARR NIXON PC 5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 1200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Telephone: (303) 773-3500 Fax: (303) 779-0740 E-mail:lschluter@lawincolorado.com Attorney for Defendants GREYHOUND LINES, INC. and TNM&O Coaches, Inc.
9

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 25 Filed 07/20/07 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that on July 20, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing GREYHOUND AND TNM&O’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: Kevin W. Williams Legal Program Director Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 kwilliams@ccdconline.org Timothy P. Fox Ari Krichiver Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910 Sixteenth Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 tfox@foxrob.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, P.C. David D. Powell Susan P. Klopman 410 17th Street, 22nd Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 dpowell@bhf-law.com sklopman@bhf-law.com
/s/Marisa Showalter Paralegal to Leslie L. Schluter
10

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 32
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00598-LTB-MEH COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit Corporation, TIMOTHY J. COENEN, JULIE REISKIN, LORAINE A. JOHNSON, BARBARA MOCZYGEMBA, and EILEEN HOPE KRAUSE,
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, CUSA PRTS, LLC, D/B/A, POWDER RIVER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD., D/B/A BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa
corporation, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES, a Nebraska corporation,
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin and Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba, and Eileen Hope Krause, by and through their attorneys, Kevin W. Williams, Legal Program Director, and Carrie Ann Lucas, Equal Justice Works Fellow, of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition and Fox & Robertson, P.C., hereby submit their Amended Complaint for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. As grounds for this Amended

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 32
Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the following: INTRODUCTION
1. Despite he passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act in 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., Defendants, all overthe-road bus (“OTRB”) transportation companies, still discriminate against persons with disabilities in ways that include but are not limited to: (1) failing to acquire accessible vehicles; (2) failing to reserve buses with wheelchair lifts when asked; (3) failing to allow passengers who use wheelchairs off the bus at stops; (4) failing to schedule all legs of a trip with one phone call; (5) failing to maintain wheelchair lifts in working order; (6) failing to remain courteous and respectful to passengers with disabilities; (7) failing to maintain the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities; and (8) failing to provide alternative transportation as required by the regulations.
2. Plaintiffs and their attorneys contacted these entities, with the exception of Busco, Inc., Busco, Inc. Arrow Stage Lines (who was not a defendant in the original complaint), in an effort to stave off litigation, but the companies that responded claimed they were in compliance with the law. Greyhound Lines, Inc. never responded.
3. As a result of Defendant OTRB companies’ actions, Plaintiffs, who use wheelchairs, have been stranded without transportation, have been forced to remain on buses for long hours when non-disabled passengers were free to get off the bus, and have had to spend an enormous amount of time scheduling trips that, by law, should only require a single call.
4. Plaintiffs seek to ensure that OTRB transportation is accessible to people who use
2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 32
wheelchairs throughout Colorado and bring this Amended Complaint seeking injunctive relief, damages and recovery of their reasonable attorneys’s fees and costs.
JURISDICTION 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and pursuant to its pendent jurisdiction over claims brought under the laws of the State of Colorado. 6. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
PARTIES 7. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) is a Colorado non-profit corporation whose members are persons with disabilities and their non-disabled allies. 8. Timothy J. Coenen was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado residing at 3490 West Quincy Avenue, Apartment 108, Englewood, Colorado 80110. Mr. Coenen is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Timothy J. Coenen is a CCDC member. 9. Julie Reiskin was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado residing at 3645 Milwaukee Street, Denver, Colorado 80205. Ms. Reiskin is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Julie Reiskin is CCDC’s Executive Director and a CCDC member. 10. Loraine A. Johnson was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado residing at 2716 Abrams Avenue, Montrose, Colorado 81401. Ms. Johnson is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized
3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 32
wheelchair for mobility. Loraine A. Johnson is a CCDC member. 11. Barbara Moczygemba was, at all times materiel hereto, a resident of Colorado,
residing at 105 W. Weston # 5, Fleming CO 80728. Ms. Moczygemba is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Moczygemba is a CCDC member.
12. Eileen Hope Krause was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado, residing at 414 Southridge Street, Apartment 101A, Fort Morgan, Colorado 80701. Ms. Krause is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Krause is a CCDC member.
13. Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. (“Greyhound”) is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 15110 N. Dallas Parkway, Dallas, TX 75248. Greyhound is licensed to do business in Colorado. Greyhound is a subsidiary of Laidlaw Transportation Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation.
14. Defendant CUSA PRTS, LLC, d/b/a, Powder River Transportation (“Powder River”) is a Delaware corporation, and according to documents filed with the Colorado Secretary of State, has its principal place of business at One Riverway, Suite 500, Houston, TX 77056. Powder River is licensed to do business in the state of Colorado. Powder River has answered that it is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Gillette, Wyoming.
15. Defendant Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc. (“TMN&O") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1313 13th St, Lubbock, TX 79401. TMN&O is licensed to do business in the state of Colorado. TMN&O is a subsidiary of
4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 32
Greyhound. 16. Defendant Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., d/b/a Burlington Trailways
(“Burlington”), is an Iowa corporation, which conducts business in Colorado, with its principal place of business at 906 Broadway, West Burlington, IA 52655. On information and belief, Burlington is not registered to do business in the state of Colorado.
17. Defendant Busco, Inc., d/b/a Busco, Inc. Arrow Stage Lines (“Arrow”) is a Nebraska corporation, which is registered to do business in Colorado, with its principal place of business at 4220 S. 52nd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68117.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 18. On information and belief, Greyhound has “interline agreements” with Powder River, Burlington and Arrow to provide transportation throughout Colorado and other states. Greyhound and TMN&O are members of the National Bus Traffic Association. 19. On information and belief, Greyhound, through its subsidiary TMN&O, operates OTRB buses under the TMN&O name, and/or has an interline agreement with TMN&O to provide transportation throughout Colorado and other states. 20. On information and belief, Defendants Powder River, Arrow and Burlington have interline agreements which cover OTRB services they provide in Colorado. 21. “Interline agreements” are governed by 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(a). 22. Each of the defendants operates OTRB services, regulated under 49 C.F.R., pt. 37, and, on information and belief, each of the defendants receives federal financial assistance, as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., in the form of grants from federal agencies.
5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 32
23. Tim Coenen, who uses a wheelchair, contacted Greyhound to make a reservation for a June 5, 2006 trip. Mr. Coenen can walk very little and does so with great difficulty. Greyhound reserved tickets for him for a Powder River bus to depart from Denver at approximately 10:00 p.m. on June 5, 2006. His destination was Butte, Montana. He told the sales agent that he would need a bus with a wheelchair lift. He was told to call again within one week of his trip and tell them again he needed an accessible bus. He did so. On information and belief, Mr. Coenen never received a communication confirming his request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
24. During the long trip (24 hours total), there were four different drivers on the Powder River portion of the trip. There were five or six rest stops or intermediate stops during the time Mr. Coenen was on the Powder River trip. Only once was Mr. Coenen allowed to leave the vehicle. He was not asked or given the opportunity to exit the vehicle at other rest stops. He was left alone on the bus at times, which was very uncomfortable for him.
25. On Mr. Coenen’s return trip from Butte, Montana to Colorado on June 28, 2006, Greyhound scheduled Mr. Coenen on a Rimrock Stages, Inc. (“Rimrock”)1 bus at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Coenen called Rimrock twice before his return trip to confirm that the bus would be accessible. The first driver Mr. Coenen encountered, named Jim, said he could not find the key to unlock the wheelchair lift door. He did not find the key. The driver said he was going to leave, and Mr. Coenen explained his bags were already on the bus. The driver removed Mr. Coenen’s bags and
1 Rimrock is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit because it does not do business in the state of Colorado.
6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 32
left without him. The Rimrock office closed at 5:00 p.m., so Mr. Coenen was unable to call anyone to solve this problem or try to get another bus. He stayed in Butte an additional night.
26. Mr. Coenen called Rimrock at 8:15 a.m. the next day and explained what had happened. A woman named Heather told Mr. Coenen to be at the bus stop at 2:30 p.m. that day, and an accessible bus would be there. He did so. The bus that arrived did not have a wheelchair lift. Mr. Coenen called Heather again and told her the bus had no lift. Heather told him Greyhound made a mistake. The next bus was scheduled at approximately 7:30 p.m. Mr. Coenen waited in the rain for that bus.
27. The 7:30 p.m. bus arrived, and the driver was Jim again, the same driver Mr. Coenen encountered the previous day. Jim could not figure out how to open the lift door. Mr. Coenen’s nephew was at the bus stop with him and went to look for the opening mechanism and found the keyhole. The driver had to go look for the key. He did not know where it was. He eventually found it, and Mr. Coenen boarded the bus; however, if Mr. Coenen’s nephew had not determined how to operate the lift, Mr. Coenen likely would have been left again.
28. The bus arrived in Billings, Montana at approximately 12:45 a.m., and Mr. Coenen was scheduled to change buses there. The driver of the bus he was scheduled to ride was named Kory. Kory said Powder River did not send an accessible bus and berated Mr. Coenen for not having called for an accessible bus. Mr. Coenen explained that he spoke with the woman named Heather, and she was supposed to call Powder River to change the day for the accessible bus because the Rimrock bus was not accessible the day before. Kory informed Mr. Coenen that he would have to wait forty-eight hours for the next accessible bus to Colorado. Mr.
7

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 32
Coenen was upset. Kory said Mr. Coenen could either get out of his chair and walk on the bus, or wait for the next bus. Mr. Coenen did not have the resources to stay in Billings, so with great difficulty and pain, he got out of his wheelchair and on to the bus.
29. Greyhound through its interline agreements with Powder River and Rimrock was responsible for notifying Powder River and Rimrock of Mr. Coenen’s need for accessible buses on each leg of Mr. Coenen’s trip. Greyhound failed to do so.
30. Powder River was required to allow Mr. Coenen to exit the bus during intermediate rest stops.
31. As a result of Greyhound’s and Powder River’s failures, Mr. Coenen suffered injuries and damages. Mr. Coenen would like to use the services of the OTRB companies and will do so if the OTRB companies stop discriminating against him on the basis of his disability.
32. Plaintiff Julie Reiskin is the Executive Director of CCDC, and she uses a motorized wheelchair. Her job requires her to travel around the state of Colorado. She is a frequent user of Greyhound, TNM&O, and other OTRB companies. Over the years, Ms. Reiskin has experienced numerous problems with wheelchair access with these transportation services including, without limitation, the following: drivers not knowing how to operate wheelchair lifts and securement devices; scheduling accessible buses forty-eight hours in advance and having the bus arrive with no wheelchair lift; and not being permitted to leave the bus on rest breaks when all other passengers were permitted to do so. She has reported some of these problems on behalf of herself and other CCDC members for years, including filing a Department of Justice complaint on behalf of a CCDC member in or about 2003.
8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 32
33. On information and belief, in or about October 10, 2005, Julie Reiskin contacted Burlington to schedule an accessible bus for a trip to Sterling, Colorado on October 19, 2005. Ms. Reiskin needed to get to Sterling and back in one day. When Ms. Reiskin called Burlington, she was informed they could not schedule an accessible bus for her return trip in one day. On October 17, 2005, Carrie Lucas, who was working at CCDC as an Equal Justice Works fellow, called Burlington to try to resolve the matter on Ms. Reiskin’s behalf. Ms. Lucas was told Burlington only had one bus with a lift, and they would not be able to provide an accessible bus for both parts of Ms. Reiskin’s trip. Ms. Lucas made several calls that day and talked with several individuals over three hours to try to schedule Ms. Reiskin’s trip with two accessible buses. On information and belief, neither Ms. Reiskin nor Ms. Lucas received confirmation that Ms. Reiskin’s bus would be accessible, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
34. Ms. Reiskin experienced a discriminatory incident on July 28, 2006. Ms. Reiskin scheduled the trip from Denver to Delta, Colorado with Greyhound slightly more than fortyeight hours in advance. She called Greyhound again the day before she left on her trip to get confirmation that the TNM&O bus she was scheduled to transfer to in Grand Junction, Colorado, was accessible. She was told TNM&O had been notified, and the bus for her trip would be an accessible bus. Ms. Reiskin departed Denver on a Greyhound bus at approximately 12:00 a.m. She arrived in Grand Junction at approximately 4:15 a.m. As she was getting off the bus, the driver of the bus indicated to another employee that Ms. Reiskin was heading south. The driver of that bus came to Ms. Reiskin and asked where she was going. Ms. Reiskin informed the
9

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 32
driver that she was going to Delta, scheduled at 5:30 a.m. About an hour later, Ms. Reiskin was told that there was no bus with a wheelchair lift. None of the TMN&O employees seemed to know what to do. Ms. Reiskin is familiar with transportation in the area and suggested they call Millennium Cab Service. She explained that if TNM&O could get an accessible cab, TNM&O would have to pay the fare. The TNM&O employee agreed that the fare would be paid by TNM&O and worked out a payment arrangement with the owner of the cab company. Ms. Reiskin called and spoke with Stacy at TNM&O early in the morning to report that there had not been a bus with a wheelchair lift and to find out if there was going to be an accessible bus for her trip the following day. Stacy from TNM&O called Ms. Reiskin back before 8:00 a.m. She said she was not aware that Ms. Reiskin needed an accessible bus that morning and asked her for details about how Ms. Reiskin had made the scheduling arrangements with Greyhound. After several calls with Stacy, Ms. Reiskin learned that Greyhound had faxed the request for a lift bus to TNM&O and had never called to assure someone got it. Apparently, no one received the request. Stacy told Ms. Reiskin that a manager had spoken to the Greyhound ADA office manager and required that they no longer fax such requests without also making a call to assure that someone receives and acts on the information. Ms. Reiskin called Stacy a couple more times that day because she wanted to be sure that the bus for the trip on the 29th would have a lift. Ms. Reiskin was concerned because if she needed to find alternative transportation, she would have to make a reservation early. Stacy assured Ms. Reiskin the bus would have a lift.
35. Ms. Reiskin arrived at the Delta, Colorado station at approximately 9:50 a.m. The bus she was scheduled to ride on arrived and did not have a wheelchair despite Stacy’s
10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 32
assurances that it would. Both the person staffing the bus station, Debbie, and Ms. Reiskin asked the driver about this. The driver told them that he did receive paperwork stating that he needed a bus with a lift, but he was directed to take the bus without a lift. On information and belief, paperwork was also at the Delta station showing that Ms. Reiskin had made her reservation for an accessible bus at that time. Ms. Reiskin called the TNM&O number and was connected to the bus depot in Lubbock, Texas. After explaining what had happened to several people on the phone, she was connected to a supervisor. The supervisor said he would make some calls to figure out how to get a bus to her and call her back. Debbie had also made calls and received the same response. They waited an hour, and no one called back. Debbie called back to Lubbock and discovered that nothing had been done to get an accessible bus. Ms. Reiskin was informed she could go the next day, and TNM&O would have a bus with a lift. They agreed that if Ms. Reiskin got to Grand Junction and there was no accessible bus, the bus that took her from Delta to Grand Junction would take her to Denver. Ms. Reiskin called the cab company that brought her to Delta the day before, and they agreed to come back and transport her to Grand Junction. By the time Ms. Reiskin arrived in Grand Junction, it was 2:00 p.m. and too late for her attend the event for which she made the trip to Grand Junction.
36. On information and belief, Ms. Reiskin never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
37. Ms. Reiskin has multiple sclerosis (“MS”). Like most people with MS, she is extremely sensitive to the heat. Neither the Delta or Grand Junction stations are air conditioned,
11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 32
so Ms. Reiskin carefully plans her trips so she does not have to spend any more time than necessary at either. On Saturday, June 29, 2006, Ms. Reiskin was forced to sit in the heat from 10:00 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. in Delta, Colorado. She was in Grand Junction forty-five minutes later, which was too late to attend the event, so she had to sit in the heat of the bus station again from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. when her next bus left. The heat affected Ms. Reiskin for days afterwards, making her less effective at her job and otherwise debilitating her.
38. Ms. Reiskin sent a letter to TMN&O on August 3, 2006, detailing the problems she had with Grand Junction and Delta trips and demanding an explanation of how TMN&O would resolve the wheelchair lift bus assignment problems. In the letter, Ms. Reiskin also requested damages for CCDC for TNM&O’s discriminatory conduct and for time and resources CCDC had expended dealing with TNM&O’s discriminatory practices. On or about September 6, 2006, Ms. Reiskin received a letter from Bobby Greenhill, Director of Operations of TNM&O explaining that a supervisor in the Albuquerque station had been replaced, and that this change in personnel should solve the wheelchair-lift bus assignment problem. TNM&O offered CCDC bus passes for TNM&O trips in the amount of $125.00, which CCDC has used.
39. On the return trip from Grand Junction to Denver on September 8, 2006, at approximately 4:10 p.m., Ms. Reiskin encountered a Greyhound employee at the Grand Junction Greyhound station. The Greyhound employee asked Ms. Reiskin if she was going to Denver. Ms. Reiskin said that she was, and the driver asked her if she had informed Greyhound. She had and told the driver this. The employee looked at his computer, which had Ms. Reiskin’s return trip to Denver scheduled the previous day. Ms. Reiskin is meticulous about confirming trip
12

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 32
dates and times over the phone. She received a confirmation form after her trip, and it showed the return trip was scheduled on the wrong date. The bus for this trip had a wheelchair lift, but it did not work. Employees at the station were able to repair the lift, but they were concerned about it malfunctioning again and asked Ms. Reiskin if she would mind not getting off at rest stops in case there was a lift failure. Ms. Reiskin needed the ride, so she boarded. Ms. Reiskin did not get off the bus for the five hour trip.
40. On or about September 11, 2006, Ms. Reiskin called Greyhound to schedule a trip from Denver to Sterling, Colorado for September 14, 2006. Greyhound told Ms. Reiskin to call Burlington. She did so on September 11, 2006. Burlington informed Ms. Reiskin they would not make a reservation until she purchased a ticket. She did so the next day and called back that day to make the reservation. Burlington also informed Ms. Reiskin that it could not provide an accessible bus for her return trip from Sterling on September 15, 2006. She was instructed to call another bus company to schedule a return trip.
41. On information and belief, Ms. Reiskin never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a) for the trip described in paragraph 41.
42. Ms. Reiskin has used Powder River several times and most recently on or about March 29, 2007 to travel from Denver to Greeley, Colorado. Ms. Reiskin contacted Powder River at least forty-eight hours in advance of her trip and requested a bus with a wheelchair lift. On information and belief, Ms. Reiskin never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49
13

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 32
C.F.R. § 213(a) for this trip. 43. As a result of Defendants’ violations of law, Ms. Reiskin experienced injuries and
damages. Ms. Reiskin would like to use the services of the OTRB companies and will do so if the OTRB companies stop discriminating against her on the basis of her disability.
44. In September of 2005, Plaintiff Loraine Johnson called TNM&O forty-eight hours in advance of her scheduled trip. She requested wheelchair lift-equipped buses on all legs of her trip from Montrose, Colorado to San Jose, California. Upon arriving at the bus station, Ms. Johnson was informed no lift bus would be available. At the time, Ms. Johnson got on the bus using the stairs. Because of her disabilities, doing so was very painful for Ms. Johnson. After leaving Montrose, Colorado, when she arrived in Grand Junction, Colorado, there was no bus with a lift. Ms. Johnson was told by TNM&O that the bus with a lift that was scheduled to be there had a broken lift. At that time, Ms. Johnson used a manual, collapsible wheelchair. The driver spent two-and-a-half hours trying to make the lift work. After this time, with great difficulty and effort, she was able to get on the bus. As a result of this delay, she was late getting to Los Angeles, CA. She had a six hour layover in Los Angeles, which was scheduled to be an hour and a half. All along the legs of her trip, no one along her trip knew that she needed a wheelchair accessible bus. Throughout the course of this trip, drivers did not assist Ms. Johnson with getting her wheelchair and exiting the bus at intermediate and rest stops.
45. In or about September 9, 2006, Ms. Johnson called TNM&O and Greyhound to schedule a trip from Montrose to Grand Junction. She requested a bus with a wheelchair lift. Ms. Johnson also called TNM&O’s Albuquerque, New Mexico office to confirm her bus would
14

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 32
have a wheelchair, lift, which the office did confirm over the phone. When she got to the bus terminal, her scheduled bus did not have a wheelchair lift. Because of Ms. Johnson’s increasing level of disability, she was no longer able to get on the bus without her wheelchair. At this time and since, she uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. This wheelchair does not collapse. The bus was scheduled to depart at 1:20 p.m. The bus that did not have a lift left without Ms. Johnson. She waited until approximately 4:00 p.m. for TNM&O to find her an accessible bus or equivalent transportation. They provided neither. As a result, Ms. Johnson incurred hotel penalties and missed the class she wanted to attend. She contacted TNM&O again to complain about the missed trip, and she was told that her paperwork had mistakenly be sent to Colorado Springs, not Montrose.
46. Ms. Johnson would like to use the services of the OTRB companies and will do so if the OTRB companies stop discriminating against her on the basis of her disability. Ms. Johnson has been injured and harmed by Defendants’ conduct.
47. Ms. Johnson never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus within on either of her TNM&O trips, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
48. On or about February 19, 2007, Barbara Moczygemba prepared to board a bus operated by Burlington, bound from Sterling, Colorado to Denver, Colorado. Ms. Moczygemba had contacted Burlington forty-eight hours in advance of the trip to ensure that a bus with a lift would be provided for her use.
49. When the bus arrived at the Sterling, Colorado stop, the lift and the kneeling
15

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 32
system on the bus did not function. Both were apparently frozen, and the driver, Paul, had no de-icer or other means to thaw the lift mechanisms, rendering the kneeling mechanism and lift inoperable.
50. The driver requested that Ms. Moczygemba crawl into the bus while he placed her motorized scooter below, with the luggage. Ms. Moczygemba agreed, with the caveat that the driver be very careful and follow her instructions regarding stowing the scooter so that it would not be damaged.
51. The driver ignored all of Ms. Moczygemba’s instructions and inserted the motorized scooter on it’s side, causing the scooter to break apart and in a manner that allowed baggage to repeatedly strike it while in transit.
52. Ms. Moczygemba crawled onto the bus with difficulty and rode to Denver. 53. Upon arrival in Denver, Ms. Moczygemba observed her scooter being removed from the baggage compartment and saw that it was in several pieces and the wiring had been torn. The transaxle and frame had been bent, and Ms. Moczygemba observed the scooter being dropped multiple times. Ms. Moczygemba’s scooter did not function after it was returned to her. 54. Ms. Moczygemba notified Greyhound that her scooter had been damaged. Greyhound informed her that Greyhound was not responsible for the actions of Burlington regarding damage to the scooter. 55. The following Monday, Ms. Moczygemba contacted several motorized scooter shops in the Denver metropolitan area to get her scooter repaired. After the scooter’s condition was evaluated by one repair shop, AMT, it was determined that the scooter could not be
16

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 32
repaired. 56. Because her scooter was damaged, Ms. Moczygemba has rented a scooter, though
this scooter does not fully meet her needs. Ms. Moczygemba lives in a rural area of the state, and traditional scooters are not manufactured to handle rough terrain. She needs to replace her scooter, but she cannot afford to do so.
57. When Ms. Moczygemba contacted Burlington about reimbursement for the scooter, she was informed that she was only entitled to approximately $300.00 for damaged “baggage,” and $52.00 for ticket reimbursement.
58. Ms. Moczygemba never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
59. On or about May 11, 2007, Hope Krause contacted Burlington forty-eight hours in advance of her scheduled trip from Fort Morgan, Colorado to Denver, Colorado to ensure that a bus with a lift had been reserved for her trip as well as for her return trip from Denver to Fort Morgan on May 16, 2007. After being assured that appropriate buses had been reserved, Ms. Krause inquired as to whether she needed to call again on May 14, 2007, forty-eight hours prior to her return trip to ensure that a bus with a lift had been reserved. She was told that she did not need to make a second call to ensure that her the bus on her return trip would have a wheelchair lift.
60. On May 16, 2007, Ms. Krause, and her personal care attendant, Veronica Araujo, arrived at the Denver bus station to return to Fort Morgan. The bus arrived, and had a
17

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 32
wheelchair lift, but the driver said that the lift did not work and denied transportation to Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo.
61. When Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo contacted Burlington’s dispatcher, the dispatcher said that the next accessible bus returning to Fort Morgan from Denver would arrive no sooner than forty-eight hours later. The dispatcher assured Ms. Krause that Burlington would contact her the following morning, May 17, 2007, by 9:00 a.m. with further details.
62. Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo went to a hotel near CCDC’s offices, the Marriott Town Plaza Suites on Acoma Street and Speer Boulevard, and made a reservation for two nights. Ms. Krause also had to contact a relative in Fort Morgan to care for her minor child and reached an agreement regarding paying her personal care attendant a higher rate for the over-time. Because Ms. Krause is on a limited income, she has been unable to pay Ms. Araujo who no longer works for Ms. Krause. Ms. Araujo, CCDC and Ms. Krause reached an agreement that she would stay in Denver and work for Ms. Krause as her attendant in exchange for $370.00. Ms. Krause and CCDC incurred additional expenses as a result of Ms. Krause’s having to stay in Denver.
63. On May 17, 2007, after 10:00 a.m., Ms. Krause contacted CCDC because she had not yet received a call from Burlington as they had promised. At the time, the only CCDC representative who could assist Ms. Krause was CCDC’s Legislative Liaison, Sheila Hicks.
64. After several phone calls by Ms. Hicks, a representative of Burlington agreed to send a bus to the Denver station to take Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo back to Fort Morgan. When Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo arrived at the station, the bus Burlington sent did not have a
18

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 32
wheelchair lift. Eventually, they were sent back to Fort Morgan in a cab. 65. On June 1, 2007, Ms. Krause contacted Arrow forty-eight hours in advance of her
trip from Fort Morgan to Denver, scheduled for June 3, 2007 at 6:00 p.m., to ensure that an accessible bus would be available for her use for both legs of her trip. She spoke with Connie, and was assured that there would be a bus with a lift for both legs of the trip.
66. On June 3, 2007, Ms. Krause and her personal care attendant, Jaimie Chosa, arrived at the bus station. The bus driver’s name was Paul. The bus did not have a wheelchair lift or ramp. The driver rudely asked Ms. Krause if she had called ahead about requiring a bus with a lift. Ms. Krause informed him that she had requested a bus with a wheelchair lift. Paul said he had not been notified of this request, and that there was nothing he could do. He told Ms. Krause that the next bus would arrive at 4:00 a.m., and that she would have to take that bus.
67. Again, Ms. Krause contacted CCDC Legislative Liaison, Sheila Hicks, who spoke with the bus driver. Ms. Hicks asked the driver to contact dispatch, and the driver refused, stating that dispatch is only open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ms. Hicks insisted that he contact someone within the company. The driver eventually contacted dispatch, then asked Ms. Krause where she could be picked up. Ms. Krause’s attendant gave the driver her home address and telephone number, and the driver informed Ms. Krause that she would receive a call from dispatch shortly.
68. More than two hours after returning home, Ms. Krause had not received a call, so her attendant contacted the Denver bus station to get the telephone number for Arrow. Ms. Chosa then contacted Arrow directly and was told that a bus would pick Ms. Krause up “some
19

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 32
time.” 69. At approximately 9:15 p.m., more than three hours after Ms. Krause’s original
departure time, a bus arrived at Ms. Krause’s home and transported her and Ms. Chosa to Denver.
70. Ms. Krause never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
71. CCDC’s purpose is to work for systemic change that promotes independence, self-reliance, and full inclusion for people with disabilities in the entire community. As part of that purpose, CCDC seeks to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- the programs, activities and services provided by OTRB companies, like those owned and operated by Defendants.
72. CCDC engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to promote access for and combat discrimination against people with disabilities. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ violations of the laws cited herein.
73. Defendants’ actions have caused and continue to cause distinct, palpable, and perceptible injury to CCDC.
74. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, legislative, and educational efforts, to communicating with the Defendants in an attempt to secure non-discriminatory conditions for Defendants’ OTRB services.
75. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other
20

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 32
outreach, advocacy, legislative, and educational efforts, to counseling members and others who have been injured by Defendants’ discrimination.
76. Defendants’ discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to the full participation of persons with disabilities and, therefore, frustrates CCDC’s ability to achieve full inclusion for persons with disabilities.
77. Defendants’ discrimination has required and continues to require CCDC to make a greater effort -- and to allocate significant resources -- to educate the public that such discrimination is wrong and otherwise to counteract the adverse impact of such discrimination. This perceptibly impairs CCDC’s counseling, advocacy, legislative, educational, and training missions.
78. CCDC also has devoted and continues to devote resources -- including but not limited to those devoted to the present lawsuit -- to identifying and counteracting the sources of discrimination in the community, including that of Defendants.
79. CCDC’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are traceable to Defendants’ discriminatory conduct alleged in this Amended Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
80. CCDC’s members and their spouses, friends, relatives, and associates have been injured and will continue to be injured by Defendants’ discrimination.
81. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of Defendants, and the integration of persons with disabilities into all aspects of community life are at the core of CCDC’s organizational purpose.
21

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 32
82. The participation of individual CCDC members in the lawsuit is not required either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief.
83. Defendants acted intentionally or with reckless, callous and/or deliberate indifference to the federally protected rights of others.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 84. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 85. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by a private entity that is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a). 86. All Defendants operate specified public transportation services, OTRB services, that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and their operations affect commerce. 87. The regulations implementing 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) are found at 49 C.F.R., part 37. These regulations took effect with respect to large operators on October 30, 2000, and to small operators on October 29, 2001. On information and belief, Defendant Greyhound is a “large operator,” and Defendants Powder River, Burlington, TNM&O, and Arrow are “small operators.” 88. All over-the-road, fixed route transportation providers that have purchased or
22

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 32
leased new vehicles since the effective dates above have been required to purchase or lease accessible buses, or, in the case of small operators, they have had the option of providing equivalent service. 49 C.F.R. § 37.183. For large operators, half of their bus fleet was required to be accessible by October 30, 2006, unless an extension was requested. 49 C.F.R. § 37.185.
89. On information and belief, Defendants have not acquired accessible buses as required by the regulations.
90. With respect to interline service, “[w]hen the general public can purchase a ticket or make a reservation with one operator for a fixed-route trip of two or more stages in which another operator provides service, the first operator must arrange for an accessible bus, or equivalent service, as applicable, to be provided for each stage of the trip to a passenger with a disability.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(a). Each operator retains the responsibility for providing the transportation required by the regulations to the passenger for its portion of an interline trip. 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(b). The passenger shall be required to make only one request, which covers all legs of the requested trip (e.g., in the case of a round trip, both the outgoing and return legs of the trip; in the case of a multi-leg trip, all connecting legs). 49 C.F.R. § 37.213(a). In addition, all fixed-route operators involved in interline service shall ensure that they have the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities, 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(c), and confirmation of requests for accessible buses must be communicated to the passenger in one business day, using the Service Request Form in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
91. As described in this Amended Complaint, Defendants have failed to ensure that
23

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 32
individuals who require accessible transportation are able to schedule accessible vehicles for all legs of their trip and have failed to maintain the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities. As described herein, Defendants have failed to communicate confirmation of accessible buses to Plaintiffs within one business day, using the Service Request Form in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
92. Until all buses in an operator’s fleet are accessible, OTRB transportation providers must make accessible buses available on request. 49 C.F.R. § 37.193(a)(1). The operator may require up to 48 hours advance notice to provide this service. 49 C.F.R. § 37.193(a)(1)(I).
93. Despite Plaintiffs’ efforts to make requests for accessible bus services 48 hours or more in advance and their repeated attempts to confirm accessible buses, Defendants failed to provide accessible buses.
94. With respect to intermediate and rest stops, “a passenger with a disability, including an individual using a wheelchair, shall be permitted to leave and return to the bus on the same basis as other passengers. The operator shall ensure that assistance is provided to passengers with disabilities as needed to enable the passenger to get on and off the bus at the stop (e.g., operate the lift and provide assistance with securement; provide other boarding assistance if needed, as in the case of a wheelchair user who has transferred to a vehicle seat because other wheelchair users occupied all securement locations).” 49 C.F.R. § 37.201(a).
95. As explained in this Amended Complaint, Defendants failed to allow Plaintiffs to leave and return to the bus on the same basis as other passengers and failed to provide other
24

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 32
boarding assistance. 96. Wheelchair lifts are required to be maintained and inspected to ensure they are
operative, and buses with inoperative lifts are to be taken out of service for maintenance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.203.
97. On information and belief, during the incidents described in this Amended Complaint, and at other times, Defendants failed to inspect and maintain bus lifts to ensure they were operative and failed to take buses with inoperative lifts out of service.
98. Unlawful discrimination under the regulations includes, without limitation: (1) Denying transportation to passengers with disabilities; (2) requiring or requesting a passenger with a disability to reschedule his or her trip, or travel at a time other than the time the passenger has requested; (3) failing to provide reservation services to passengers with disabilities equivalent to those provided other passengers; and (4) failing or refusing to comply with any applicable provision of the regulations. 49 C.F.R. § 37.207.
99. Defendants, through their actions described in this Amended Complaint, engaged in unlawful discrimination prohibited by 49 C.F.R. § 37.207.
100. All bus drivers are required to receive training in proper operation and maintenance of accessibility features and equipment, boarding assistance, securement of mobility aids, sensitive and appropriate interaction with passengers with disabilities, handling and storage of mobility devices, and familiarity with the requirements of the regulations. 49 C.F.R. § 37.209. OTRB operators shall provide refresher training to personnel as needed to maintain proficiency. Id. Entities which operate fixed route systems shall ensure that personnel
25

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 32
are trained to proficiency, as appropriate to their duties, so that they operate vehicles and equipment safely and properly assist and treat individuals with disabilities who use the service in a respectful and courteous way, with appropriate attention to the difference among individuals with disabilities. 49 C.F.R. § 37.173.
101. On information and belief, during the incidents described in this Amended Complaint, Defendants failed to provide appropriate training as required by the regulations.
102. Defendant’s violations of the ADA have harmed Plaintiffs, who have sustained damages as a result.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 103. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 104. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from denying, on the basis of disability, the benefits provided by the recipient, or from subjecting persons with disabilities to discrimination. 29 U.S.C. § 794. 105. For OTRB companies entities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, compliance with applicable requirements of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37 is a condition of compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and of receiving financial assistance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.21(b). 106. On information and belief, Defendants receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation.
26

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 32
107. For OTRB companies entities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, compliance with applicable requirements of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37 is a condition of compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and of receiving financial assistance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.21(b).
108. On information and belief, Defendants receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Homeland Security.
109. Defendants have violated Section 504 the Rehabilitation Act by denying Plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities the benefits of their OTRB services and otherwise failing to comply with the regulations applicable to OTRB companies as described in this Amended Complaint.
110. Defendant’s violations of the Rehabilitation Act have harmed Plaintiffs. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.: Colorado Consumer Protection Act)
111. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
112. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) requires that “[e]xcept in a class action, any person who, in a private civil action, is found to have engaged in or caused another to engage in any deceptive trade practice . . . shall be liable in the amount equal to the sum of . . .[t]hree times the actual damages sustained or two hundred and fifty dollars, whichever is greater; and . . . [i]n the case of a successful action to enforce said liability the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court.”
27

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 32
113. Plaintiffs Timothy Coenen, Julie Reiskin and Loraine Johnson seek recovery under the CCPA.
114. In addition, the CCPA provides, “[a]ny person who violates or causes another to violate any provision of [the CCPA] shall forfeit and pay to the general fund of this state a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars for each such violation [;] a violation of any provision shall constitute a separate violation with respect to each consumer or transaction involved; except that the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars for any related series of violations.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-112(1).
115. Section 6-1-112 is enforceable by a plaintiff in a private cause of action. 116. Under the CCPA, “[a] person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of such person’s business . . . such person:”
a. “[k]nowingly makes a false representation as to the characteristics . . . uses, alterations, or quantities of . . . services . . . ;
b. “[r]epresents that . . . services . . . are of a particular standard, quality or grade . . . if he knows or should know that they are of another;”
c. “[a]dvertises . . . services with intent not to sell them as advertised;” d. “[a]dvertises . . . services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable
public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;” e. “[e]mploys ‘bait and switch’ advertising, which is advertising accompanied by an effort to sell . . .services . . .other than those advertised
28

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 32
or on terms other than those advertised and which is also accompanied by [the] following practice . . . demonstrating defective . . . services which are unusable or impractical for the purposes set forth in the advertisement; and f. “[f]ails to disclose material information concerning . . .services . . . which information was known at the time of an advertisement or sale if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer to enter into a transaction. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1). 117. Defendants Greyhound and TNM&O advertise that they provide accessible buses with 48 hours prior notice. As set forth in this Amended Complaint, these Defendants did not and, on information and belief, do not provide accessible buses with 48 hours prior notice. 118. Plaintiffs Timothy Coenen, Julie Reiskin and Loraine Johnson were led to believe and did believe that they would have accessible transportation based on Greyhound’s and TNM&O’s representations. Plaintiffs did not receive the service they were promised.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray: 1. That this Court assume jurisdiction. 2. That this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendants to comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the CCPA. 3. That this Court award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs.
29

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 32
4. That this Court award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 5. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper and equitable. JURY DEMAND: Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues which can be heard by a jury.
30

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 32

Dated: August 31, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

/s Kevin W. Williams Kevin W. Williams
Legal Program Director Carrie Ann Lucas
CRPD Director Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 Voice: 303.839.1775 TTY: 303.839.0015 Facsimile: 303.839.1782 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org E-mail: clucas@ccdconline.org

Timothy P. Fox Amy F. Robertson Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910 - 16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Voice: 303.595.9700 TTY: 303.595.9703 Facsimile: 303.595.9705 E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com E-mail: arob@foxrob.com

Address of Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition:

655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203

Address of Julie Reiskin:

3645 Milwaukee Street Denver, Colorado 80205

Address of Plaintiff Loraine Johnson:

2716 Abrams Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401

31

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 36 Filed 09/17/07 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 32
Address of Plaintiff Timothy Coenen: 3490 West Quincy Avenue Apartment 108 Englewood, Colorado 80110 Address of Plaintiff Barbara Moczygemba: 105 W. Weston # 5 Fleming CO 80728 Address of Plaintiff Hope Krause: 414 Southridge St., Apt. 101A Fort Morgan, CO 80701
32

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-CV-598-LTB-MEH
COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit corporation, TIMOTHY J. COENEN, JULIE REISKIN, and LORAINE A. JOHNSON
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, CUSA PARTS, LLC, D/B/A POWDER RIVER TRANSPORTATION, a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, D/B/A BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa
corporation, and TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT CUSA PRTS, LLC'S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant, CUSA PRTS, LLC, d/b/a Powder River Transportation Services (hereinafter
“Powder River”), by and through its counsel, hereby answers Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Powder River admits that it provides over-the-road bus transportation. Powder
River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint.

9058\20\1086190.1

1

2. Powder River admits that Kevin Williams, counsel for Plaintiffs, sent a demand letter to Powder River, and that Powder River responded. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint.
3. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint are directed toward Powder River, Powder River denies those allegations. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint regarding the other Defendants and, therefore, denies them.
4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to these allegations.
JURISDICTION 5. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint is an invocation of jurisdiction to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River denies that it committed any violations of federal law and denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. 6. Powder River admits the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint.
PARTIES 7. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

2

8. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
9. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
10. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
11. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
12. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
13. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
14. Powder River admits that it is an Delaware Corporation with a principal operating address in Gillette, Wyoming and a principal office address in Houston, Texas. Powder River further admits that it is licensed to do business in the state of Colorado. Powder River denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint

9058\20\1086190.1

3

15. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
16. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
17. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 18. Powder River admits that it interlines with Greyhound Lines, Inc. but denies that there are separate contracts referred to as "interline agreements." Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint. 19. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 20. Powder River admits that it is a member of the National Bus Traffic Association, along with other defendants, but, upon information and belief, denies that there are separate contracts referred to as "interline agreements." Powder River denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.

9058\20\1086190.1

4

21. Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
22. Powder River admits that it operates over-the-road bus services. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint. Upon information and belief, Powder River has not received federal financial assistance from federal agencies for the time period relevant to this lawsuit.
23. The allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
24. Powder River admits that Tim Coenen was a passenger on a Powder River bus on June 5, 2006, from Denver, Colorado to Billings, Montana. Defendant further admits that there were four drivers who drove the bus from Denver, Colorado to Billings, Montana. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint and objects to Plaintiffs' use of the phrase "rest stops or intermediate stops".
25. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
26. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

5

27. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
28. Powder River admits that Mr. Coenen arrived in Billings, Montana at least one day later than his scheduled arrival date. Powder River admits that its employee, Kory Moe, was the driver and that he informed Mr. Coenen that the bus was not accessible. Powder River admits that Mr. Moe offered Mr. Coenen the opportunity to attempt to board the bus without his wheelchair or wait for the next bus. Powder River denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. Powder River affirmatively states that it was not notified that Mr. Coenen was running a day late; Powder River had an accessible bus available for Mr. Coenen on his scheduled departure date, but Mr. Coenen did not arrive as scheduled.
29. The allegations in Paragraph 29 are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations.
30. Paragraph 30 of the Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves and denies any violation of such laws.
31. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 32. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the trust of the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 33-41. The allegations in Paragraphs 33 through 41 of the Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to

9058\20\1086190.1

6

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 33 through 41 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
42. Upon information and belief, Ms. Reiskin contacted Greyhound regarding travel from Denver to Greeley, Colorado in March, 2007. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 42 and, therefore, denies them.
43. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
44-70. The allegations in Paragraphs 44 through 70 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 44 through 70 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
71. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
72. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
73. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

7

74. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
75. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
76. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them. Powder River further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
77. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them. Powder River further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
78. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
79. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Amended Complaint. 80. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Amended Complaint. 81. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. Powder River further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law. 82. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the Amended Complaint.

9058\20\1086190.1

8

83. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the Amended Complaint. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 84. Powder River incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 83 as if set forth herein. 85. Paragraph 85 of the Amended Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 86. Powder River admits that it operates over-the-road bus services for the public and that its operations affect commerce. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Amended Complaint. 87. The allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint. 88. The allegations in Paragraph 88 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 89. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the Amended Complaint. 90. The allegations in Paragraph 90 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 91. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

9

92. The allegations in Paragraph 92 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
93. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
94. The allegations in Paragraph 94 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
95. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
96. The allegations in Paragraph 96 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
97. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
98. The allegations in Paragraph 98 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
99. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 99 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

10

100. The allegations in Paragraph 100 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
101. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 101 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
102. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 102 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 103. Powder River incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 102 as if set forth herein. 104. The allegations in Paragraph 104 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 105. The allegations in Paragraph 105 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 106. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 106 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them. 107. The allegations in Paragraph 107 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.

9058\20\1086190.1

11

108. Upon information and belief, Powder River has not received federal financial assistance from the Department of Homeland Security for the time period relevant to this lawsuit. Powder River denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 108 of the Amended Complaint.
109. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 109 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
110. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 110 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.:
Colorado Consumer Protection Act) 111. Powder River incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 110 as if set forth herein. 112-118. The allegations in Paragraphs 112 through 118 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 112 through 118 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF The paragraph immediately following Paragraph 118 of the Amended Complaint, labeled as subparagraphs 1 through 5, constitutes a prayer for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River denies the allegations in each subparagraph.

9058\20\1086190.1

12

Powder River denies all allegations in the Amended Complaint not specifically admitted herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitation. 3. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver and accord and satisfaction. 4. The Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. 5. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition’s claims are barred by its lack of standing. 6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. 7. All of Powder River' actions were taken in good faith efforts to comply with federal law. 8. Powder River reserves the right to move for separate trials under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b). 9. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the conduct of third persons over whom Powder River had no control or right to control.

9058\20\1086190.1

13

Powder River reserves the right to (a) rely upon such other affirmative defenses as may
be supported by the facts to be determined through full and complete discovery, and (b) to
voluntarily withdraw any affirmative defense.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having fully answered and responded to the allegations of the
Amended Complaint, Powder River hereby prays that:
(1) Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice in their entirety;
(2) Each and every prayer for relief contained in the Amended Complaint be
denied;
(3) Judgment be entered in favor of Powder River;
(4) All costs, including reasonable attorney fees, be awarded to Powder River
and against Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, pursuant to applicable law; and
(5) Powder River be granted such other and further relief as this Court may
deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October, 2007.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, P.C.
s/ Susan P. Klopman David D. Powell Susan P. Klopman 410 17th Street, 22nd Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 223-1100
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CUSA PRTS, LLC d/b/a Powder River Transportation Services

9058\20\1086190.1

14

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-CV-598-LTB-MEH
COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit corporation, TIMOTHY J. COENEN, JULIE REISKIN, and LORAINE A. JOHNSON
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, CUSA PARTS, LLC, D/B/A POWDER RIVER TRANSPORTATION, a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, D/B/A BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa
corporation, and TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT CUSA PRTS, LLC'S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant, CUSA PRTS, LLC, d/b/a Powder River Transportation Services (hereinafter
“Powder River”), by and through its counsel, hereby answers Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Powder River admits that it provides over-the-road bus transportation. Powder
River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint.

9058\20\1086190.1

1

2. Powder River admits that Kevin Williams, counsel for Plaintiffs, sent a demand letter to Powder River, and that Powder River responded. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint.
3. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint are directed toward Powder River, Powder River denies those allegations. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint regarding the other Defendants and, therefore, denies them.
4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to these allegations.
JURISDICTION 5. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint is an invocation of jurisdiction to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River denies that it committed any violations of federal law and denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. 6. Powder River admits the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint.
PARTIES 7. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

2

8. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
9. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
10. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
11. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
12. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
13. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
14. Powder River admits that it is an Delaware Corporation with a principal operating address in Gillette, Wyoming and a principal office address in Houston, Texas. Powder River further admits that it is licensed to do business in the state of Colorado. Powder River denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint

9058\20\1086190.1

3

15. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
16. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
17. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 18. Powder River admits that it interlines with Greyhound Lines, Inc. but denies that there are separate contracts referred to as "interline agreements." Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint. 19. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 20. Powder River admits that it is a member of the National Bus Traffic Association, along with other defendants, but, upon information and belief, denies that there are separate contracts referred to as "interline agreements." Powder River denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.

9058\20\1086190.1

4

21. Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
22. Powder River admits that it operates over-the-road bus services. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint. Upon information and belief, Powder River has not received federal financial assistance from federal agencies for the time period relevant to this lawsuit.
23. The allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
24. Powder River admits that Tim Coenen was a passenger on a Powder River bus on June 5, 2006, from Denver, Colorado to Billings, Montana. Defendant further admits that there were four drivers who drove the bus from Denver, Colorado to Billings, Montana. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint and objects to Plaintiffs' use of the phrase "rest stops or intermediate stops".
25. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
26. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

5

27. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
28. Powder River admits that Mr. Coenen arrived in Billings, Montana at least one day later than his scheduled arrival date. Powder River admits that its employee, Kory Moe, was the driver and that he informed Mr. Coenen that the bus was not accessible. Powder River admits that Mr. Moe offered Mr. Coenen the opportunity to attempt to board the bus without his wheelchair or wait for the next bus. Powder River denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. Powder River affirmatively states that it was not notified that Mr. Coenen was running a day late; Powder River had an accessible bus available for Mr. Coenen on his scheduled departure date, but Mr. Coenen did not arrive as scheduled.
29. The allegations in Paragraph 29 are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations.
30. Paragraph 30 of the Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves and denies any violation of such laws.
31. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 32. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the trust of the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 33-41. The allegations in Paragraphs 33 through 41 of the Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to

9058\20\1086190.1

6

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 33 through 41 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
42. Upon information and belief, Ms. Reiskin contacted Greyhound regarding travel from Denver to Greeley, Colorado in March, 2007. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 42 and, therefore, denies them.
43. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
44-70. The allegations in Paragraphs 44 through 70 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 44 through 70 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
71. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
72. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
73. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

7

74. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
75. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
76. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them. Powder River further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
77. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them. Powder River further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
78. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
79. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Amended Complaint. 80. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Amended Complaint. 81. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. Powder River further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law. 82. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the Amended Complaint.

9058\20\1086190.1

8

83. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the Amended Complaint. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 84. Powder River incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 83 as if set forth herein. 85. Paragraph 85 of the Amended Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 86. Powder River admits that it operates over-the-road bus services for the public and that its operations affect commerce. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Amended Complaint. 87. The allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint. 88. The allegations in Paragraph 88 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 89. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the Amended Complaint. 90. The allegations in Paragraph 90 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 91. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

9

92. The allegations in Paragraph 92 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
93. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
94. The allegations in Paragraph 94 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
95. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
96. The allegations in Paragraph 96 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
97. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
98. The allegations in Paragraph 98 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
99. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 99 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

10

100. The allegations in Paragraph 100 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
101. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 101 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
102. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 102 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 103. Powder River incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 102 as if set forth herein. 104. The allegations in Paragraph 104 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 105. The allegations in Paragraph 105 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 106. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 106 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them. 107. The allegations in Paragraph 107 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.

9058\20\1086190.1

11

108. Upon information and belief, Powder River has not received federal financial assistance from the Department of Homeland Security for the time period relevant to this lawsuit. Powder River denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 108 of the Amended Complaint.
109. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 109 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
110. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 110 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.:
Colorado Consumer Protection Act) 111. Powder River incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 110 as if set forth herein. 112-118. The allegations in Paragraphs 112 through 118 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 112 through 118 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF The paragraph immediately following Paragraph 118 of the Amended Complaint, labeled as subparagraphs 1 through 5, constitutes a prayer for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River denies the allegations in each subparagraph.

9058\20\1086190.1

12

Powder River denies all allegations in the Amended Complaint not specifically admitted herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitation. 3. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver and accord and satisfaction. 4. The Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. 5. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition’s claims are barred by its lack of standing. 6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. 7. All of Powder River' actions were taken in good faith efforts to comply with federal law. 8. Powder River reserves the right to move for separate trials under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b). 9. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the conduct of third persons over whom Powder River had no control or right to control.

9058\20\1086190.1

13

Powder River reserves the right to (a) rely upon such other affirmative defenses as may
be supported by the facts to be determined through full and complete discovery, and (b) to
voluntarily withdraw any affirmative defense.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having fully answered and responded to the allegations of the
Amended Complaint, Powder River hereby prays that:
(1) Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice in their entirety;
(2) Each and every prayer for relief contained in the Amended Complaint be
denied;
(3) Judgment be entered in favor of Powder River;
(4) All costs, including reasonable attorney fees, be awarded to Powder River
and against Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, pursuant to applicable law; and
(5) Powder River be granted such other and further relief as this Court may
deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October, 2007.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, P.C.
s/ Susan P. Klopman David D. Powell Susan P. Klopman 410 17th Street, 22nd Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 223-1100
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CUSA PRTS, LLC d/b/a Powder River Transportation Services

9058\20\1086190.1

14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-CV-598-LTB-MEH COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit corporation, TIMOTHY J. COENEN, JULIE REISKIN, and LORAINE A. JOHNSON
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, CUSA PARTS, LLC, D/B/A POWDER RIVER TRANSPORTATION, a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, D/B/A BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa
corporation, and TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants.
DEFENDANT BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD'S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant, Burlington Stages Lines, Ltd., d/b/a Burlington Trailways (hereinafter “Burlington Trailways”), by and through its counsel, hereby answers Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. Burlington Trailways admits that it provides over-the-road bus transportation. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint.
1

2. Burlington Trailways admits that Kevin Williams, counsel for Plaintiffs, sent a demand letter to Burlington Trailways, and that Burlington Trailways responded. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint.
3. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint are directed toward Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies those allegations. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint regarding the other Defendants and, therefore, denies them.
4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to these allegations.
JURISDICTION 5. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint is an invocation of jurisdiction to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways denies that it committed any violations of federal law and denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. 6. Burlington Trailways admits the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint.
PARTIES 7. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
2

8. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
9. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
10. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
11. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
12. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
13. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
14. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
3

15. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
16. Burlington Trailways admits that it is an Iowa Corporation with a principal business address of 906 Broadway, West Burlington, IA 52655. Upon information and belief, Burlington Trailways denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint
17. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 18. Burlington Trailways admits that it interlines with Greyhound Lines, Inc., but denies that there are separate contracts referred to as "interline agreements." Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 19. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 20. Burlington Trailways admits that it is a member of the National Bus Traffic Association, along with other defendants, but denies that there are separate contracts referred to as "interline agreements." Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.
4

21. Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
22. Burlington Trailways admits that it operates over-the-road bus services and that it has received discrete and limited federal financial assistance. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
23-32. The allegations in Paragraphs 23 through 32 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 23 through 32 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
33. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint. Burlington Trailways affirmatively states that it did not (and does not) operate a bus schedule between Denver and Sterling, Colorado which allows any passenger to travel to Sterling for one day and return to Denver the same day. Further, Burlington Trailways affirmatively states that that it had more than one accessible bus in 2005.
34-39. The allegations in Paragraphs 34 through 39 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 34 through 39 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
5

40. Burlington Trailways admits that it told Ms. Reiskin she needed to purchase a ticket in order to make a reservation and that she called Burlington Trailways on September 12, 2006 to purchase a ticket and make a reservation. Burlington Trailways denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint directed towards Burlington Trailways. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 40 regarding Greyhound or "Black Hills" and, therefore, denies them.
41. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
42. The allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
43. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
44-47. The allegations in Paragraphs 44 through 47 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 44 through 47 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
6

48. Burlington Trailways admits that on February 17, 2007, Ms. Moczygemba prepared to board a Burlington Trailways bus in Sterling, Colorado, bound for Denver, Colorado and that she contacted Burlington Trailways on February 14, 2007 to request a lift-equipped bus. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint.
49. Burlington Trailways admits that the wheelchair accessible lift and the kneeling system on its bus, as well as the door through which the lift would be deployed, were all frozen shut. Burlington Trailways affirmatively states that, upon information and belief, a design and/or manufacturing flaw causes the kneeler and locks for the lift doors to become inoperable or to malfunction in freezing weather. Burlington Trailways further states that de-icers and other means have proven unsuccessful in overcoming this design/manufacturing flaw. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint.
50. Burlington Trailways admits that the driver requested that Ms. Moczygemba step onto the bus, which he assisted her in doing. Burlington Trailways further admits that the driver suggested and Ms. Moczygemba agreed that he store her motorized scooter in the lower baggage compartment. Burlington Trailways denies that Ms. Moczygemba "crawled" onto the bus and denies all further allegations in paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint.
51. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint.
52. Burlington Trailways admits that Ms. Moczygemba rode its bus to Denver. Burlington Trailways denied all remaining allegations in paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
7

53. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of what Ms. Moczygemba observed and, therefore, denies those allegations. Burlington Trailways admits that the wiring to the battery compartment of the motorized scooter was torn upon its arrival in Denver. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint.
54. Burlington Trailways admits the allegations in paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint.
55. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
56. Upon information and belief, Burlington Trailways is aware that Ms. Moczygemba has rented a motorized scooter. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 56 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
57. Burlington Trailways admits that when Ms. Moczygemba contacted Burlington, Burlington Trailways explained its standard luggage damages policy. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 57 of the Amended Complaint.
58. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 58 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
59. Burlington Trailways denies that Hope Krause contacted it in advance of her trip from Fort Morgan, Colorado to Denver, Colorado and denies all remaining allegations in
8

paragraph 59 of the Amended Complaint. Upon information and belief, Ms. Krause contacted Defendant Arrow Stage Lines, Inc. ("Arrow") and it was Defendant Arrow which filled out the ADA request form based upon Ms. Krause's call.
60. Burlington Trailways admits that on May 16, 2007, Ms. Krause and her personal care attendant arrived at the Denver bus station to take a bus to Fort Morgan, Colorado. Ms. Krause had reserved round trip tickets with Defendant Arrow, but arrived at a time when Burlington Trailways was operating a bus to Fort Morgan. Nonetheless, Burlington Trailways offered to transport Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo on its lift-equipped bus. Due to an electronic glitch in the lift operating mechanism, however, the driver was unable to operate the lift upon two tries. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 60 of the Amended Complaint.
61. Burlington Trailways admits that its dispatcher and Ms. Araujo had a conversation on May 16, 2007. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
62. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
63. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
9

64. Burlington Trailways admits that a representative of Burlington Trailways and a representative of CCDC had a conversation in which Burlington Trailways agreed to help Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo get to Fort Morgan as soon as possible. Burlington Trailways states that it then suggested to Defendant Arrow that it provide transportation for Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo to Fort Morgan on May 17, 2007. Upon information and belief, Defendant Arrow sent an Arrow bus and then a cab on May 17, 2007. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Amended Complaint.
65-70. The allegations in Paragraphs 65 through 70 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 65 through 70 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
71. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
72. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
73. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
10

74. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
75. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
76. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them. Burlington Trailways further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
77. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them. Burlington Trailways further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
78. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
79. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Amended Complaint.
80. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Amended Complaint.
81. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore,
11

denies them. Burlington Trailways further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
82. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the Amended Complaint.
83. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the Amended Complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 84. Burlington Trailways incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 83 as if set forth herein. 85. Paragraph 85 of the Amended Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 86. Burlington Trailways admits that it operates over-the-road bus services for the public and that its operations affect commerce. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Amended Complaint. 87. The allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint. 88. The allegations in Paragraph 88 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
12

89. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the Amended Complaint.
90. The allegations in Paragraph 90 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
91. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
92. The allegations in Paragraph 92 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
93. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
94. The allegations in Paragraph 94 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
95. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
96. The allegations in Paragraph 96 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
97. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
13

98. The allegations in Paragraph 98 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
99. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 99 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
100. The allegations in Paragraph 100 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
101. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 101 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
102. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 102 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 103. Burlington Trailways incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 102 as if set forth herein. 104. The allegations in Paragraph 104 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 105. The allegations in Paragraph 105 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
14

106. Burlington Trailways admits that it has received discrete and limited federal financial assistance from the Federal Transit Authority. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 106 of the Amended Complaint.
107. The allegations in Paragraph 107 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
108. Burlington Trailways admits that it has received discrete and limited federal financial assistance for security features on its buses. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 108 of the Amended Complaint.
109. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 109 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
110. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 110 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.:
Colorado Consumer Protection Act) 111. Burlington Trailways incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 110 as if set forth herein. 112-118. The allegations in Paragraphs 112 through 118 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 112 through 118 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
15

ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF The paragraph immediately following Paragraph 118 of the Amended Complaint, labeled as subparagraphs 1 through 5, constitutes a prayer for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in each subparagraph. Burlington Trailways denies all allegations in the Amended Complaint not specifically admitted herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitation. 3. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver and accord and satisfaction. 4. The Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. 5. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition’s claims are barred by its lack of standing. 6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. 7. All of Burlington Trailways' actions were taken in good faith efforts to comply with federal law.
16

8. Burlington Trailways reserves the right to move for separate trials under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b).
9. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the conduct of third persons over whom Burlington Trailways had no control or right to control.
10. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the design or manufacturing of certain bus components by third parties, processes over which Burlington Trailways has no control or right to control.
Burlington Trailways reserves the right to (a) rely upon such other affirmative defenses as may be supported by the facts to be determined through full and complete discovery, and (b) to voluntarily withdraw any affirmative defense.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, having fully answered and responded to the allegations of the Amended Complaint, Burlington Trailways hereby prays that: (1) Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice in their entirety; (2) Each and every prayer for relief contained in the Amended Complaint be denied; (3) Judgment be entered in favor of Burlington Trailways; (4) All costs, including reasonable attorney fees, be awarded to Burlington Trailways and against Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, pursuant to applicable law; and (5) Burlington Trailways be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
17

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October, 2007. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, P.C. s/ Susan P. Klopman David D. Powell Susan P. Klopman 410 17th Street, 22nd Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 223-1100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, d/b/a BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS
18

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-CV-598-LTB-MEH
COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit corporation, TIMOTHY J. COENEN, JULIE REISKIN, and LORAINE A. JOHNSON
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, CUSA PARTS, LLC, D/B/A POWDER RIVER TRANSPORTATION, a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, D/B/A BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa
corporation, and TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT CUSA PRTS, LLC'S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant, CUSA PRTS, LLC, d/b/a Powder River Transportation Services (hereinafter
“Powder River”), by and through its counsel, hereby answers Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Powder River admits that it provides over-the-road bus transportation. Powder
River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint.

9058\20\1086190.1

1

2. Powder River admits that Kevin Williams, counsel for Plaintiffs, sent a demand letter to Powder River, and that Powder River responded. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint.
3. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint are directed toward Powder River, Powder River denies those allegations. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint regarding the other Defendants and, therefore, denies them.
4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to these allegations.
JURISDICTION 5. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint is an invocation of jurisdiction to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River denies that it committed any violations of federal law and denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. 6. Powder River admits the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint.
PARTIES 7. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

2

8. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
9. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
10. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
11. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
12. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
13. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
14. Powder River admits that it is an Delaware Corporation with a principal operating address in Gillette, Wyoming and a principal office address in Houston, Texas. Powder River further admits that it is licensed to do business in the state of Colorado. Powder River denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint

9058\20\1086190.1

3

15. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
16. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
17. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 18. Powder River admits that it interlines with Greyhound Lines, Inc. but denies that there are separate contracts referred to as "interline agreements." Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint. 19. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 20. Powder River admits that it is a member of the National Bus Traffic Association, along with other defendants, but, upon information and belief, denies that there are separate contracts referred to as "interline agreements." Powder River denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.

9058\20\1086190.1

4

21. Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
22. Powder River admits that it operates over-the-road bus services. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint. Upon information and belief, Powder River has not received federal financial assistance from federal agencies for the time period relevant to this lawsuit.
23. The allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
24. Powder River admits that Tim Coenen was a passenger on a Powder River bus on June 5, 2006, from Denver, Colorado to Billings, Montana. Defendant further admits that there were four drivers who drove the bus from Denver, Colorado to Billings, Montana. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint and objects to Plaintiffs' use of the phrase "rest stops or intermediate stops".
25. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
26. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

5

27. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
28. Powder River admits that Mr. Coenen arrived in Billings, Montana at least one day later than his scheduled arrival date. Powder River admits that its employee, Kory Moe, was the driver and that he informed Mr. Coenen that the bus was not accessible. Powder River admits that Mr. Moe offered Mr. Coenen the opportunity to attempt to board the bus without his wheelchair or wait for the next bus. Powder River denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. Powder River affirmatively states that it was not notified that Mr. Coenen was running a day late; Powder River had an accessible bus available for Mr. Coenen on his scheduled departure date, but Mr. Coenen did not arrive as scheduled.
29. The allegations in Paragraph 29 are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations.
30. Paragraph 30 of the Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves and denies any violation of such laws.
31. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 32. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the trust of the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 33-41. The allegations in Paragraphs 33 through 41 of the Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to

9058\20\1086190.1

6

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 33 through 41 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
42. Upon information and belief, Ms. Reiskin contacted Greyhound regarding travel from Denver to Greeley, Colorado in March, 2007. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 42 and, therefore, denies them.
43. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
44-70. The allegations in Paragraphs 44 through 70 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 44 through 70 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
71. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
72. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
73. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

7

74. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
75. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
76. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them. Powder River further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
77. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them. Powder River further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
78. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
79. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Amended Complaint. 80. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Amended Complaint. 81. Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. Powder River further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law. 82. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the Amended Complaint.

9058\20\1086190.1

8

83. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the Amended Complaint. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 84. Powder River incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 83 as if set forth herein. 85. Paragraph 85 of the Amended Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 86. Powder River admits that it operates over-the-road bus services for the public and that its operations affect commerce. Powder River denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Amended Complaint. 87. The allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint. 88. The allegations in Paragraph 88 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 89. Powder River denies the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the Amended Complaint. 90. The allegations in Paragraph 90 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 91. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

9

92. The allegations in Paragraph 92 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
93. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
94. The allegations in Paragraph 94 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
95. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
96. The allegations in Paragraph 96 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
97. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
98. The allegations in Paragraph 98 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
99. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 99 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.

9058\20\1086190.1

10

100. The allegations in Paragraph 100 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
101. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 101 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
102. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 102 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 103. Powder River incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 102 as if set forth herein. 104. The allegations in Paragraph 104 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 105. The allegations in Paragraph 105 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 106. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 106 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them. 107. The allegations in Paragraph 107 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.

9058\20\1086190.1

11

108. Upon information and belief, Powder River has not received federal financial assistance from the Department of Homeland Security for the time period relevant to this lawsuit. Powder River denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 108 of the Amended Complaint.
109. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 109 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
110. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 110 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Powder River, Powder River denies them.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.:
Colorado Consumer Protection Act) 111. Powder River incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 110 as if set forth herein. 112-118. The allegations in Paragraphs 112 through 118 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Powder River and, therefore, Powder River does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 112 through 118 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF The paragraph immediately following Paragraph 118 of the Amended Complaint, labeled as subparagraphs 1 through 5, constitutes a prayer for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Powder River denies the allegations in each subparagraph.

9058\20\1086190.1

12

Powder River denies all allegations in the Amended Complaint not specifically admitted herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitation. 3. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver and accord and satisfaction. 4. The Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. 5. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition’s claims are barred by its lack of standing. 6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. 7. All of Powder River' actions were taken in good faith efforts to comply with federal law. 8. Powder River reserves the right to move for separate trials under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b). 9. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the conduct of third persons over whom Powder River had no control or right to control.

9058\20\1086190.1

13

Powder River reserves the right to (a) rely upon such other affirmative defenses as may
be supported by the facts to be determined through full and complete discovery, and (b) to
voluntarily withdraw any affirmative defense.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having fully answered and responded to the allegations of the
Amended Complaint, Powder River hereby prays that:
(1) Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice in their entirety;
(2) Each and every prayer for relief contained in the Amended Complaint be
denied;
(3) Judgment be entered in favor of Powder River;
(4) All costs, including reasonable attorney fees, be awarded to Powder River
and against Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, pursuant to applicable law; and
(5) Powder River be granted such other and further relief as this Court may
deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October, 2007.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, P.C.
s/ Susan P. Klopman David D. Powell Susan P. Klopman 410 17th Street, 22nd Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 223-1100
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CUSA PRTS, LLC d/b/a Powder River Transportation Services

9058\20\1086190.1

14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00598-LTB-MEH COLORADO CROSS DIABILITY COALITION et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC. et al.
Defendants.
GREYHOUND AND TNM&O’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants, GREYHOUND LINES, INC. (“Greyhound”) and TNM&O (together, “defendants”), by undersigned counsel, submit the following answer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
1. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 1, defendants provide overthe-road bus transportation and deny all remaining allegations.
2. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 2, to the extent they are directed toward defendants, TNM&O responded by letter dated September 6, 2006, and explained the personnel problem and the action being taken. With respect to plaintiff CCDC’s letter to Greyhound, Greyhound forwarded it to TNM&O for a response. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 2 and therefore neither admit nor deny them.

3. To the extent they are directed toward defendants, deny the allegations in paragraph 3. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 3 and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
4. The allegations in paragraphs 4, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 42, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70 are not directed to defendants and therefore defendants do not respond to these allegations. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
5. Paragraph 5 is an invocation of jurisdiction to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, deny that defendants committed any violations of federal law and deny all remaining allegations.
6. Admit the allegations in paragraphs 6, 13. 15, and 113. 7. Are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 37, 45, and 71 and therefore neither admit nor deny. 8. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 18, defendants are concurring members of the National Bus Traffic Assn. with Powder River and Burlington but deny that there are separate contracts referred to as interline agreements. 9. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 19, TNM&O operates OTRB buses and TNM&O is a subsidiary of Greyhound. Both Greyhound and TNM&O are concurring members of the National Bus Traffic Assn. whereby members agree for the convenience of passengers to sell tickets that allow a passenger to buy one ticket instead of
2

multiple tickets over different lines and each member agrees they are subject to the tariff limitations for the purposes of reimbursement. Deny all remaining allegations.
10. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 21, 85, 87, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 104, 105, 107, 112, and 114-116, defendants state that the applicable laws speak for themselves. Any allegations that are inconsistent or incomplete with respect to those laws are denied.
11. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 22, 106, and 108 to the extent they are directed against defendants, defendants operate over-the-road bus services, state that the applicable laws speak for themselves but to the extent plaintiffs’ allegations are inconsistent with the applicable laws, those allegations are denied. Greyhound does receive some federal grant monies. Counsel is not presently certain what the sources are. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraphs 22, 106 and 108 and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
12. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 23 and 29, the system in which all of the requests that Greyhound received for lift-equipped buses for travel that includes Greyhound does not show any calls or requests made by or on behalf of Mr. Coenen and defendants are thus without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them. As to the allegations regarding reservations for his June 5 trip, Mr. Coenen would not have received any communication confirming a request for a lift-equipped bus because Greyhound had no record of plaintiff Coenen making such a request. As to the allegations regarding Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37 49 C.F.R. § 213(a), defendants state that the applicable laws speak for themselves. Any
3

allegations that are inconsistent or incomplete with respect to those laws are denied. Deny all remaining allegations.
13. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 31, to the extent they are asserted against Greyhound, deny that Greyhound caused injuries or damages to Mr. Coenen or discriminated against him. As to the remaining allegations, defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
14. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 32, to the extent they are asserted against defendants, Ms. Reiskin wrote a letter in August 2006 to which defendants responded. As to the remaining allegations, defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
15. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 34 and 35, Ms. Reiskin made a timely request for a lift-equipped bus for travel from Denver to Delta to occur on July 28, 2006. The portion of her trip handled by Greyhound was run on a lift-equipped bus. TNM&O, however, failed to have a lift-equipped bus for its portion of the trip commencing in Grand Junction and return trip from Delta to Grand Junction and provided Ms. Reiskin with cab transportation for which it made payment arrangements with the owner of the cab company. Ms. Reiskin was in contact with Stacey Lemmons of TNM&O concerning the lift problem on her trip. Upon learning from Ms. Reiskin’s August 2006 letter of TNM&O’s failure to have a liftequipped bus available for her return trip, TNM&O investigated and took personnel action to
4

impose appropriate discipline inside its organization and sent her five (5) vouchers worth $125 each. All remaining allegations are denied.
16. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 36, 41, and 47, state that the applicable laws speak for themselves but to the extent plaintiffs’ allegations are inconsistent with the applicable laws, those allegations are denied. As to the remaining allegations, defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
17. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 38, Ms. Reiskin’s and Bobby Greenhill’s letters speak for themselves but to the extent plaintiffs’ allegations are inconsistent with the letters, those allegations are denied. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph assert that TNM&O or Greyhound engaged in discriminatory conduct and/or practices, these and all other allegations are denied.
18. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 39, regarding Ms. Reiskin’s return trip from Grand Junction to Denver on September 8, 2006: Greyhound’s records show that on September 1, 2006, Mr. Reiskin made a timely request for lift-equipped buses for a round trip that would depart on September 6 and return on September 7, 2006; that Ms. Reiskin purchased her tickets on September 6, 2006 at the terminal from which she departed in Denver with a return on September 14, 2006. As to the remaining allegations, defendants either deny them or are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
19. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 40, the majority of these allegations are not directed against defendants and thus no answer is necessary. Even the
5

material allegations of paragraph 40 pertain to other defendants (Burlington and Arrow). To the extent a response is necessary, defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
20. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 43, to the extent they are asserted against defendants, deny that defendants violated any law, that they caused Ms. Reiskin to experience any injuries or damages, or that they discriminated against her. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
21. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 44, on September 9, 2005, Ms. Johnson contacted Greyhound’s travel assistance group to request a lift-equipped bus for a travel date of September 11, 2005 from San Jose, CA to Montrose, CO. Greyhound does not have a record of Ms. Johnson calling Greyhound’s travel assistance group about her outbound trip from Montrose, CO to San Jose, CA previous to the return and is therefore without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
22. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 46, to the extent they are directed toward defendants, deny that defendants discriminated against Ms. Johnson or that she has been injured and harmed by defendants’ conduct. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
23. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 54, admit that Greyhound is not responsible for the actions of Burlington. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge
6

and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny then.
24. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 72, to the extent they are directed against defendants, deny that defendants have violated any laws or that the CCDC has been or continues to be adversely affected by defendants. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
25. To the extent they are directed against defendants, deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 102, 109, 110, 117, and 118.
26. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 74, 75, and 78, to the extent these allegations are directed against defendants, deny that defendants discriminated against any of the plaintiffs. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations and therefore neither admit nor deny them.
27. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 81, agree with the goals plaintiffs express, but deny that these defendants engaged in discrimination.
28. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 84, 103 and 111, defendants incorporate all their foregoing responses as if set forth herein.
29. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 86 are directed against defendants, defendants operate over-the-road bus services for the public and their operations affect commerce. All remaining allegations are denied.
7

30. The paragraph immediately following paragraph 118 of the complaint, labeled as subparagraphs 1 through 5, constitutes a prayer for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, deny the allegations in each subparagraph.
31. Any allegations not expressly admitted herein are denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The complaint contains allegations that fail to state legally viable claims for relief, and these should be withdrawn or dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. 3. The complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. 4. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition’s claims are barred by its lack of standing. 5. Some of plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, accord and satisfaction and/or estoppel. 6. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. 7. Defendants have acted in good faith with a desire and intent to serve disabled passengers and to comply with the law. 8. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the conduct of other persons over whom defendants had no control or right to control.
8

9. NOTICE OF NON-PARTIES AT FAULT: Defendants name Rimrock Stages, Inc. as a non-party whose fault or negligence caused or contributed to plaintiffs claimed injuries, if any. Plaintiffs describe the basis of Rimrock’s fault or negligence in their complaint.
WHEREFORE, having answered plaintiffs’ complaint, defendants request judgment in their favor, costs, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and such other relief as this Court may deem proper.
DEFENDANTS REQUEST TRIAL TO A JURY Respectfully submitted,
By s/Leslie L. Schluter Leslie L. Schluter PRYOR JOHNSON CARNEY KARR NIXON PC 5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 1200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Telephone: (303) 773-3500 E-mail:lschluter@lawincolorado.com Attorney for Defendants GREYHOUND LINES, INC. and TNM&O Coaches, Inc.
9

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00598-LTB-MEH
COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit Corporation, TIMOTHY J. COENEN, JULIE REISKIN, LORAINE A. JOHNSON, BARBARA MOCZYGEMBA, and EILEEN HOPE KRAUSE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, CUSA PRTS, LLC, d/b/a POWDER RIVER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, a Delaware Corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD., d/b/a BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa Corporation, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAMOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES, a Nebraska Corporation
Defendants.

DEFENDANT BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant, Busco, Inc., d/b/a Busco, Inc. Arrow Stage Lines (hereinafter “Busco”), by and through its counsel, hereby answers Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1.

Busco admits that it provides over-the-road bus transportation. Busco denies all

remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 11
2. Busco admits that Plaintiffs did not contact Busco or its representatives prior to bringing this action. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same.
3. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint are directed toward Busco, it denies those allegations.
4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Busco and do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Busco denies the same.
JURISDICTION
5. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint simply addresses jurisdiction for which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco denies such allegations.
6. Busco admits the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint.
PARTIES
7.-16. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 7 through 16 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same.
17. Busco admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
18. Busco denies that it has “interline agreements” with Greyhound. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same.
19. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 11
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same.
20. Busco denies that it has “interline agreements.” 21. Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 22. Busco admits that it operates over-the-road bus services and denies that it receives federal financial assistance in the form of grants from federal agencies. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 23.-64. The allegations in Paragraphs 23 through 64 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Busco and, therefore, Busco does not respond to such allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 23 through 64 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same. 65. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same. 66. Busco admits that Ms. Krause and another person were at the bus station on the evening of June 3, 2007, that the driver’s name was Paul, and that Paul had not been notified of the need for a lift. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 11
67. Busco admits that the driver was contacted by Ms. Sheila Hicks, that he subsequently contacted a dispatcher for Busco, he requested Ms. Krause’s home address and telephone number, and informed her that Ms. Krause would receive a call from Busco. Busco denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 67 of the Amended Complaint.
68. Busco admits that it notified Plaintiff that it had made arrangements to pick Ms. Krause up at her home that same evening. Busco denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 68 of the Amended Complaint.
69. Busco admits that it sent a bus to Ms. Krause’s home and transported Ms. Krause and one other person to Denver on the evening of June 3, 2007. Busco denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 69 of the Amended Complaint.
70. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same.
71. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same.
72. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same.
73. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same.
74. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same.
75.-81. To the extent the allegations in Paragraphs 75 through 81 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same. Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraphs 75 through
4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 11
81 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same. 82.-83. Busco denies the allegations in Paragraphs 82 and 83 of the Amended
Complaint. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 84. Busco incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 83 of the Second Amended Complaint as if set forth herein. 85. Paragraph 85 of the Amended Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 86. Busco admits that it operates over-the-road bus services for the public and that its operations affect commerce. Denied that Busco is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. Busco denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Amended Complaint. 87. The allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco denies the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint. 88. The allegations in Paragraph 88 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 89. Busco denies the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the Amended Complaint. 90. The allegations in Paragraph 90 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11
91. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same.
92. The allegations in Paragraph 92 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
93. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same.
94. The allegations in Paragraph 94 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
95. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same.
96. The allegations in Paragraph 96 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
97. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same.
98. The allegations in Paragraph 98 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
99. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 99 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same.
100. The allegations in Paragraph 100 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal 6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11
conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
101. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 101 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same.
102. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 102 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 103. Busco incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 102 of the Amended Complaint as if set forth herein. 104. The allegations in Paragraph 104 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 105. The allegations in Paragraph 105 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 106. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 106 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same. 107. The allegations in Paragraph 107 of the Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 108.-110. To the extent the allegations in Paragraphs 108 through 110 of the Amended Complaint are directed to Busco, Busco denies the same.
7

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 11
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.:
Colorado Consumer Protection Act) 111. Busco incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 110 of the Amended Complaint as if set forth herein. 112.-118. The allegations in Paragraphs 112 through 118 of the Amended Complaint are not directed to Busco and, therefore, Busco does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 112 through 118 of the Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies the same.
ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF The paragraph immediately following Paragraph 118 of the Amended Complaint, labeled as subparagraphs 1 through 5, constitute a prayer for relief to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Busco denies the allegations in each subparagraph. Busco denies all allegations in the Amended Complaint not specifically admitted herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations. 3. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and accord and satisfaction. 4. Plaintiffs’ claims, in whole or in part, are barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies.
8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 11

5. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition’s claims are barred by its lack of

standing.

6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if

any.

7. All of Busco's actions were taken in good faith efforts to comply with applicable

law.

8. Busco reserves the right to move for separate trials under Fed.R.Civ.P.

42(b).

9. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the conduct of third persons

over whom Busco had no control or right to control.

10. Busco reserves its rights to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).

11. Any affirmative defense raised by any other defendant in this action.

Busco reserves the right to (a) rely upon such other affirmative defenses as may be

supported by the facts to be determined through full and complete discovery, and (b) to

voluntarily withdraw any affirmative defense.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, having fully answered and responded to the allegations of the Amended

Complaint, Busco hereby prays that:

entirety;

(1) Plaintiffs’ claims against Busco be dismissed with prejudice in their

(2) Each and every prayer for relief sought against Busco contained in the

Amended Complaint be denied;

9

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 11
(3) Judgment be entered in favor of Busco and against the Plaintiffs;
(4) All costs, including reasonable attorney fees, be awarded to Busco and
against Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, pursuant to applicable law; and
(5) Busco be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem just
and proper.
DEFENDANT REQUESTS TRIAL TO A JURY
Dated this 21st day of November, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
JESTER & GIBSON, LLP
By: s/ Marcel Krzystek Jay S. Jester Marcel Krzystek Jester & Gibson, LLP 1875 Lawrence St., Ste. 740 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-377-7888 jjester@jgllp.com Attorneys for Defendant BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 21, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:
• Kevin W. Williams kwilliams@ccdconline.org, clucas@ccdconline.org
• Susan Penniman Klopman sklopman@bhfs.com
• Timothy Patrick Fox tfox@foxrob.com, arob@foxrob.com
10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 53 Filed 11/21/07 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 11
• Leslie Lynn Schluter lschluter@lawincolorado.com Respectfully submitted, JESTER & GIBSON, LLP By: s/ Marcel Krzystek Marcel Krzystek Jester & Gibson, LLP 1875 Lawrence St., Ste. 740 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-377-7888 jjester@jgllp.com
11

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 71 Filed 03/13/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE
Civil Case No. 07-cv-00598-LTB-MEH
COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit corporation, TIMOTHY J. COENEN, JULIE REISKIN, LORAINE A. JOHNSON, BARBARA MOCZYGEMBA, and EILEEN HOPE KRAUSE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, CUSA PARTS, LLC, d/b/a POWDER RIVER TRANSPORTATION, a Delaware limited liability company, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD., d/b/a BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa corporation, and TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES, a Nebraska corporation,
Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ________________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc 70 - filed March 12, 2008), and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is therefore
ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE against Defendant CUSA PRTS, LLC, d/b/a Power River Transportation only, each party to pay their own fees and costs.
BY THE COURT:

DATED: March 13, 2008

s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00598-LTB-MEH COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit Corporation, JULIE REISKIN, LORAINE A. JOHNSON, BARBARA MOCZYGEMBA, and EILEEN HOPE KRAUSE,
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD., D/B/A BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa limited
liability company, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES, a Nebraska corporation, and BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES, INC., a Nebraska corporation,
Defendants.
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba, and Eileen Hope Krause, by and through their attorneys, Kevin W. Williams and Carrie Ann Lucas, of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition and Fox & Robertson, P.C., hereby submit their First Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. As grounds for this Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the
1

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 30
following: INTRODUCTION
1. Despite the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., in 1973 Defendants, all overthe-road bus (“OTRB”) transportation companies, still discriminate against persons with disabilities in ways that are described in this Complaint. Such failures include, but are not limited to: (1) failing to acquire accessible vehicles; (2) failing to reserve buses with wheelchair lifts when requested forty-eight hours in advance; (3) failing to allow passengers who use wheelchairs off the bus at stops; (4) failing to schedule all legs of a trip with one phone call; (5) failing to maintain wheelchair lifts in working order; (6) failing to remain courteous and respectful to passengers with disabilities; (7) failing to maintain the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities; and (8) failing to provide alternative transportation as required by the regulations.
2. Plaintiffs seek to ensure that OTRB transportation is accessible to people who use wheelchairs throughout Colorado and bring this Complaint seeking injunctive relief, damages and recovery of their reasonable attorneys’fees and costs.
JURISDICTION 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and pursuant to its pendent jurisdiction over claims brought under the laws of the State of Colorado. 4. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 30
PARTIES 5. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) is a Colorado non-profit corporation whose members are persons with disabilities and their non-disabled allies. 6. Julie Reiskin was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado residing at 3645 Milwaukee Street, Denver, Colorado 80205. Ms. Reiskin is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Julie Reiskin is CCDC’s Executive Director and a CCDC member. 7. Loraine A. Johnson was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado residing at 2716 Abrams Avenue, Montrose, Colorado 81401. Ms. Johnson is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Loraine A. Johnson is a CCDC member. 8. Barbara Moczygemba was, at all times materiel hereto, a resident of Colorado, residing at 105 W. Weston # 5, Fleming CO 80728. Ms. Moczygemba is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Moczygemba is a CCDC member. 9. Eileen Hope Krause was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado, residing at 414 Southridge Street, Apartment 101A, Fort Morgan, Colorado 80701. Ms. Krause is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Krause is a CCDC member. 10. Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. (“Greyhound”) is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 15110 N. Dallas Parkway, Dallas, TX 75248. Greyhound is
3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 30
licensed to do business in Colorado. Greyhound is a subsidiary of Laidlaw Transportation Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. Greyhound is a “large operator” under Department of Transportation rules and regulations.
11. Defendant Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc. (“TMN&O") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1313 13th St, Lubbock, TX 79401. TMN&O is licensed to do business in the state of Colorado. TMN&O is a subsidiary of Greyhound. Defendant TNM&O is a “large operator” under Department of Transportation rules and regulations.
12. Defendant Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., d/b/a Burlington Trailways (“Burlington”), is an Iowa limited liability company, which conducts business in Colorado, with its principal place of business at 906 Broadway, West Burlington, IA 52655. On information and belief, Burlington is not registered to do business in the state of Colorado. Defendant Burlington is a “large operator” under Department of Transportation rules and regulations.
13. Defendant Busco, Inc., d/b/a Busco, Inc. Arrow Stage Lines (“Busco”) is a Nebraska corporation, which is registered to do business in Colorado, with its principal place of business at 720 E. Norfolk Ave., Norfolk, NE 68701. On information and belief, Busco either operates, is affiliated with or is the parent company of Defendant, Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. and conducts business in Colorado. Busco is a Class I motor carrier, having the same business address, company officers, shareholders and employees as Defendant, Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.
14. Defendant Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. (“Black Hills”) is a Nebraska
4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 30
corporation, which is registered to do business in Colorado, with its principal place of business at 720 E. Norfolk Ave., Norfolk, NE 68701. On information and belief, Black Hills is operated by, is affiliated with or is the subsidiary of Defendant, Busco, and conducts business in Colorado. On information and belief, Defendant Black Hills is a “large operator” under Department of Transportation rules and regulations. Black Hills has the same business address, company officers, shareholders and employees as Defendant, Busco. On information and belief, Busco and Black Hills have a sufficient common identity to cause Busco to be liable for Black Hills’ failures to comply with the statutes at issue in this Complaint, or Busco and Black Hills are the same company for purposes of determining Busco’s liability.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 15. On information and belief, Defendants, Greyhound, TNM&O, Burlington and Black Hills, are concurring members of the National Bus Traffic Association, Inc. (“NBTA”) Under a NBTA agreement, defendants are permitted to sell tickets for OTRB company trips provided by the members. 16. Each of the defendants operates OTRB services, regulated under 49 C.F.R., pt. 37, and, on information and belief, each of the defendants receives federal financial assistance, as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., in the form of grants from federal agencies. 17. Plaintiff Julie Reiskin is the Executive Director of CCDC, and she uses a motorized wheelchair. Her job requires her to travel around the state of Colorado. She is a frequent user of OTRB companies. Over the years, Ms. Reiskin has experienced numerous problems with wheelchair access with these transportation services including, without limitation,
5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 30
the following: drivers not knowing how to operate wheelchair lifts and securement devices; scheduling accessible buses forty-eight hours in advance and having the buses arrive with no wheelchair lifts; and not being permitted to leave the bus on rest breaks when all other passengers were permitted to do so. She has reported some of these problems on behalf of herself and other CCDC members for years, including filing a Department of Justice complaint on behalf of a CCDC member in or about 2003.
18. On information and belief, in or about October 10, 2005, Ms. Reiskin’s assistant at the time, Carrie Lucas, scheduled a trip on Burlington requesting an accessible bus for a trip to Sterling, Colorado on October 19, 2005. On information and belief, neither Ms. Reiskin nor Ms. Lucas received confirmation that Ms. Reiskin’s bus would be accessible, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
19. Ms. Reiskin experienced a discriminatory incident on July 28, 2006. Ms. Reiskin scheduled the trip from Denver to Delta, Colorado with Greyhound slightly more than fortyeight hours in advance. She called Greyhound again the day before she left on her trip to get confirmation that the TNM&O bus she was scheduled to transfer to in Grand Junction, Colorado was accessible. She was told TNM&O had been notified, and the bus for her trip would be an accessible bus. Ms. Reiskin departed Denver on a Greyhound bus at approximately 12:00 a.m. She arrived in Grand Junction at approximately 4:15 a.m. As she was getting off the bus, the driver of the bus indicated to another employee that Ms. Reiskin was heading south. The driver of that bus came to Ms. Reiskin and asked where she was going. Ms. Reiskin informed the driver that she was going to Delta, scheduled at 5:30 a.m. About an hour later, Ms. Reiskin was
6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 30
told that there was no bus with a wheelchair lift. None of the TMN&O employees seemed to know what to do. Ms. Reiskin is familiar with transportation in the area and suggested they call Millennium Cab Service. She explained that if TNM&O could get an accessible cab, TNM&O would have to pay the fare. The TNM&O employee agreed that the fare would be paid by TNM&O and worked out a payment arrangement with the owner of the cab company. Ms. Reiskin called and spoke with Stacey Lemmons at TNM&O early in the morning to report that there had not been a bus with a wheelchair lift and to find out if there was going to be an accessible bus for her trip the following day. Stacey Lemmons from TNM&O called Ms. Reiskin back before 8:00 a.m. She said she was not aware that Ms. Reiskin needed an accessible bus that morning and asked her for details about how Ms. Reiskin had made the scheduling arrangements with Greyhound. After several calls with Stacey Lemmons, Ms. Reiskin learned that Greyhound had faxed the request for a lift bus to TNM&O and had never called to assure someone got it. Apparently, no one received the request. Stacey Lemmons told Ms. Reiskin that a manager had spoken to the Greyhound ADA office manager and required that they no longer fax such requests without also making a call to assure that someone receives and acts on the information. Ms. Reiskin called Stacey Lemmons several times that day as she wanted to be sure that the bus for the trip on July 29th would have a lift. Ms. Reiskin was concerned that if she needed to find alternative transportation, she would have to make a reservation early. Stacey Lemmons assured Ms. Reiskin the bus would have a lift.
20. Ms. Reiskin arrived at the Delta, Colorado station at approximately 9:50 a.m on July 29, 2006. The bus she was scheduled to ride on arrived and did not have a wheelchair lift
7

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 30
despite Stacey Lemmons’ assurances that it would. Both the person staffing the bus station, Debbie, and Ms. Reiskin asked the driver about this. The driver told them that he did receive paperwork stating that he needed a bus with a lift, but he was directed to take the bus without a lift. On information and belief, paperwork was also at the Delta station showing that Ms. Reiskin had made her reservation for an accessible bus at that time. Ms. Reiskin called the TNM&O number and was connected to the bus depot in Lubbock, Texas. After explaining what had happened to several people on the phone, she was connected to a supervisor. The supervisor said he would make some calls to figure out how to get a bus to her and call her back. Debbie had also made calls and received the same response. They waited an hour, and no one called back. Debbie called back to Lubbock and discovered that nothing had been done to get an accessible bus. Ms. Reiskin was informed she could go the next day, and TNM&O would have a bus with a lift. They agreed that if Ms. Reiskin got to Grand Junction and there was no accessible bus, the bus that took her from Delta to Grand Junction would take her to Denver. Ms. Reiskin called the cab company that brought her to Delta the day before, and they agreed to come back and transport her to Grand Junction. By the time Ms. Reiskin arrived in Grand Junction, it was 2:00 p.m. and too late for her attend the event for which she made the trip to Grand Junction.
21. On information and belief, Ms. Reiskin never received confirmation of her request for accessible buses, described in paragraph 20 of this Complaint, from Greyhound or TNM&O, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 30
22. Ms. Reiskin suffered damages from this incident. 23. Ms. Reiskin sent a letter to TMN&O on August 3, 2006, detailing the problems she had with Grand Junction and Delta trips and demanding an explanation of how TMN&O would resolve the wheelchair lift bus assignment problems. In the letter, Ms. Reiskin also requested damages for CCDC for TNM&O’s discriminatory conduct and for time and resources CCDC had expended dealing with TNM&O’s discriminatory practices. On or about September 6, 2006, Ms. Reiskin received a letter from Bobby Greenhill, Director of Operations of TNM&O explaining that a supervisor in the Albuquerque station had been replaced, and that this change in personnel should solve the wheelchair-lift bus assignment problem. TNM&O offered CCDC bus passes for TNM&O trips in the amount of $125.00, which CCDC has used. 24. On another trip from Grand Junction to Denver on September 8, 2006, at approximately 4:10 p.m., Ms. Reiskin encountered a Greyhound employee at the Grand Junction Greyhound station who asked Ms. Reiskin if she was going to Denver. Ms. Reiskin said that she was, and the driver asked her if she had informed Greyhound. She had scheduled the trip fortyeight hours in advance with Greyhound and told the driver this. The employee looked at his computer, which had Ms. Reiskin’s return trip to Denver scheduled the previous day. Ms. Reiskin is meticulous about confirming trip dates and times over the phone. She received a confirmation form after she returned from her trip, and it showed the return trip was scheduled on the wrong date. The bus for this trip had a wheelchair lift, but it did not work. Employees at the station were able to repair the lift, but they were concerned about it malfunctioning again and asked Ms. Reiskin if she would mind not getting off at rest stops in case there was a lift failure.
9

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 30
Ms. Reiskin needed the ride, so she boarded. Ms. Reiskin did not get off the bus for the five hour trip.
25. On or about September 11, 2006, Ms. Reiskin called Burlington to schedule a trip from Denver to Sterling, Colorado for September 14, 2006. Burlington informed Ms. Reiskin they would not make a reservation until she purchased a ticket. She did so the next day and called back that day to make the reservation. Burlington also informed Ms. Reiskin that it could not provide an accessible bus for her return trip from Sterling on September 15, 2006. She was instructed to call another bus company to schedule a return trip. Ms. Reiskin never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a) for this trip.
26. As a result of Defendants’ violations of law, Ms. Reiskin experienced injuries and damages. Ms. Reiskin would like to use the services of the OTRB companies and will do so if the OTRB companies stop discriminating against her on the basis of her disability.
27. On August 29, 2005, Plaintiff Loraine Johnson called TNM&O to request accessible buses for a trip from Montrose, Colorado to San Jose, California on September 5, 2005. Ms. Johnson received a copy of a “TNM&O Coaches, Inc. Passenger Assistance Notification Form” by mail after she returned home on this trip. The form she received indicated that she requested a “w/c accessible bus.” Upon arriving at the bus station in Montrose, Colorado, Ms. Johnson was informed no lift bus would be available. At the time, Ms. Johnson got on the bus using the stairs. Because of her disabilities, doing so was very painful for Ms. Johnson. It would have been far easier for her to board using her wheelchair and the lift. The
10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 30
TNM&O bus driver stored her wheelchair under the bus. The bus took her to Grand Junction, Colorado, where Ms. Johnson was scheduled to transfer to a Greyhound bus. The Greyhound bus had a wheelchair lift, but the driver did not know Ms. Johnson was coming and did not know how to operate the wheelchair lift. It took the driver in Grand Junction, Colorado forty-five minutes to successfully operate the lift. Ms. Johnson boarded using her wheelchair. As a result of this delay, she was late getting to Los Angeles, CA. When Ms. Johnson arrived in Los Angeles, CA, she was scheduled to board a Greyhound bus. Greyhound did not provide a bus with a lift again. Ms. Johnson had a six hour layover in Los Angeles, which was scheduled to be much less. During the entire trip from Grand Junction, Colorado to San Jose, California, the Greyhound drivers never allowed Ms. Johnson to exit the bus at intermediate and/or rest stops.
28. On her return trip from San Jose, California to Montrose, Colorado, Ms. Johnson called TNM&O on September 6, 2005 and requested accessible buses. During her entire trip from San Jose to Montrose, Colorado, beginning on September 11, 2005, was not assisted by any Greyhound or TNM&O driver in getting off the bus at any intermediate or rest stops.
29. On or about October 11, 2006, Ms. Johnson called TNM&O to schedule a trip from Montrose, Colorado to Grand Junction, Colorado on October 15, 2006, and a return trip from Grand Junction, Colorado to Montrose, Colorado on October 17, 2006 for her and her assistant Dan Weis. She requested a bus with a wheelchair lift. Ms. Johnson also called TNM&O’s Albuquerque, New Mexico office to confirm her bus would have a wheelchair lift, which Stacey Lemmons did confirm over the phone. When Ms. Johnson got to the bus terminal, her scheduled bus did not have a wheelchair lift. Because of Ms. Johnson’s increasing level of
11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 30
disability, she was no longer able to get on the bus without her wheelchair. At this time and since, she uses different wheelchair for mobility. This wheelchair does not collapse. The bus was scheduled to depart at 2:50 p.m. It left without Ms. Johnson. She waited until approximately 4:00 p.m. for TNM&O to find her an accessible bus or equivalent transportation. They provided neither. As a result, Ms. Johnson incurred hotel penalties and missed the class she wanted to attend. Ms. Johnson contacted TNM&O again to complain about the missed trip, and she was told that her paperwork had mistakenly be sent to Colorado Springs, not Montrose. Ms. Johnson did receive notification of her request for an accessible bus on this trip after she returned home.
30. Ms. Johnson called TNM&O to schedule a trip from Montrose, Colorado to Denver, Colorado to depart on February 25, 2008 and return on February 28, 2008. Ms. Johnson made the request at least forty-eight hours in advance. She requested wheelchair lift equipped buses for all legs of both trips. When Ms. Johnson arrived at the Montrose, Colorado bus terminal, the driver of the TNM&O bus could not get the lift door of the bus to open. It took four people forty-five minutes working with the lift door to finally get it to open. Ms. Johnson finally boarded using the wheelchair lift. When Ms. Johnson arrived in Grand Junction, Colorado, she transferred to a Greyhound bus. The bus had a wheelchair lift, and Ms. Johnson boarded. At a rest stop in Glenwood Springs, Ms. Johnson attempted to get off the Greyhound bus using the lift. Ms Johnson’s rear wheels got stuck on the inner lift ramp because the lift buckled a few inches when she attempted to drive her wheelchair on to it. Mr. Weis assisted Ms. Johnson with transferring to a bus seat. Mr. Weis then drove the wheelchair onto the ramp and
12

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 30
helped Ms. Johnson into the wheelchair. When the Greyhound bus arrived in Denver, Mr. Weis again assisted Ms. Johnson with transferring to a bus seat and then drove the wheelchair onto the lift and then helped Ms. Johnson into the wheelchair.
31. On Ms. Johnson’s return trip from Denver, Colorado to Montrose, Colorado on February 28, 2008, Ms. Johnson arrived at the Denver terminal and encountered the same TNM&O driver she had on the February 25 trip from Montrose to Grand Junction. The driver informed Ms. Johnson that the lift door on the bus had not been fixed and he could not get it open. Ms. Johnson was denied transportation and had to stay in Denver another night and wait for an accessible the next day. The person staffing the Greyhound desk at the Denver terminal provided Ms. Johnson with accessible cab vouchers to get to a hotel and hotel vouchers. Ms. Johnson asked if the hotel room was an accessible room. The woman staffing the desk informed Ms. Johnson the hotel did not have any available accessible rooms. Ms. Johnson went to the hotel and found she could get in the room, but with difficulty. The restroom in the hotel room was not wheelchair accessible.
32. On February 29, 2008, Ms. Johnson returned to the Denver terminal to return to Montrose. Ms. Johnson boarded the TNM&O bus using the lift. At a rest stop in Frisco, Colorado, Ms. Johnson attempted to exit the bus using the lift. The wheelchair lift went part of the way down and became stuck. Ms. Johnson was unable to exit the lift and had to go back up the lift and return to the bus. Ms. Johnson later had to use the restroom on the bus, which she had great difficulty doing and required the assistance of her assistant, Mr. Weis, to get to the restroom. When the bus arrived in Grand Junction, Colorado, Ms. Johnson was scheduled to
13

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 30
transfer to another bus. Everyone got off of Ms. Johnson’s bus. When Ms. Johnson went to get off the bus, the driver of the bus to which Ms. Johnson was scheduled to transfer informed the passengers and driver on Ms. Johnson’s bus that the lift door on the transfer bus was broken. Ms. Johnson remained on her bus, the other passengers re-boarded, and that bus went on to Montrose. When the bus arrived in Montrose, the wheelchair lift did not work again. Once again, the driver requested that Ms. Johnson transfer to a seat and that her wheelchair be taken down the lift without her. With Mr. Weis’ assistance, Ms. Johnson again transferred to a bus seat. When the driver attempted to take the wheelchair down the lift, it became stuck again. Six people lifted Ms. Johnson’s wheelchair from the wheelchair lift to the ground. Mr. Weis had to assist Ms. Johnson to the lift. The lift did work to lower Ms. Johnson to the ground.
33. Ms. Johnson never received a communication confirming her request for an accessible bus for her 2008 trips, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
34. Ms. Johnson would like to use the services of the OTRB companies and will do so if the OTRB companies stop discriminating against her on the basis of her disability. Ms. Johnson has been injured and harmed by Defendants’ conduct.
35. On or about February 19, 2007, Barbara Moczygemba prepared to board a bus operated by Burlington, bound from Sterling, Colorado to Denver, Colorado. Ms. Moczygemba had contacted Burlington forty-eight hours in advance of the trip to ensure that a bus with a lift would be provided for her use. When the bus arrived at the Sterling, Colorado stop, the lift and the kneeling system on the bus did not function. Both were apparently frozen, and the driver,
14

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 30
Paul, had no de-icer or other means to thaw the lift mechanisms, rendering the kneeling mechanism and lift inoperable. The driver requested that Ms. Moczygemba get out of her wheelchair and get into the bus while he placed her motorized scooter below, with the luggage. Ms. Moczygemba agreed with the caveat that the driver be very careful and follow her instructions regarding stowing the scooter so that it would not be damaged. The driver ignored all of Ms. Moczygemba’s instructions and inserted the motorized scooter on it’s side, causing the scooter to break apart and in a manner that allowed baggage to repeatedly strike it while in transit. Ms. Moczygemba got onto the bus with difficulty and rode to Denver.
36. Upon arrival in Denver, Ms. Moczygemba observed her scooter being removed from the baggage compartment and saw that it was in several pieces and the wiring had been torn. The transaxle and frame had been bent, and Ms. Moczygemba observed the scooter being dropped multiple times. Ms. Moczygemba’s scooter did not function after it was returned to her.
37. The following Monday, Ms. Moczygemba contacted several motorized scooter shops in the Denver metropolitan area to get her scooter repaired. After the scooter’s condition was evaluated by one repair shop, AMT, it was determined that the scooter could not be repaired. Because her scooter was damaged, Ms. Moczygemba has rented a scooter, though this scooter does not fully meet her needs. Ms. Moczygemba lives in a rural area of the state, and traditional scooters are not manufactured to handle rough terrain. She needs to replace her scooter, but she cannot afford to do so. When Ms. Moczygemba contacted Burlington about reimbursement for the scooter, she was informed that she was only entitled to approximately $300.00 for damaged “baggage,” and $52.00 for ticket reimbursement.
15

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 30
38. Ms. Moczygemba never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus from Burlington using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
39. On or about May 11, 2007, Hope Krause contacted Burlington forty-eight hours in advance of her scheduled trip from Fort Morgan, Colorado to Denver, Colorado to ensure that a bus with a lift had been reserved for her trip as well as for her return trip from Denver to Fort Morgan on May 16, 2007. After being assured that appropriate buses had been reserved, Ms. Krause inquired as to whether she needed to call again on May 14, 2007, forty-eight hours prior to her return trip to ensure that a bus with a lift had been reserved. She was told that she did not need to make a second call to ensure that her the bus on her return trip would have a wheelchair lift. On May 16, 2007, Ms. Krause, and her personal care attendant, Veronica Araujo, arrived at the Denver bus station to return to Fort Morgan. The Burlington bus arrived, and had a wheelchair lift, but the driver said that the lift did not work and denied transportation to Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo. When Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo contacted Burlington’s dispatcher, the dispatcher said that the next accessible bus returning to Fort Morgan from Denver would arrive no sooner than forty-eight hours later. The dispatcher assured Ms. Krause that Burlington would contact her the following morning, May 17, 2007, by 9:00 a.m., with further details. Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo went to a hotel and made a reservation for two nights. Ms. Krause also had to contact a relative in Fort Morgan to care for her minor child and reached an agreement regarding paying her personal care attendant a higher rate for the over-time. Because Ms. Krause is on a limited income, she has been unable to pay Ms. Araujo who no longer works for
16

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 30
Ms. Krause. Ms. Araujo, CCDC and Ms. Krause reached an agreement that she would stay in Denver and work for Ms. Krause as her attendant in exchange for $370.00. Ms. Krause and CCDC incurred additional expenses as a result of Ms. Krause’s having to stay in Denver. On May 17, 2007, after 10:00 a.m., Ms. Krause contacted CCDC because she had not yet received a call from Burlington as they had promised. CCDC representative, Sheila Hicks, contacted a representative of Burlington who agreed to send a bus to the Denver station to take Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo back to Fort Morgan. On information and belief, a Burlington representative contacted Black Hills, which sent a bus to transport Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo. When Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo arrived at the bus station, the bus that was sent did not have a wheelchair lift. Eventually, they were sent back to Fort Morgan, Colorado, her destination, in a cab.
40. On June 1, 2007, Ms. Krause contacted Black Hills forty-eight hours in advance of her trip from Fort Morgan to Denver, scheduled for June 3, 2007 at 6:00 p.m., to ensure that an accessible bus would be available for her use for both legs of her trip. She spoke with Connie, and was assured that there would be a bus with a lift for both legs of the trip. On June 3, 2007, Ms. Krause and her personal care attendant, Jaimie Chosa, arrived at the bus station. The bus driver’s name was Paul. The bus did not have a wheelchair lift or ramp. The driver rudely asked Ms. Krause if she had called ahead about requiring a bus with a lift. Ms. Krause informed him that she had requested a bus with a wheelchair lift. Paul said he had not been notified of this request, and that there was nothing he could do. He told Ms. Krause that the next bus would arrive at 4:00 a.m., and that she would have to take that bus. Ms. Krause contacted Sheila Hicks, who spoke with the bus driver. Ms. Hicks asked the driver to contact dispatch, and the driver
17

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 30
refused, stating that dispatch is only open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ms. Hicks insisted that he contact someone within the company. The driver eventually contacted dispatch, then asked Ms. Krause where she could be picked up. Ms. Krause’s attendant gave the driver her home address and telephone number, and the driver informed Ms. Krause that she would receive a call from dispatch shortly. More than two hours after returning home, Ms. Krause had not received a call, so her attendant contacted the Denver bus station to get the telephone number for Black Hills. Ms. Chosa then contacted Black Hills directly and was told that a bus would pick Ms. Krause up “some time.” At approximately 9:15 p.m., more than three hours after Ms. Krause’s original departure time, a bus arrived at Ms. Krause’s home and transported her and Ms. Chosa to Denver.
41. Ms. Krause attempted to contact Black Hills on February 23, 2008, forty-eight hours prior to her departure from Fort Morgan Colorado to Denver, Colorado on February 26, 2008; however, the office was closed and she was unable to make a request for an accessible bus at that time. Ms. Krause successfully contacted Black Hills on February 25, 2008 to request a bus with a lift and explained that she had attempted to call earlier, but the office was closed. Ms, Krause received a verbal confirmation number including the letter “BHL” which, on information and belief, stands for “Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.” On this trip, she encountered the driver, Paul, referenced above. He informed Ms. Krause that he had received no notice that she would be riding. He was rude to her and told her she needed to make a request for an accessible bus. Fortunately, the bus had a lift and Ms. Krause was able to ride, but the driver’s behavior is inexcusable, and there is no explanation why Paul did not receive prior notice of her request.
18

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 30
Ms. Krause never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus from Black Hills using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
42. CCDC’s purpose is to work for systemic change that promotes independence, self-reliance, and full inclusion for people with disabilities in the entire community. As part of that purpose, CCDC seeks to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- the programs, activities and services provided by OTRB companies, like those owned and operated by Defendants.
43. CCDC engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to promote access for and combat discrimination against people with disabilities. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ violations of the laws cited herein.
44. Defendants’ actions have caused and continue to cause distinct, palpable, and perceptible injury to CCDC.
45. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, legislative, and educational efforts, to communicating with the Defendants in an attempt to secure non-discriminatory conditions for Defendants’ OTRB services.
46. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, legislative, and educational efforts, to counseling members and others who have been injured by Defendants’ discrimination.
47. Defendants’ discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to the full participation of persons with disabilities and, therefore, frustrates CCDC’s ability to achieve full
19

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 30
inclusion for persons with disabilities. 48. Defendants’ discrimination has required and continues to require CCDC to make
a greater effort -- and to allocate significant resources -- to educate the public that such discrimination is wrong and otherwise to counteract the adverse impact of such discrimination. This perceptibly impairs CCDC’s counseling, advocacy, legislative, educational, and training missions.
49. CCDC also has devoted and continues to devote resources -- including but not limited to those devoted to the present lawsuit -- to identifying and counteracting the sources of discrimination in the community, including that of Defendants.
50. CCDC’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are traceable to Defendants’ discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
51. CCDC’s members and their spouses, friends, relatives, and associates have been injured and will continue to be injured by Defendants’ discrimination.
52. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of Defendants, and the integration of persons with disabilities into all aspects of community life are at the core of CCDC’s organizational purpose.
53. The participation of individual CCDC members in the lawsuit is not required either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief.
54. Defendants acted intentionally or with reckless, callous and/or deliberate indifference to the federally protected rights of others.
20

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 30
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 56. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by a private entity that is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a). 57. All Defendants operate specified public transportation services, OTRB services, that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and their operations affect commerce. 58. The regulations implementing 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) are found at 49 C.F.R., part 37. These regulations took effect with respect to large operators on October 30, 2000, and to small operators on October 29, 2001. 59. All over-the-road, fixed route transportation providers that have purchased or leased new vehicles since the effective dates above have been required to purchase or lease accessible buses, or, in the case of small operators, they have had the option of providing equivalent service. 49 C.F.R. § 37.183. For large operators, half of their bus fleet was required to be accessible by October 30, 2006, unless an extension was requested. 49 C.F.R. § 37.185. 60. On information and belief, Defendants have not acquired accessible buses as required by the regulations.
21

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 30
61. With respect to interline service, “[w]hen the general public can purchase a ticket or make a reservation with one operator for a fixed-route trip of two or more stages in which another operator provides service, the first operator must arrange for an accessible bus, or equivalent service, as applicable, to be provided for each stage of the trip to a passenger with a disability.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(a). Each operator retains the responsibility for providing the transportation required by the regulations to the passenger for its portion of an interline trip. 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(b). The passenger shall be required to make only one request, which covers all legs of the requested trip (e.g., in the case of a round trip, both the outgoing and return legs of the trip; in the case of a multi-leg trip, all connecting legs). 49 C.F.R. § 37.213(a). In addition, all fixed-route operators involved in interline service shall ensure that they have the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities, 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(c), and confirmation of requests for accessible buses must be communicated to the passenger in one business day, using the Service Request Form in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
62. As described in this Complaint, Defendants have failed to ensure that individuals who require accessible transportation are able to schedule accessible vehicles for all legs of their trip and have failed to maintain the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities. As described herein, Defendants have failed to communicate confirmation of accessible buses to Plaintiffs within one business day, using the Service Request Form in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
63. Until all buses in an operator’s fleet are accessible, OTRB transportation
22

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 30
providers must make accessible buses available on request. 49 C.F.R. § 37.193(a)(1). The operator may require up to 48 hours advance notice to provide this service. 49 C.F.R. § 37.193(a)(1)(I).
64. Despite Plaintiffs’ efforts to make requests for accessible bus services 48 hours or more in advance and their repeated attempts to confirm accessible buses, Defendants failed to provide accessible buses.
65. With respect to intermediate and rest stops, “a passenger with a disability, including an individual using a wheelchair, shall be permitted to leave and return to the bus on the same basis as other passengers. The operator shall ensure that assistance is provided to passengers with disabilities as needed to enable the passenger to get on and off the bus at the stop (e.g., operate the lift and provide assistance with securement; provide other boarding assistance if needed, as in the case of a wheelchair user who has transferred to a vehicle seat because other wheelchair users occupied all securement locations).” 49 C.F.R. § 37.201(a).
66. As explained in this Complaint, Defendants failed to allow Plaintiffs to leave and return to the bus on the same basis as other passengers and failed to provide other boarding assistance.
67. Wheelchair lifts are required to be maintained and inspected to ensure they are operative, and buses with inoperative lifts are to be taken out of service for maintenance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.203.
68. On information and belief, during the incidents described in this Complaint, and at other times, Defendants failed to inspect and maintain bus lifts to ensure they were operative
23

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 30
and failed to take buses with inoperative lifts out of service as required by the regulations. 69. Unlawful discrimination under the regulations includes, without limitation: (1)
Denying transportation to passengers with disabilities; (2) requiring or requesting a passenger with a disability to reschedule his or her trip, or travel at a time other than the time the passenger has requested; (3) failing to provide reservation services to passengers with disabilities equivalent to those provided other passengers; and (4) failing or refusing to comply with any applicable provision of the regulations. 49 C.F.R. § 37.207.
70. Defendants, through their actions described in this Complaint, engaged in unlawful discrimination prohibited by 49 C.F.R. § 37.207.
71. All bus drivers are required to receive training in proper operation and maintenance of accessibility features and equipment, boarding assistance, securement of mobility aids, sensitive and appropriate interaction with passengers with disabilities, handling and storage of mobility devices, and familiarity with the requirements of the regulations. 49 C.F.R. § 37.209. OTRB operators shall provide refresher training to personnel as needed to maintain proficiency. Id. Entities which operate fixed route systems shall ensure that personnel are trained to proficiency, as appropriate to their duties, so that they operate vehicles and equipment safely and properly assist and treat individuals with disabilities who use the service in a respectful and courteous way, with appropriate attention to the difference among individuals with disabilities. 49 C.F.R. § 37.173.
72. On information and belief, during the incidents described in this Complaint, Defendants failed to provide appropriate training as required by the regulations.
24

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 30
73. Defendant’s violations of the ADA have harmed Plaintiffs, who have sustained damages as a result.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 74. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 75. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from denying, on the basis of disability, the benefits provided by the recipient, or from subjecting persons with disabilities to discrimination. 29 U.S.C. § 794. 76. For OTRB entities receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, compliance with applicable requirements of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37, is a condition of compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and of receiving financial assistance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.21(b). 77. On information and belief, Defendants receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation and/or other federal agencies. 78. For OTRB companies entities receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, compliance with applicable requirements of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37 is a condition of compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and of receiving financial assistance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.21(b). 79. On information and belief, Defendants receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Homeland Security.
25

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 30
80. Defendants have violated Section 504 the Rehabilitation Act by denying Plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities the benefits of their OTRB services and otherwise failing to comply with the regulations applicable to OTRB companies as described in this Complaint.
81. Defendants’ violations of the Rehabilitation Act have harmed Plaintiffs. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.: Colorado Consumer Protection Act)
82. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
83. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) requires that “[e]xcept in a class action, any person who, in a private civil action, is found to have engaged in or caused another to engage in any deceptive trade practice . . . shall be liable in the amount equal to the sum of . . .[t]hree times the actual damages sustained or two hundred and fifty dollars, whichever is greater; and . . . [i]n the case of a successful action to enforce said liability the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court.”
84. Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin and Loraine Johnson seek recovery under the CCPA. 85. In addition, the CCPA provides, “[a]ny person who violates or causes another to violate any provision of [the CCPA] shall forfeit and pay to the general fund of this state a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars for each such violation [;] a violation of any provision shall constitute a separate violation with respect to each consumer or transaction involved; except that the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars for any related series of violations.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-112(1).
26

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 30
86. Section 6-1-112 is enforceable by a plaintiff in a private cause of action. 87. Under the CCPA, “[a] person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of such person’s business . . . such person:”
a. “[k]nowingly makes a false representation as to the characteristics . . . uses, alterations, or quantities of . . . services . . . ;
b. “[r]epresents that . . . services . . . are of a particular standard, quality or grade . . . if he knows or should know that they are of another;”
c. “[a]dvertises . . . services with intent not to sell them as advertised;” d. “[a]dvertises . . . services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable
public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;” e. “[e]mploys ‘bait and switch’ advertising, which is advertising accompanied by an effort to sell . . .services . . .other than those advertised or on terms other than those advertised and which is also accompanied by [the] following practice . . . demonstrating defective . . . services which are unusable or impractical for the purposes set forth in the advertisement; and f. “[f]ails to disclose material information concerning . . .services . . . which information was known at the time of an advertisement or sale if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer to enter into a transaction.
27

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 30
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1). 88. Defendants Greyhound and TNM&O advertise that they provide accessible buses
with 48 hours prior notice. As set forth in this Complaint, these Defendants did not and, on information and belief, do not provide accessible buses with 48 hours prior notice.
89. Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin and Loraine Johnson were led to believe and did believe that they would have accessible transportation based on Greyhound’s and TNM&O’s representations. Plaintiffs did not receive the service they were promised.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray: 1. That this Court assume jurisdiction. 2. That this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendants to comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the CCPA. 3. That this Court award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs as permitted under the referenced statutes. 4. That this Court award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 5. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper and equitable. JURY DEMAND: Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues which can be heard by a jury.
28

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 30

Dated: April 10, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin W. Williams Kevin W. Williams Legal Program Director Carrie Ann Lucas CRPD Director Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 Voice: 303.839.1775 TTY: 303.839.0015 Facsimile: 303.839.1782 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org E-mail: clucas@ccdconline.org

Timothy P. Fox Amy F. Robertson Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910 - 16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Voice: 303.595.9700 TTY: 303.595.9703 Facsimile: 303.595.9705 E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com E-mail: arob@foxrob.com

Address of Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition:

655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203

Address of Julie Reiskin:

3645 Milwaukee Street Denver, Colorado 80205

Address of Plaintiff Loraine Johnson:

2716 Abrams Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401

29

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 75 Filed 04/11/08 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 30
Address of Plaintiff Barbara Moczygemba: 105 W. Weston # 5 Fleming CO 80728 Address of Plaintiff Hope Krause: 414 Southridge St., Apt. 101A Fort Morgan, CO 80701
30

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 84 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00598-LTB-MEH COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit Corporation, JULIE REISKIN, LORAINE A. JOHNSON, BARBARA MOCZYGEMBA, and EILEEN HOPE KRAUSE,
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD., d/b/a BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa limited liability company, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAMOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES, a Nebraska corporation, and BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES, INC., a Nebraska corporation, Defendants.
DEFENDANT BUSCO, INC. AND BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants, Busco, Inc., d/b/a Busco, Inc. Arrow Stage Lines (“Busco”) and Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. (“Black Hills”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their counsel, Marcel Krzystek of JESTER & GIBSON, LLP, and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), hereby move the Court to enter an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ first claim for relief, and in support thereof Defendants state as follows:
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 1. On April 11, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint [75] (“Amended Complaint”).

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 84 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
2. In this case, several individual Plaintiffs and organizational Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition assert three claims for relief against various over-the-road bus transportation companies. Plaintiffs generally allege that the Defendant bus companies have discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Plaintiffs also assert Colorado Consumer Protection Act claims against some of the Defendants (although not Busco or Black Hills).
3. The only individual Plaintiff to assert a claim against Busco and Black Hills is Eileen Hope Krause, and her allegations relate to incidents outlined in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Amended Complaint. Accepting all well-pleaded allegations of the Amended Complaint as true, Ms. Krause’s claims are as follows:
a. On June 1, 2007, Ms. Krause contacted Black Hills forty-eight hours in advance of a June 3 trip from Fort Morgan to Denver. Ms. Krause alleges that she spoke with “Connie” and was assured that she would be provided a bus with a lift for both legs of the trip. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 40.
b. Ms. Krause alleges that on June 3, she and an assistant arrived at the bus station for the 6:00 p.m. trip. However, Ms. Krause alleges that the bus driver advised her that the bus did not have a wheelchair lift or ramp, and stated that he was unaware of a request for an appropriately equipped bus. In either event, Ms. Krause alleges, the bus driver advised her that the next bus would arrive at 4:00 a.m. and that she would need to take that bus. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 40.
c. In response, Ms. Krause contacted the CCDC Legislative Liaison, who then spoke with the bus driver. According to Ms. Krause, the bus driver advised
2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 84 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
the Liaison that dispatch was not open, but the Liaison insisted that someone at Black Hills be contacted. Ultimately, the driver did contact dispatch and asked Ms. Krause where she could be picked up. Ms. Krause provided the bus driver her home address and telephone number and returned home. Approximately three hours later, a Black Hills bus picked up Ms. Krause at her home and drove her and her assistant to Denver. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 40. d. Ms. Krause attempted to contact Black Hills on February 23, 2008, forty-eight hours prior to her departure from Fort Morgan to Denver on February 26; however, the office was closed and she was unable to make a request for an accessible bus at that time. Ms. Krause successfully contacted Black Hills on February 25, explained that she had attempted to contact Black Hills on February 23, and requested a bus with a lift, at which time she received a verbal confirmation number from Black Hills. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 41. e. On this trip, the bus driver was rude to Ms. Krause and told her that she needed to make a request for a lift equipped bus. However, the bus was equipped with a lift, and Ms. Krause makes no further allegations related to discrimination regarding the February 26 trip. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 41. 4. Based upon those factual allegations, the Amended Complaint asserts two claims for relief against Defendants Busco and Black Hills: (1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a); and (2) violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 84 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
STANDARD OF REVIEW 5. Defendants Busco and Black Hills move this Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ first claim for relief on the grounds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.1 When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court “must accept all the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and must construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” David v. City & County of Denver, 101 F.3d 1344, 1352 (10th Cir. 1996). 6. The United States Supreme Court has recently ruled that the standard for review previously applied under Rule 12(b)(6) – “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief” – is “best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 945 (2007). Although the Supreme Court did not clearly articulate the proper standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, its opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. and its subsequent opinion in Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) “suggest that courts should look to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, n.2 (10th Cir. 2007), citing Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143 (2nd Cir. 2007). 7. Under this new “plausibility” standard, “the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of
1 Defendants also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief contemporaneously with this Motion Dismiss.
4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 84 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
mustering factual support for these claims.” Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original). A court “must determine whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts supporting all the elements necessary to establish an entitlement to relief under the legal theory proposed.” Lane v. Simon, 495 F.3d 1182, 1186 (10th Cir. 2007).
ARGUMENT 8. Ms. Krause’s factual allegations fail to plausibly support a legal claim for relief against Busco or Black Hills. As Plaintiffs correctly cite, the Americans with Disabilities Act provides that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by a private entity that is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce.” 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a). Compensatory damages are not available under the ADA unless the plaintiff establishes intentional discrimination. See, e.g., Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 118 F.3d 1400 (10th Cir. 1997). Absent intentional discrimination (which Plaintiffs have not plead), a plaintiff’s remedies under the ADA are limited to injunctive relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188; Chambers v. Melmed, 141 Fed. Appx. 718, 720 (10th Cir. 2005). 9. Even if Ms. Krause’s factual allegations are proven true, the fact of one isolated incident in which she suffered a three hour delay as a result of Black Hills’ failure to arrive with a lift equipped bus is insufficient to afford relief under the ADA. In United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 97 L. Ed. 1303, 73 S. Ct. 894 (1953), the Supreme Court stated that the purpose of injunctive relief is to prevent future violations and the moving party must demonstrate that there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violations, something more than a mere possibility, which serves to keep the case alive. An isolated incident fails to provide a basis for
5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 84 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
the entry of an injunction. See, e.g., Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) (holding that an ambiguous, isolated incident in which an INS agent allegedly attempted to prevent an employee from leaving the work premises during a factory survey conducted by the INS failed to entitle plaintiff to injunctive relief); Griffith v. Colorado Div. of Youth Servs., 17 F.3d 1323 (10th Cir. 1994) (isolated, infrequent instances of misconduct did not constitute a hostile work environment justifying entry of injunction).
10. Perhaps forecasting this problem, Ms. Krause now also recites facts regarding her February 2008 trip in which the bus driver allegedly treated her rudely and claimed to have no notice of her request for a lift equipped bus. Ms. Krause admits, however, that the bus was equipped with a lift, and she make no allegations whatsoever about any discriminatory conduct during that trip. Consequently, with respect to the February 2008 trip, Ms. Krause fails to state a claim that she was “discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services.” 42 U.S.C. 12184(a).
11. In sum, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under the ADA against Black Hills upon which relief can be granted; there exists only one allegation of discriminatory conduct (a three hour delay) for which, as is set forth above, no legal relief is available.
12. Neither Ms. Krause nor any other Plaintiff make any direct factual allegation of discriminatory conduct toward Busco; Busco is a defendant based upon Plaintiffs’ allegation that Busco “either operates, is affiliated with or is the parent company of Defendant, Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.” Amended Complaint, ¶ 13. Because Plaintiffs have failed to assert a viable ADA claim against Black Hills, their ADA claim against Busco also necessarily fails.
CONCLUSION 13. Ms. Krause alleges only that Black Hills failed to arrive with a lift equipped bus
6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 84 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
one single, discrete occasion. Furthermore, she acknowledges that Black Hills remedied the
problem in approximately three hours by arriving at her home with a lift equipped bus and
driving her to Denver. Accepting all of Ms. Krause’s allegations as true, her ADA claim fails to
state a claim for which relief can be granted.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Busco and Black Hills respectfully move the Court to (1)
dismiss Plaintiffs’ first claim for relief against them; (2) grant Defendants their reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs; and (3) for any further relief the Court deems just and proper.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
JESTER & GIBSON, LLP
s/ Marcel Krzystek _________________________________ Marcel Krzystek Jay S. Jester Jester & Gibson, LLP 1875 Lawrence St., Ste. 740 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-377-7888 mkrzystek@jgllp.com Attorneys for Defendant BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES and BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 25, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT BUSCO, INC. AND BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF was filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:
• Kevin W. Williams kwilliams@ccdconline.org, clucas@ccdconline.org
• Susan Penniman Klopman
7

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 84 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8
sklopman@bhfs.com • Timothy Patrick Fox
tfox@foxrob.com, arob@foxrob.com • Leslie Lynn Schluter
lschluter@lawincolorado.com JESTER & GIBSON, LLP
By: s/ Marcel Krzystek Marcel Krzystek Jester & Gibson, LLP 1875 Lawrence St., Ste. 740 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 377-7888 mkrzystek@jgllp.com
8

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 85 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00598-LTB-MEH COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit Corporation, JULIE REISKIN, LORAINE A. JOHNSON, BARBARA MOCZYGEMBA, and EILEEN HOPE KRAUSE,
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD., d/b/a BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa limited liability company, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAMOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES, a Nebraska corporation, and BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES, INC., a Nebraska corporation, Defendants.
DEFENDANT BUSCO, INC. AND BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Defendants, Busco, Inc., d/b/a Busco, Inc. Arrow Stage Lines (“Busco”) and Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. (“Black Hills”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their counsel, Marcel Krzystek of JESTER & GIBSON, LLP, and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(c), hereby move the Court to enter an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief, and in support thereof Defendants state as follows:
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 1. On April 11, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint [75] (“Amended Complaint”).

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 85 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
2. In this case, several individual Plaintiffs and organizational Plaintiff, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, assert three claims for relief against various over-the-road bus transportation companies. Plaintiffs generally allege that the Defendant bus companies have discriminated against Plaintiffs in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Plaintiffs also assert Colorado Consumer Protection Act claims against some of the Defendants (although not Busco or Black Hills).
3. The only individual Plaintiff to assert a claim against Busco and Black Hills is Eileen Hope Krause, and her allegations relate to incidents outlined in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Amended Complaint. Ms. Krause’s factual allegations are as follows:
a. On June 1, 2007, Ms. Krause contacted Black Hills forty-eight hours in advance of a June 3 trip from Fort Morgan to Denver. Ms. Krause alleges that she spoke with “Connie” and was assured that she would be provided a bus with a lift for both legs of the trip. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 40.
b. Ms. Krause alleges that on June 3, she and an assistant arrived at the bus station for the 6:00 p.m. trip. However, Ms. Krause alleges that the bus driver advised her that the bus did not have a wheelchair lift or ramp, and stated that he was unaware of a request for an appropriately equipped bus. In either event, Ms. Krause alleges, the bus driver advised her that the next bus would arrive at 4:00 a.m. and that she would need to take that bus. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 40.
c. In response, Ms. Krause contacted the CCDC Legislative Liaison, who then spoke with the bus driver. According to Ms. Krause, the bus driver advised the Liaison that dispatch was not open, but the Liaison insisted that someone
2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 85 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
at Black Hills be contacted. Ultimately, the driver did contact dispatch and asked Ms. Krause where she could be picked up. Ms. Krause provided the bus driver her home address and telephone number and returned home. Approximately three hours later, a Black Hills bus picked up Ms. Krause at her home and drove her and her assistant to Denver. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 40. d. Ms. Krause attempted to contact Black Hills on February 23, 2008, forty-eight hours prior to her departure from Fort Morgan to Denver on February 26; however, the office was closed and she was unable to make a request for an accessible bus at that time. Ms. Krause successfully contacted Black Hills on February 25, explained that she had attempted to contact Black Hills on February 23, and requested a bus with a lift, at which time she received a verbal confirmation number from Black Hills. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 41. e. On this trip, the bus driver was rude to Ms. Krause and told her that she needed to make a request for a lift equipped bus. However, the bus was equipped with a lift, and Ms. Krause makes no further allegations related to discrimination regarding the February 26 trip. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 41. 4. In addition, paragraphs 16, 77, and 79 of the Amended Complaint allege, “on information and belief,” that Defendants received federal financial assistance. 5. Based upon those factual allegations, the Amended Complaint asserts two claims for relief against Defendants Busco and Black Hills: (1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a); and (2) violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 85 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
STANDARD OF REVIEW 6. Defendants Busco and Black Hills move this Court to grant them summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief.1 Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When determining a motion under Rule 56(c), a court must consider the factual record, together with all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See, e.g., Jones v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 1260, 1265 (10th Cir. 2003). At this stage of the proceedings, a court does not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. Id. 7. Although the movant must show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, he or she need not negate the nonmovant’s claim. See Simms v. Okla. Ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999). Once the movant carries this burden, the nonmovant cannot rest upon his or her pleadings, but must bring forward specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial as to those dispositive matters for which he or she carries the burden of proof. Id. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmovant’s position is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is genuine; an issue of material fact is genuine only if the nonmovant presents facts such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmovant. Id.
ARGUMENT 8. The Affidavit of Steve Busskohl, President and Secretary of Black Hills, shows
1 Defendants also filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Claim for relief contemporaneously with this Motion for Summary Judgment.
4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 85 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief. By its express terms, and as is admitted in paragraph 77 of the Amended Complaint, the Rehabilitation Act applies only to “any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). As paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Affidavit of Steve Busskohl demonstrate, Black Hills does not receive federal financial assistance. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claim against Black Hills fails as a matter of law.
9. Neither Ms. Krause nor any other Plaintiff make any direct factual allegation of discriminatory conduct toward Busco; Busco is a defendant based upon Plaintiffs’ allegation that Busco “either operates, is affiliated with or is the parent company of Defendant, Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.” Amended Complaint, ¶ 13. Because Plaintiffs have failed to assert a viable Rehabilitation Act claim against Black Hills, their Rehabilitation Act claim against Busco also necessarily fails.
CONCLUSION 10. There exists no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiffs will be unable to prove a necessary element of their Rehabilitation Act claim, i.e., that Black Hills received federal financial assistance. With the exception of their allegation that Busco “either operates, is affiliated with or is the parent company of” Black Hills, Plaintiffs have made no allegations against Defendant Busco. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief. WHEREFORE, Defendants Busco and Black Hills respectfully move the Court to (1) grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs’ second
5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 85 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
claim for relief; (2) grant Defendants their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and (3) any
further relief the Court deems just and proper.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
JESTER & GIBSON, LLP
s/ Marcel Krzystek _________________________________ Marcel Krzystek Jay S. Jester Jester & Gibson, LLP 1875 Lawrence St., Ste. 740 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-377-7888 mkrzystek@jgllp.com Attorneys for Defendant BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES and BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 25, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT BUSCO, INC. AND BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF, together with all associated exhibits and/or attachments, was filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:
• Kevin W. Williams kwilliams@ccdconline.org, clucas@ccdconline.org
• Susan Penniman Klopman sklopman@bhfs.com
• Timothy Patrick Fox tfox@foxrob.com, arob@foxrob.com
• Leslie Lynn Schluter lschluter@lawincolorado.com
JESTER & GIBSON, LLP
By: s/ Marcel Krzystek Marcel Krzystek
6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA -MEH Document 85 Filed 04/25/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7 Jester & Gibson, LLP 1875 Lawrence St., Ste. 740 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 377-7888 mkrzystek@jgllp.com
7

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-CV-598-LTB-MEH
COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit corporation, JULIE REISKIN, LORAINE A. JOHNSON, BARBARA MOCZYGEMBA, and EILEEN HOPE KRAUSE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, D/B/A BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa
corporation, and TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES, a Nebraska corporation, and BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES, INC., a Nebraska corporation,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD'S ANSWER TO FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant, Burlington Stages Lines, Ltd., d/b/a Burlington Trailways (hereinafter “Burlington Trailways”), by and through its counsel, hereby answers Plaintiffs’ First Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. Burlington Trailways admits that it provides over-the-road bus transportation. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Second Amended Complaint.

11229\1\1150370.1

1

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 16
2. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
JURISDICTION 3. Paragraph 3 of the Second Amended Complaint is an invocation of jurisdiction to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways denies that it committed any violations of federal law and denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Second Amended Complaint. 4. Burlington Trailways admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Second Amended Complaint.
PARTIES 5. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 6. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 7. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

11229\1\1150370.1

2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 16

8. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
9. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
10. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
11. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
12. Burlington Trailways admits that it is an Iowa Corporation with a principal business address of 906 Broadway, West Burlington, IA 52655. Burlington Trailways denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Second Amended Complaint as to the time periods relevant to this lawsuit.
13. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
14. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

11229\1\1150370.1

3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 16

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 15. Burlington Trailways admits that it is a member of the National Bus Traffic Association, along with other defendants, and that under the NBTA a mechanism exists by which members can act as agents for the sale of tickets on other member bus lines. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in paragraphs 15 of the Second Amended Complaint. 16. Burlington Trailways admits that it operates over-the-road bus services and that it has received discrete and limited federal financial assistance. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 17. The allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 18. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. 19-24. The allegations in Paragraphs 19 through 24 of the Second Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is

11229\1\1150370.1

4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 16

without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 19 through 24 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
25. Burlington Trailways admits that it told Ms. Reiskin she needed to purchase a ticket in order to make a reservation and that she called Burlington Trailways on September 12, 2006 to purchase a ticket and make a reservation. Burlington Trailways further admits that Ms. Reiskin was told to call another bus company to schedule a return trip. Burlington Trailways denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Second Amended Complaint.
26. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
27-34. The allegations in Paragraphs 27 through 34 of the Second Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 27 through 34 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
35. Burlington Trailways admits that on February 17, 2007, Ms. Moczygemba prepared to board a Burlington Trailways bus in Sterling, Colorado, bound for Denver, Colorado and that she contacted Burlington Trailways on February 14, 2007 to request a lift-equipped bus. Burlington Trailways admits that the wheelchair accessible lift and the kneeling system on its bus, as well as the door through which the lift would be deployed, were all frozen shut. Burlington Trailways affirmatively states that, upon information and belief, a design and/or manufacturing flaw causes the kneeler and locks for the lift doors to become inoperable or to malfunction in freezing weather. Burlington Trailways further states that de-icers and other

11229\1\1150370.1

5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 16

means have proven unsuccessful in overcoming this design/manufacturing flaw. Burlington Trailways admits that the driver requested that Ms. Moczygemba step onto the bus, which he assisted her in doing. Burlington Trailways further admits that the driver suggested and Ms. Moczygemba agreed that he store her motorized scooter in the lower baggage compartment. Burlington Trailways admits that Ms. Moczygemba rode its bus to Denver. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 35 of the Second Amended Complaint.
36. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of what Ms. Moczygemba observed and, therefore, denies those allegations. Burlington Trailways admits that the wiring to the battery compartment of the motorized scooter was torn upon its arrival in Denver. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 36 of the Second Amended Complaint.
37. Upon information and belief, Burlington Trailways is aware that Ms. Moczygemba has rented a motorized scooter. Burlington Trailways admits that when Ms. Moczygemba contacted Burlington, Burlington Trailways explained its standard luggage damages policy. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 37 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
38. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 38 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
39. Burlington Trailways admits that on May 16, 2007, Ms. Krause and her personal care attendant arrived at the Denver bus station to take a bus to Fort Morgan, Colorado. Ms.

11229\1\1150370.1

6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 16

Krause had reserved round trip tickets with Defendant Arrow, but arrived at a time when Burlington Trailways was operating a bus to Fort Morgan. Nonetheless, Burlington Trailways offered to transport Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo on its lift-equipped bus. Due to an electronic glitch in the lift operating mechanism, however, the driver was unable to operate the lift upon two tries. Burlington Trailways admits that its dispatcher and Ms. Araujo had a conversation on May 16, 2007. Burlington Trailways admits that a representative of Burlington Trailways and a representative of CCDC had a conversation in which Burlington Trailways agreed to help Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo get to Fort Morgan as soon as possible. Burlington Trailways states that it then suggested to Defendant Arrow that it provide transportation for Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo to Fort Morgan on May 17, 2007. Burlington Trailways denies that Hope Krause contacted it in advance of her trip from Fort Morgan, Colorado to Denver, Colorado. Burlington Trailways without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
40-41. The allegations in Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Second Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
42. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

11229\1\1150370.1

7

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 16

43. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
44. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
45. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
46. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
47. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them. Burlington Trailways further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
48. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them. Burlington Trailways further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
49. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
50. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Second Amended Complaint.

11229\1\1150370.1

8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 16

51. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Second Amended Complaint.
52. Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them. Burlington Trailways further denies it has discriminated against any of the Plaintiffs in violation of federal law.
53. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Second Amended Complaint.
54. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Second Amended Complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 55. Burlington Trailways incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 54 as if set forth herein. 56. Paragraph 56 of the Second Amended Complaint contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves. 57. Burlington Trailways admits that it operates over-the-road bus services for the public and that its operations affect commerce. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Second Amended Complaint. 58. The allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Second Amended Complaint constitute a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Second Amended Complaint.

11229\1\1150370.1

9

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 16
59. The allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Second Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
60. Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Second Amended Complaint.
61. The allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Second Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
62. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
63. The allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Second Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
64. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
65. The allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Second Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
66. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.

11229\1\1150370.1

10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 16

67. The allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Second Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
68. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
69. The allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Second Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
70. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
71. The allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Second Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
72. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
73. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 74. Burlington Trailways incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 73 as if set forth herein.

11229\1\1150370.1

11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 16
75. The allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Second Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
76. The allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Second Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
77. Burlington Trailways admits that it has received discrete and limited federal financial assistance from the Federal Transit Authority. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Second Amended Complaint.
78. The allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Second Amended Complaint contain a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways states that the applicable laws speak for themselves.
79. Burlington Trailways admits that it has received discrete and limited federal financial assistance for security features on its buses. Burlington Trailways denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Second Amended Complaint.
80. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.
81. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Second Amended Complaint are directed to Burlington Trailways, Burlington Trailways denies them.

11229\1\1150370.1

12

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 16

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.:
Colorado Consumer Protection Act) 82. Burlington Trailways incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 81 as if set forth herein. 82-89. The allegations in Paragraphs 82 through 89 of the Second Amended Complaint are not directed to Burlington Trailways and, therefore, Burlington Trailways does not respond to those allegations. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 82 through 89 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF The paragraph immediately following Paragraph 89 of the Second Amended Complaint, labeled as subparagraphs 1 through 5, constitutes a prayer for relief, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Burlington Trailways denies the allegations in each subparagraph. Burlington Trailways denies all allegations in the Second Amended Complaint not specifically admitted herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Second Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitation. 3. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver and accord and satisfaction.

11229\1\1150370.1

13

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 16

4. The Second Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, is barred by Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies.
5. Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition’s claims are barred by its lack of standing.
6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any.
7. All of Burlington Trailways' actions were taken in good faith efforts to comply with federal law.
8. Burlington Trailways reserves the right to move for separate trials under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b).
9. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the conduct of third persons over whom Burlington Trailways had no control or right to control.
10. Plaintiffs’ damages and losses, if any, were caused by the design or manufacturing of certain bus components by third parties, processes over which Burlington Trailways has no control or right to control.
11. Plaintiff Reiskin's claims against Burlington Trailways are moot. Burlington Trailways reserves the right to (a) rely upon such other affirmative defenses as may be supported by the facts to be determined through full and complete discovery, and (b) to voluntarily withdraw any affirmative defense.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, having fully answered and responded to the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, Burlington Trailways hereby prays that:

11229\1\1150370.1

14

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 16
(1) Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice in their entirety; (2) Each and every prayer for relief contained in the Second Amended Complaint be denied; (3) Judgment be entered in favor of Burlington Trailways; (4) All costs, including reasonable attorney fees, be awarded to Burlington Trailways and against Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, pursuant to applicable law; and (5) Burlington Trailways be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 28th day of April, 2008.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP s/ Susan P. Klopman David D. Powell Susan P. Klopman 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 223-1100 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, d/b/a BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS

11229\1\1150370.1

15

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 88 Filed 04/28/08 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 28th day of April, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD'S ANSWER TO FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail address:
Kevin W. Williams Legal Program Director Carrie Ann Lucas Equal Justice Works Fellow Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203
Timothy P. Fox Amy F. Robertson Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910 – 16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
s/ Susan P. Klopman David D. Powell Susan P. Klopman 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 223-1100
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD, d/b/a BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS

11229\1\1150370.1

16

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00598-LTB-MEH COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit Corporation, JULIE REISKIN, LORAINE A. JOHNSON, BARBARA MOCZYGEMBA, and EILEEN HOPE KRAUSE,
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD., D/B/A BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa limited
liability company, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES, a Nebraska corporation, and BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES, INC., a Nebraska corporation,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT BUSCO, INC. AND BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba, and Eileen Hope Krause, by and through their attorneys, Kevin W. Williams and Carrie Ann Lucas of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, and Fox & Robertson, P.C., hereby submit their Response to Busco, Inc.’s (“Busco”) and Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.’s (“Black Hills”) motion for summary judgment.
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claim should be dismissed because

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14

Black Hills does not receive federal financial assistance and is not covered by the Rehabilitation

Act, and because there is no allegation that Busco has violated the Act.

Defendant’s argument should be rejected:

•

Plaintiffs originally brought suit against Busco, but amended their complaint to

add Black Hills based on Defendant’s representation that it was the proper

defendant. Plaintiffs did not dismiss Busco, and recent discovery demonstrates

that employees of Defendant Busco -- which indisputably receives federal

financial assistance and is thus covered by the Rehabilitation Act -- are

responsible for alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act.

•

In any event, Black Hills -- which is Busco’s “sister” company, uses its

employees, leases its buses and shares its officers and directors -- is so interlinked

with Busco as to share liability for discriminatory conduct under several theories.

In the alternative, if Defendants’ motion is not denied for the reasons set forth above,

Plaintiffs respectfully request pursuant to Rule 56(f) an opportunity to conduct additional

discovery before responding to Defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

This lawsuit involves claims by Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”), a

disability civil rights advocacy organization, and four individual CCDC members who all require

the use of wheelchairs for mobility, that each of the named Defendants discriminated against the

Plaintiffs on the basis of disability.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14
I. Allegedly Discriminatory Conduct By Busco and Black Hills. Plaintiff Eileen Hope Krause uses a wheelchair for mobility. First Supplemental and
Second Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) at ¶ 9 (filed Apr. 11, 2008 [Doc. # 75]). In June 2007, she called the Defendants’ telephone number forty-eight hours in advance to request a liftequipped bus for a trip she planned to take from Fort Morgan to Denver. Id. at ¶ 40. She spoke with Connie, who assured that there would be a bus with a lift for both legs of the trip. Id.
When she arrived at the bus station, however, the bus did not have a lift. Id. The driver, Paul, was quite rude, and told her he had not received notice of the need for a lift-equipped bus. It took several hours before Ms. Krause finally was provided with a lift-equipped bus. Id.
On February 23, 2008, Ms. Krause again called Defendants to request a lift-equipped bus for a February 26 trip, but the office was closed and she was unable to make a request. Id. at ¶ 41. Two days later she was able reach someone and requested a lift-equipped bus. Id.
Once again, when she arrived at the bus station, the driver was Paul. Id. Paul, who was discourteous, told her that he had not received notice of the need for a lift-equipped bus, and told her that it was her responsibility to request a lift-equipped bus. Id. Fortuitously, the bus had a lift. Id. On neither trip did Ms. Krause receive confirmation of her request for an accessible bus. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated regulations requiring them to: schedule and provide an accessible bus upon forty-eight hours notice; provide equal services required by law; provide notification that an accessible bus was reserved; to provide a system for ensuring notification of the need for accessible buses are reserved; and failed to adequately train their
3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 14
employees. See Complaint ¶¶ 9, 13-14, 40-41, 57-64, 69-72. II. Identifying The Proper Defendant.
Busco does business as Arrow Stage Lines. See Busco Answer to Amended Complaint (“Busco Answer”) (filed Nov. 11, 2007 [Doc. # 53]) ¶ 17. The buses that Ms. Krause encountered had “Arrow Stage Lines” printed on their side, the telephone line to make reservations for the Omaha to Denver route was answered “Arrow Stage Lines,” and Busco is registered to do business in Colorado but Black Hills is not. See Declaration of Kevin W. Williams (“Williams Decl.”) ¶¶ 3, 4 & Exhs. A-C.
Based on these facts, Plaintiffs named Busco as a Defendant in this case. See Amended Complaint (filed Aug. 31, 2007 [Doc. # 29]). Defendant Busco answered the amended complaint denying liability but admitting that Busco was involved in the incidents for which Plaintiff Eileen Hope Krause had complaints. See Busco Answer ¶¶ 66-69. Busco also identified its employees as individuals who would likely have discoverable information about facts relevant to this case. Williams Decl ¶ 5-6 & Exhs. D & E. Busco initially denied receiving federal financial assistance. Busco Answer ¶ 22. On March 5, 2008, however, it admitted receiving such assistance. Williams Decl. ¶¶ 7-8 & Exh. F. That same day, it represented that Black Hills -- which it contends does not receive such assistance, forming the basis for its current motion -- was the proper defendant. Id. ¶ 9 & Exh. G. Based on that representation, Plaintiffs joined Black Hills as a Defendant. See First Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint (accepted for filing Apr. 11, 2008 [Doc. # 75]). III. Plaintiffs’ Discovery Concerning Busco and Black Hills.
4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 14

On March 10, 2008, plaintiffs served discovery requests on Busco and on April, 11,

2008, on Black Hills. Williams Decl. ¶¶ 11 & 12 & Exhs. J & K. Both defendants responded

on May 8, 2008. Id. ¶¶ 13 & 14 & Exhs. L & M. In their discovery requests, plaintiffs

specifically asked interrogatories and requested documents targeted at sorting out the

relationship between Busco and Black Hills. Id. ¶¶ 11 & 12. Because of deficiencies in those

responses, the undersigned sent a letter to counsel for Busco and Black Hills requesting

documentation of the relationship between Busco and Black Hills. Id. ¶ 15 & Exh. P. Busco and

Black Hills supplemented their responses on May 20, 2008, but still have not provided sufficient

information for plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the scope of the entities’ relationship. Id. ¶¶ 16-

18 & Exhs. Q-T. Before moving to compel these documents, Plaintiffs seek to take Rule

30(b)(6) depositions of the Defendants, and the parties are currently working on scheduling these

depositions. Id. ¶ 19 & Exhs. U-X. The undersigned sent additional discovery requests on May

27, 2008. Id. ¶ 20 & Exh. W. The undersigned also sent counsel for Defendants a letter on

March 27, 2008, requesting they provide complete responses to Plaintiffs’ previous discovery

requests. Id. ¶ 21 & Exh. Z.

The discovery that Plaintiffs have obtained to date reveals the following:

•

Black Hills has no employees. The person who took Ms. Krause’s request for a

lift-equipped bus, and the bus driver (Paul), are both Busco employees. Id. ¶¶ 6 &

17 & Exhs. E & R.

•

Busco provides buses to Black Hills for use on Black Hills’ fixed route service

and has eight accessible buses available for Black Hills’ use. Id. ¶ 13 & Exh. L.

5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 14

•

Black Hills owns the land beneath the building owned by Busco for its Omaha,

Nebraska operations. Id.

•

The same individuals are officers and directors of both corporations and members

of the Busskohl family. Id. ¶¶ 9 & 10 & Exhs. G, H & I.

ARGUMENT

I. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23

(1986). In reviewing the factual record, this Court shall construe all facts and make reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Byers v. City of

Albuquerque, 150 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 1998).

II. Summary Judgment Should Be Denied Because Triable Issues Of Fact Exist As To Busco’s Liability Under The Rehabilitation Act.

It is undisputed that Busco receives federal financial assistance. Further, Busco

employees were directly responsible for many of the alleged Rehabilitation Act violations

involving these two Defendants. For example:

•

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated regulations requiring over-the-road-bus

(“OTRB”) operators to provide an accessible bus upon forty-eight hours notice.

6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 14

49 C.F.R. § 37.193(a)(1)(i).1 A Busco employee took Ms. Krause’s request for an

accessible bus and assured her one would be provided, and it was a Busco

employee who drove the inaccessible bus.

•

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated regulations requiring OTRB operators to

transmit a Service Request Form to persons who request a list-equipped bus. 49

C.F.R. § 37.213(a). Again, the person who took Ms. Krause’s request for a list-

equipped bus was a Busco employee.

•

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violate regulations requiring OTRB operators to

provide adequate training to their employees, including on “appropriate

interaction with passengers with disabilities.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.209. The bus driver

who allegedly acted inappropriately with Ms. Krause was a Busco employee.

For these reasons, Defendants’ motion should be denied because there are, at a minimum,

genuine issues of material fact as to Busco’s liability under the Rehabilitation Act.

III. Summary Judgment Should Be Denied Because Both Black Hills And Busco Are “Recipients” Of Financial Aid And Must Comply With The Rehabilitation Act.

The relevant definition of “recipient” includes any entity to whom federal financial

assistance is provided “directly or through another recipient, including any successor, assignee,

or transferee thereof . . . .” 49 C.F.R. § 27.5. Here, Busco receives federal financial assistance,

1

See Tandy v. Wichita, 208 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1220-21 (D. Kan. 2002), rev’d in

part on other grounds, 380 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004) (a recipient of Department of

Transportation funds complies with its Section 504 obligations by complying with ADA

regulations). Busco now admits to receiving federal financial assistance. Williams Decl. ¶¶ 7-8,

13 & 16 & Exhs. K & P.

7

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 14
and Black Hills uses Busco employees, leases Busco buses and shares common directors and officers. At a minimum, this creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Black Hills is a recipient of federal financial assistance and thus covered by the Rehabilitation Act because it indirectly receives federal financial assistance through Busco. See, e.g., Pottgen v. Missouri State High School Athletic Ass’n, 857 F. Supp. 654, 663 (E. D. Mo. 1994), rev’d on other grounds 40 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding that entity that indirectly received federal funding through its members was subject to Rehabilitation Act); DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., 911 F.2d 1377, 1384 (10th Cir. 1990) (“program or activity” means “all of the operations” of the recipient of federal financial assistance) IV. Summary Judgment Should Be Denied Because There Are Triable Issues Of Fact
As To Whether Defendants Have Through Contractual Or Other Arrangements Violated The Rehabilitation Act. Recipients of federal funding are prohibited from engaging in unlawful discrimination either “directly or through contractual or other arrangements.” 49 C.F.R. § 27.7(b)(4) (emphasis added). Busco receives federal financial assistance. Notwithstanding that fact, it contends that it is not covered by the Rehabilitation Act because the transportation services are provided by its “sister” company Black Hills, which uses Busco employees, leases Busco buses, and which shares the same officers and directors as Busco. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether Busco uses Black Hills to avoid its obligations under the Rehabilitation Act in violation of section 27.7(b)(4). See, e.g., James v. Peter Pan Transit Management, Inc., No. 5:97-CV-747-BO-1, 1999 WL 735173, at *9 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 1999) (holding a city
8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 14
responsible for its contractor’s violations of the Rehabilitation Act). V. Summary Judgment Should Be Denied Because There Are Triable Issues of Fact as
to Whether Busco and Black Hills are Sufficiently Interrelated so as to Allow for Piercing of the Corporate Veil. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has set forth a ten-step inquiry for determining whether the operations of two entities are so interrelated that ones should be held liable for the actions of the other: (1) the parent corporation owns all or a majority of the capital stock of the subsidiary; (2) the parent and subsidiary corporations have common directors or officers; (3) the parent corporation finances the subsidiary; (4) the parent corporation subscribes to all the capital stock of the subsidiary or otherwise causes its incorporation; (5) the subsidiary has grossly inadequate capital; (6) the parent corporation pays the salaries or expenses or losses of the subsidiary; (7) the subsidiary has substantially no business except with the parent corporation or no assets except those conveyed to it by the parent corporation; (8) in the papers of the parent corporation, and in the statements of its officers, ‘the subsidiary’ is referred to as such or as a department or division; (9) the directors or executives of the subsidiary do not act independently in the interest of the subsidiary but take direction from the parent corporation; (10) the formal legal requirements of the subsidiary as a separate and independent corporation are not observed. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill v. Canada Life Assurance Co., 907 F.2d 1026, 1027 (10th Cir. 1990). In the case at bar, through discovery conducted to date, the stockholders and officers for Busco and Black Hills are the same family members. Williams Decl. ¶¶ 10 & 13. Defendants admit Black Hills has no employees and that any personnel used by Black Hills are employees of
9

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 14
Busco. Id. ¶¶ 14, 15, 18. These facts alone are sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Busco and Black Hills are, for purposes of Section 504, the same entity. VI. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) Precludes Summary Judgment at This Stage
of Litigation. If Defendants’ motion is not denied for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request, pursuant to Rule 56(f), an opportunity to conduct additional discovery before responding to Defendants’ motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) provides, “If a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) deny the motion; (2) order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or (3) issue any other just order.” The rule is designed specifically to thwart the unjust granting of summary judgment until sufficient discovery can be conducted on important issues relevant to disputed facts. See, e.g., In re American Family Mut. Ins. Co. Overtime Pay Litigation, No. 06-cv-17430-WYD-CBS, 2007 WL 2936319,*11-12 (D. Colo., Oct. 9, 2007) (granting additional time to respond to motion for summary judgment until depositions could be taken); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Westway Motor Freight, 751 F.Supp. 1481 (D. Colo. 1990) (same). When opposing a motion for summary judgment on Rule 56(f) grounds, the nonmovant must explain why facts precluding summary judgment cannot yet be presented, what steps have been taken to obtain those facts, and how additional time will enable rebuttal of the movant’s allegation of no genuine issue of material fact. Committee for the First Amendment v. Campbell,
10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 14
962 F.2d 1517, 1522 (10th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs sought discovery relevant to the factors set forth in Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3
F.3d 1357 (10th Cir. 1993) for determining whether the actions of one company may cause it to be liable for the conduct of another company. The Frank Court identified three tests that may apply in these circumstances: (1) The “interrelation of operations” test; (2) the “centralized control of labor relations” test; and (3) the “common management” test. Frank at 1362-64. Determining the structure of ownership, whether employees and equipment (including buses in this case) are shared and the methods of ownership and operation are critical to answering the question of whether Busco exerts sufficient control over Black Hills to e held liable for its actions under Section 504.
Plaintiffs have engaged in and continue to engage in discovery designed to answer this question. The attached Declaration of Kevin W. Williams and exhibits explaining the status of discovery with these defendants and efforts made to obtain the requested discovery fulfills the requirements of the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Campbell, Williams Decl. ¶¶ 11-20 & attached exhibits, and plaintiffs should be permitted time to depose defendants’ representatives, or, if necessary, file a motion to compel to obtain the necessary documents. At the very least, plaintiffs’ counsel need time to depose Busco and Black Hills’ directors and employees to determine the relationship of Busco’s and Black Hills’ programs and activities. If the records depositions and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions produce evidence that additional documents pertaining to employees, leases, etc. exist, plaintiffs need time to review these additional discoverable documents.
11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 14 CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request this Court deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ second claim for relief.
12

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 14

Dated: May 27, 2008

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Kevin W. Williams Kevin W. Williams, Legal Program Director Carrie Ann Lucas, CRPD Director Colorado Cross Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 839-1775 Facsimile: (303) 839-1782 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org E-mail: clucas@ccdconline.org
Timothy P. Fox Amy F. Robertson Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910 - 16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 595-9700 Facsimile: (303) 595-9705 E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com E-mail: arob@foxrob.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 14

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on May 27, 2008, I electronically filed Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Busco, Inc. and Black Hills Stage Lines Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Claim for Relief with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:

Jay S. Jester, Esq. Marcel Krzystek, Esq. Jester & Gibson, LLP 1875 Lawrence Street, Suite 740 Denver, Colorado 80202 jjester@jgllp.com mkrzystek@jgllp.com

Leslie L. Schluter, Esq. Pryor Johnson Carney Karr & Nixon, PC 5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 1200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 lschluter@pjckn.com

Susan P. Klopman, Esq. Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Schreck, LLP 410 17th Street, 22nd Floor Denver, Colorado 80202 sklopman@bhfs.com

s/ Briana McCarten Briana McCarten Legal Program Assistant Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 839-1775 TTY: (303) 839-0015 Facsimile: (303) 839-1782 bmcarten@ccdconline.org

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-1 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-1 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-1 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-1 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-1 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-1 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-1 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-1 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-1 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-1 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-2 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-2 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-3 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-3 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-4 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-4 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-5 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-5 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-5 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-5 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-5 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-5 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-5 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-5 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-6 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-6 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-6 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-6 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-6 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-6 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-7 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-7 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-8 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-8 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-9 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-9 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-10 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-10 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-11 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-11 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-11 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-11 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-11 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-11 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-11 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-11 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-11 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-11 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-12 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-12 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-12 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-12 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-12 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-12 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-12 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-12 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-12 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-12 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-13 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-14 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-15 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-15 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-15 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-15 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-16 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-17 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-17 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-18 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-18 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-19 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-19 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-19 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-20 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-20 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-20 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-20 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-20 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-21 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-21 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-21 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-22 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-22 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-22 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-22 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-23 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-23 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-23 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-23 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-24 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-24 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-24 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-24 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-25 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-25 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-25 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-25 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-26 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-26 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-26 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-26 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-26 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-26 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-26 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-26 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-27 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 92-27 Filed 05/27/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00598-ZLW-MEH COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, a Colorado non-profit Corporation, JULIE REISKIN, LORAINE A. JOHNSON, BARBARA MOCZYGEMBA, and EILEEN HOPE KRAUSE,
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, BURLINGTON STAGE LINES, LTD., d/b/a BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS, an Iowa limited
liability company, TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND OKLAHOMA (TNM&O) COACHES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, BUSCO, INC., d/b/a BUSCO, INC. ARROW STAGE LINES, a Nebraska corporation, and BLACK HILLS STAGE LINES, INC., a Nebraska corporation,
Defendants.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AND THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin and Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba and Eileen Hope Krause, by and through their attorneys, Kevin W. Williams and Carrie Ann Lucas, of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition and Fox & Robertson, P.C., hereby submit their Second Supplemental and Third Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. As grounds for this Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the
1

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 29
following: INTRODUCTION
1. Despite the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., in 1973 Defendants, all overthe-road bus (“OTRB”) transportation companies, still discriminate against persons with disabilities in ways that are described in this Complaint. Such failures include, but are not limited to: (1) failing to acquire accessible vehicles; (2) failing to reserve buses with wheelchair lifts when requested forty-eight hours in advance; (3) failing to allow passengers who use wheelchairs off the bus at stops; (4) failing to schedule all legs of a trip with one phone call; (5) failing to maintain wheelchair lifts in working order; (6) failing to remain courteous and respectful to passengers with disabilities; (7) failing to maintain the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities; and (8) failing to provide alternative transportation as required by the regulations.
2. Plaintiffs seek to ensure that OTRB transportation is accessible to people who use wheelchairs throughout Colorado and bring this Complaint seeking injunctive relief, damages and recovery of their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
JURISDICTION 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and pursuant to its pendent jurisdiction over claims brought under the laws of the State of Colorado. 4. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
2

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 29
PARTIES 5. Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) is a Colorado non-profit corporation whose members are persons with disabilities and their non-disabled allies. 6. Julie Reiskin was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado residing at 3645 Milwaukee Street, Denver, Colorado 80205. Ms. Reiskin is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Julie Reiskin is CCDC’s Executive Director and a CCDC member. 7. Loraine A. Johnson was at all times material hereto a resident of Colorado residing at 2716 Abrams Avenue, Montrose, Colorado 81401. Ms. Johnson is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Loraine A. Johnson is a CCDC member. 8. Eileen Hope Krause was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Colorado, residing at 414 Southridge Street, Apartment 101A, Fort Morgan, Colorado 80701. Ms. Krause is substantially limited in several major life activities, including walking, and requires the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Krause is a CCDC member. 9. Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. (“Greyhound”) is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 15110 N. Dallas Parkway, Dallas, TX 75248. Greyhound is licensed to do business in Colorado. Greyhound is a subsidiary of Laidlaw Transportation Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. Greyhound is a “large operator” under Department of Transportation rules and regulations. On information and belief, on June 6, 2008, Greyhound took ownership of and is now the sole shareholder of Defendant TNM&O. In the merger,
3

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 29
Greyhound assumed all obligations of Defendant TNM&O. 10. At the time this litigation commenced, Defendant Texas, New Mexico and
Oklahoma Coaches, Inc. (“TMN&O") was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1313 13th St, Lubbock, TX 79401. TMN&O was licensed to do business in the state of Colorado. TMN&O was a subsidiary of Greyhound. Defendant TNM&O was a “large operator” under Department of Transportation rules and regulations. On June 6, 2008, Defendant TNM&O was merged into Greyhound. This merger occurred as the result of a Certificate of Ownership and Merger filed on behalf of the two companies with the Delaware Secretary of State. Greyhound is responsible for all of TNM&O’s obligations.
11. Defendant Busco, Inc., d/b/a Busco, Inc. Arrow Stage Lines (“Busco”) is a Nebraska corporation, which is registered to do business in Colorado, with its principal place of business at 720 E. Norfolk Ave., Norfolk, NE 68701. On information and belief, Busco either operates or is affiliated with Defendant, Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. as is more fully described below and conducts business in Colorado. Busco is a Class I motor carrier. Busco has the same business address and some of the same company officers, shareholders and employees as Defendant, Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.
12. Defendant Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. (“Black Hills”) is a Nebraska corporation, which is registered to do business in Colorado, with its principal place of business at 720 E. Norfolk Ave., Norfolk, NE 68701. On information and belief, Black Hills is operated by and is affiliated with Defendant, Busco as is more fully described below and conducts business in Colorado. On information and belief, Defendant Black Hills is a “large operator” under
4

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 29
Department of Transportation rules and regulations. Black Hills has the same business address, and some of the same company officers, shareholders and employees as Defendant, Busco. On information and belief, Busco and Black Hills have a sufficient common identity to cause Busco to be liable for Black Hills’ failures to comply with the statutes at issue in this Complaint, or Busco and Black Hills are the same company for purposes of determining Busco’s liability.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 13. On information and belief, Defendants, Greyhound, TNM&O, and Black Hills, are concurring members of the National Bus Traffic Association, Inc. (“NBTA”) Under a NBTA agreement, defendants are permitted to sell tickets for OTRB bus company trips provided by the members. 14. Each of the defendants operates OTRB services, regulated under 49 C.F.R., pt. 37, and, on information and belief, each of the defendants receives federal financial assistance, as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., in the form of grants from federal agencies. 15. Plaintiff Julie Reiskin is the Executive Director of CCDC, and she uses a motorized wheelchair. Her job requires her to travel around the state of Colorado. She is a frequent user of OTRB companies. Over the years, Ms. Reiskin has experienced numerous problems with wheelchair access with these transportation services including, without limitation, the following: drivers not knowing how to operate wheelchair lifts and securement devices; scheduling accessible buses forty-eight hours in advance and having the bus arrive with no wheelchair lift; and not being permitted to leave the bus on rest breaks when all other passengers were permitted to do so. She has reported some of these problems on behalf of herself and other
5

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 29
CCDC members for years, including filing a Department of Justice complaint on behalf of a CCDC member in or about 2003.
16. Ms. Reiskin experienced a discriminatory incident on July 28, 2006. Ms. Reiskin scheduled the trip from Denver to Delta, Colorado with Greyhound slightly more than fortyeight hours in advance. She called Greyhound again the day before she left on her trip to get confirmation that the TNM&O bus she was scheduled to transfer to in Grand Junction, Colorado, was accessible. She was told TNM&O had been notified, and the bus for her trip would be an accessible bus. Ms. Reiskin departed Denver on a Greyhound bus at approximately 12:00 a.m. She arrived in Grand Junction at approximately 4:15 a.m. As she was getting off the bus, the driver of the bus indicated to another employee that Ms. Reiskin was heading south. The driver of that bus came to Ms. Reiskin and asked where she was going. Ms. Reiskin informed the driver that she was going to Delta, scheduled at 5:30 a.m. About an hour later, Ms. Reiskin was told that there was no bus with a wheelchair lift. None of the TMN&O employees seemed to know what to do. Ms. Reiskin is familiar with transportation in the area and suggested they call Millennium Cab Service. She explained that if TNM&O could get an accessible cab, TNM&O would have to pay the fare. The TNM&O employee agreed that the fare would be paid by TNM&O and worked out a payment arrangement with the owner of the cab company. Ms. Reiskin called and spoke with Stacey Lemmons at TNM&O early in the morning to report that there had not been a bus with a wheelchair lift and to find out if there was going to be an accessible bus for her trip the following day. Stacey Lemmons from TNM&O called Ms. Reiskin back before 8:00 a.m. She said she was not aware that Ms. Reiskin needed an accessible
6

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 29
bus that morning and asked her for details about how Ms. Reiskin had made the scheduling arrangements with Greyhound. After several calls with Stacey Lemmons, Ms. Reiskin learned that Greyhound had faxed the request for a lift bus to TNM&O and had never called to assure someone got it. Apparently, no one received the request. Stacey Lemmons told Ms. Reiskin that a manager had spoken to the Greyhound ADA office manager and required that they no longer fax such requests without also making a call to assure that someone receives and acts on the information. Ms. Reiskin called Stacey Lemmons a couple more times that day because she wanted to be sure that the bus for the trip on July 29th would have a lift. Ms. Reiskin was concerned because if she needed to find alternative transportation, she would have to make a reservation early. Stacey Lemmons assured Ms. Reiskin the bus would have a lift.
17. Ms. Reiskin arrived at the Delta, Colorado station at approximately 9:50 a.m. The bus she was scheduled to ride on arrived and did not have a wheelchair despite Stacey Lemmons’ assurances that it would. Both the person staffing the bus station, Debbie, and Ms. Reiskin asked the driver about this. The driver told them that he did receive paperwork stating that he needed a bus with a lift, but he was directed to take the bus without a lift. On information and belief, paperwork was also at the Delta station showing that Ms. Reiskin had made her reservation for an accessible bus at that time. Ms. Reiskin called the TNM&O number and was connected to the bus depot in Lubbock, Texas. After explaining what had happened to several people on the phone, she was connected to a supervisor. The supervisor said he would make some calls to figure out how to get a bus to her and call her back. Debbie had also made calls and received the same response. They waited an hour, and no one called back. Debbie called
7

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 29
back to Lubbock and discovered that nothing had been done to get an accessible bus. Ms. Reiskin was informed she could go the next day, and TNM&O would have a bus with a lift. They agreed that if Ms. Reiskin got to Grand Junction and there was no accessible bus, the bus that took her from Delta to Grand Junction would take her to Denver. Ms. Reiskin called the cab company that brought her to Delta the day before, and they agreed to come back and transport her to Grand Junction. By the time Ms. Reiskin arrived in Grand Junction, it was 2:00 p.m. and too late for her attend the event for which she made the trip to Grand Junction.
18. On information and belief, Ms. Reiskin never received confirmation of her request for accessible buses, described in paragraphs 16 and 17 of this Complaint, from Greyhound or TNM&O, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
19. Ms. Reiskin suffered damages from these incidents. 20. Ms. Reiskin sent a letter to TMN&O on August 3, 2006, detailing the problems she had with Grand Junction and Delta trips and demanding an explanation of how TMN&O would resolve the wheelchair lift bus assignment problems. In the letter, Ms. Reiskin also requested damages for CCDC for TNM&O’s discriminatory conduct and for time and resources CCDC had expended dealing with TNM&O’s discriminatory practices. On or about September 6, 2006, Ms. Reiskin received a letter from Bobby Greenhill, Director of Operations of TNM&O explaining that a supervisor in the Albuquerque station had been replaced, and that this change in personnel should solve the wheelchair-lift bus assignment problem. TNM&O offered CCDC bus passes for TNM&O trips in the amount of $125.00, which CCDC has used.
8

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 29
21. On another trip from Grand Junction to Denver on September 8, 2006, at approximately 4:10 p.m., Ms. Reiskin encountered a Greyhound employee at the Grand Junction Greyhound station who asked Ms. Reiskin if she was going to Denver. Ms. Reiskin said that she was, and the driver asked her if she had informed Greyhound. She had scheduled the trip fortyeight hours in advance with Greyhound and told the driver this. The employee looked at his computer, which had Ms. Reiskin’s return trip to Denver scheduled the previous day. Ms. Reiskin is meticulous about confirming trip dates and times over the phone. She received a confirmation form after she returned from her trip, and it showed the return trip was scheduled on the wrong date. The bus for this trip had a wheelchair lift, but it did not work. Employees at the station were able to repair the lift, but they were concerned about it malfunctioning again and asked Ms. Reiskin if she would mind not getting off at rest stops in case there was a lift failure. Ms. Reiskin needed the ride, so she boarded. Ms. Reiskin did not get off the bus for the five hour trip.
22. Ms. Reiskin never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a) for the trip described in Paragraph 21.
23. As a result of Defendants’ violations of law, Ms. Reiskin experienced injuries and damages. Ms. Reiskin would like to use the services of the OTRB companies and will do so if the OTRB companies stop discriminating against her on the basis of her disability.
24. On August 29, 2005, Plaintiff Loraine Johnson called TNM&O to request accessible buses for a trip from Montrose, Colorado to San Jose, California on September 5,
9

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 29
2005. Upon arriving at the bus station in Montrose, Colorado, Ms. Johnson was informed no lift bus would be available. At the time, Ms. Johnson got on the bus using the stairs. Because of her disabilities, doing so was very painful for Ms. Johnson. It would have been far easier for her to board using her wheelchair and the lift. The TNM&O bus driver stored her wheelchair under the bus. The bus took her to Grand Junction, Colorado, where Ms. Johnson was scheduled to transfer to a Greyhound bus. The Greyhound bus had a wheelchair lift, but the driver did not know Ms. Johnson was coming and did not know how to operate the wheelchair lift. It took the driver in Grand Junction, Colorado forty-five minutes to successfully operate the lift. Ms. Johnson boarded using her wheelchair. As a result of this delay, she was late getting to Los Angeles, CA. When Ms. Johnson arrived in Los Angeles, CA, she was scheduled to board a Greyhound bus. Greyhound did not provide a bus with a lift again. Ms. Johnson had a six hour layover in Los Angeles, which was scheduled to be much less. During the entire trip from Grand Junction, Colorado to San Jose, California, the Greyhound drivers never allowed Ms. Johnson to exit the bus at intermediate and/or rest stops.
25. On her return trip from San Jose, California to Montrose, Colorado, Ms. Johnson called TNM&O on September 6, 2005 and requested accessible buses. During her entire trip from San Jose to Montrose, Colorado, beginning on September 11, 2005, was not assisted by any Greyhound or TNM&O driver in getting off the bus at any intermediate or rest stops.
26. Plaintiff Johnson never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a) for the trips described in Paragraphs 24-25.
10

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 29
27. On or about October 11, 2006, Ms. Johnson called TNM&O to schedule a trip from Montrose, Colorado to Grand Junction, Colorado on October 15, 2006, and a return trip from Grand Junction, Colorado to Montrose, Colorado on October 17, 2006 for her and her assistant Dan Weis. She requested a bus with a wheelchair lift. Ms. Johnson also called TNM&O to confirm her bus would have a wheelchair lift, which Stacey Lemmons did confirm over the phone. When Ms. Johnson got to the bus terminal, her scheduled bus did not have a wheelchair lift. Because of Ms. Johnson’s increasing level of disability, she was no longer able to get on the bus without her wheelchair. At this time and since, she uses different wheelchair for mobility. This wheelchair does not collapse. The bus was scheduled to depart at 2:50 p.m. It left without Ms. Johnson. She waited until approximately 4:00 p.m. for TNM&O to find her an accessible bus or equivalent transportation. They provided neither. As a result, Ms. Johnson incurred hotel penalties and missed the class she wanted to attend. Ms. Johnson contacted TNM&O again to complain about the missed trip, and she was told that her paperwork had mistakenly be sent to Colorado Springs, not Montrose.
28. Ms. Johnson did not receive confirmation of her request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a) for the trip described in Paragraph 27.
29. Ms. Johnson called TNM&O to schedule a trip from Montrose, Colorado to Denver, Colorado to depart on February 25, 2008 and return on February 28, 2008. Ms. Johnson made the request at least forty-eight hours in advance. She requested wheelchair lift equipped buses for all legs of both trips. When Ms. Johnson arrived at the Montrose, Colorado bus
11

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 29
terminal, the driver of the TNM&O bus could not get the lift door of the bus to open. It took four people forty-five minutes working with the lift door to finally get it to open. Ms. Johnson finally boarded using the wheelchair lift. When Ms. Johnson arrived in Grand Junction, Colorado, she transferred to a Greyhound bus. The bus had a wheelchair lift, and Ms. Johnson boarded. At a rest stop in Glenwood Springs, Ms. Johnson attempted to get off the Greyhound bus using the lift. Ms Johnson’s rear wheels got stuck on the inner lift ramp because the lift buckled a few inches when she attempted to drive her wheelchair on to it. Mr. Weis assisted Ms. Johnson with transferring to a bus seat. Mr. Weis then drove the wheelchair onto the ramp and helped Ms. Johnson into the wheelchair. When the Greyhound bus arrived in Denver, Mr. Weis again assisted Ms. Johnson with transferring to a bus seat and then drove the wheelchair onto the lift and then helped Ms. Johnson into the wheelchair.
30. On Ms. Johnson’s return trip from Denver, Colorado to Montrose, Colorado on February 28, 2008, Ms. Johnson arrived at the Denver terminal and encountered the same TNM&O driver she had on the February 25 trip from Montrose to Grand Junction. The driver informed Ms. Johnson that the lift door on the bus had not been fixed and he could not get it open. Ms. Johnson was denied transportation and had to stay in Denver another night and wait for an accessible the next day. The person staffing the Greyhound desk at the Denver terminal provided Ms. Johnson with accessible cab vouchers to get to a hotel and hotel vouchers. Ms. Johnson asked if the hotel room was an accessible room. The woman staffing the desk informed Ms. Johnson the hotel did not have any available accessible rooms. Ms. Johnson went to the hotel and found she could get in the room, but with difficulty. The restroom in the hotel room
12

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 29
was not wheelchair accessible. 31. On February 29, 2008, Ms. Johnson returned to the Denver terminal to return to
Montrose. Ms. Johnson boarded the TNM&O bus using the lift. At a rest stop in Frisco, Colorado, Ms. Johnson attempted to exit the bus using the lift. The wheelchair lift went part of the way down and became stuck. Ms. Johnson was unable to exit the lift and had to go back up the lift and return to the bus. Ms. Johnson later had to use the restroom on the bus, which she had great difficulty doing and required the assistance of her assistant, Mr. Weis, to get to the restroom. When the bus arrived in Grand Junction, Colorado, Ms. Johnson was scheduled to transfer to another bus. Everyone got off of Ms. Johnson’s bus. When Ms. Johnson went to get off the bus, the driver of the bus to which Ms. Johnson was scheduled to transfer informed the passengers and driver on Ms. Johnson’s bus that the lift door on the transfer bus was broken. Ms. Johnson remained on her bus, the other passengers re-boarded, and that bus went on to Montrose. When the bus arrived in Montrose, the wheelchair lift did not work again. Once again, the driver requested that Ms. Johnson transfer to a seat and that her wheelchair be taken down the lift without her. With Mr. Weis’ assistance, Ms. Johnson again transferred to a bus seat. When the driver attempted to take the wheelchair down the lift, it became stuck again. Six people lifted Ms. Johnson’s wheelchair from the wheelchair lift to the ground. Mr. Weis had to assist Ms. Johnson to the lift. The lift did work to lower Ms. Johnson to the ground.
32. Ms. Johnson never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus, using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a) for the trip described in Paragraphs 29-31.
13

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 29
33. Ms. Johnson would like to use the services of the OTRB companies and will do so if the OTRB companies stop discriminating against her on the basis of her disability. Ms. Johnson has been injured and harmed by Defendants’ conduct.
34. On or about May 9, 2007, Hope Krause contacted Black Hills to schedule an accessible bus from Fort Morgan, Colorado to Denver, Colorado and for a return trip from Denver, Colorado using an accessible bus on May 16, 2007. On information and belief, Ms. Krause spoke with Angelita Tabares, an employee of Busco to schedule the trip. After being assured that appropriate buses had been reserved for both legs of the trip (the return trip was to be provided by Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., “ Burlington,” another OTRB carrier), Ms. Krause inquired as to whether she needed to call again on May 14, 2007, forty-eight hours prior to her return trip to ensure that a bus with a lift had been reserved. She was told that she did not need to make a second call to ensure that her the bus on her return trip would have a wheelchair lift. According to Black Hills records, Ms. Krause was scheduled to return with an accessible bus from Denver to Fort Morgan on May 16, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. on Burlington’s route. On May 16, 2007, for the return trip, the bus had an inoperative wheelchair lift. As a result, Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo had to stay in Denver for another night.1 On information and belief, a Burlington representative contacted Black Hills, which agreed to send a bus to transport Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo the next day from their hotel to Fort Morgan, Colorado. Even after Black Hills was contacted concerning the need for an accessible bus, when the bus arrived at the hotel, the bus
1 Burlington was a defendant in this action, but has been dismiss as the result of an agreement reached with that entity.
14

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 29
had an inoperative lift. The Black Hills bus driver did not know how to operate the bus either electronically or manually. On information and belief, Black Hills failed to conduct a regular maintenance check on this lift and to train this bus driver how to use the lift. Eventually, after making more arrangements, Ms. Krause and Ms. Araujo took an accessible cab back to Fort Morgan, Colorado, her destination.
35. On June 1, 2007, Ms. Krause called 48 hours in advance to arrange for an accessible bus for a trip from Fort Morgan to Denver, scheduled for June 3, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. She tried calling Black Hills several times during business hours, but no one answered. She then contacted Burlington, who agreed to make the arrangements for the trip.
36. Burlington operated a bus on the return leg of the trip from Denver back to Fort Morgan, Colorado.
37. On June 3, 2007, Ms. Krause and her personal care attendant, Jaimie Chosa arrived at the bus station in Fort Morgan.
38. The route from Fort Morgan to Denver at that time was operated by Black Hills. 39. The bus did not have a wheelchair lift or ramp. 40. On information and belief, this bus was purchased by Busco, and used by Black Hills. 41. On information and belief, the driver of the bus was Paul Sylvander. 42. The driver rudely asked Ms. Krause if she had called ahead about requiring a bus with a lift. Ms. Krause informed him that she had requested a bus with a wheelchair lift. The driver said he had not been notified of this request, and that there was nothing he could do. He
15

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 29
told Ms. Krause that the next bus would arrive at 4:00 a.m., and that she would have to take that bus.
43. Ms. Krause contacted Sheila Hicks, who spoke with the bus driver. Ms. Hicks asked the driver to contact dispatch, and the driver refused, stating that dispatch is only open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
44. Ms. Hicks insisted that he contact someone within the company. The driver eventually contacted dispatch, then asked Ms. Krause where she could be picked up. Ms. Krause’s attendant gave the driver her home address and telephone number, and the driver informed Ms. Krause that she would receive a call from dispatch shortly.
45. More than two hours after returning home, Ms. Krause had not received a call, so her attendant contacted the Denver bus station to get the telephone number for Black Hills. Ms. Chosa then contacted Black Hills directly and was told that a bus would pick Ms. Krause up “some time.”
46. At approximately 9:15 p.m., more than three hours after Ms. Krause’s original departure time, a bus arrived at Ms. Krause’s home and transported her and Ms. Chosa to Denver.
47. Ms. Krause attempted to contact Black Hills on February 23, 2008, forty-eight hours prior to her departure from Fort Morgan Colorado to Denver, Colorado on February 26, 2008; however, the office was closed and she was unable to make a request for an accessible bus at that time.
48. Ms. Krause successfully contacted Black Hills on February 25, 2008 to request a
16

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 29
bus with a lift and explained that she had attempted to call earlier, but the office was closed. 49. On information and belief, Ms. Krause spoke with Lindsay, an employee of
Busco. 50. Ms. Krause received a verbal confirmation number including the letter “BHL”
which, on information and belief, stands for “Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.” 51. On this trip, she encountered the driver, Paul, referenced above. He informed Ms.
Krause that he had received no notice that she would be riding. He was rude to her and told her she needed to make a request for an accessible bus. Fortunately, the bus had a lift and Ms. Krause was able to ride, but the driver’s behavior is inexcusable, and there is no explanation why Paul did not receive prior notice of her request. Neither Black Hills nor Busco has a record of Ms. Krause’s February 25 trip.
52. Ms. Krause never received confirmation of her request for an accessible bus from Black Hills using the Service Request Form found in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a) for the trips referenced in Paragraphs 34-50.
53. On information and belief, all buses used by Black Hills are leased from Busco. 54. On information and belief, all drivers used by Black Hills are supplied by Busco. 55. On information and belief, at times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, less than fifty percent of the bus fleet used by Busco was lift equipped. 56. On information and belief, at times relevant to the allegations set forth herein, less than fifty percent of the bus fleet used by Black Hills was lift equipped. 57. On information and belief, after October 30, 2000, Busco has purchased or leased
17

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 29
new buses without lifts that have been used on Black Hills’ fixed route services. 58. On information and belief, after October 30, 2000, Black Hills has purchased or
leased new buses without lifts that have been used on its fixed route services. 59. On information and belief, Black Hills has not submitted annual reports to the
Department of Transportation as is required under 49 C.F.R. § 37.213. 60. Plaintiff Krause would like to use Black Hills’ (and other OTRB) services in the
future and will do so if Defendants stop operating their services in a discriminatory matter. 61. Plaintiff Krause has been injured and harmed and has sustained damages as a
result of Busco’s, Black Hills’and Burlington’s actions. 62. CCDC’s purpose is to work for systemic change that promotes independence,
self-reliance, and full inclusion for people with disabilities in the entire community. As part of that purpose, CCDC seeks to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to -- and do not encounter discrimination in -- the programs, activities and services provided by OTRB companies, like those owned and operated by Defendants.
63. CCDC engages in extensive outreach as well as advocacy and educational efforts to promote access for and combat discrimination against people with disabilities. This effort and this purpose have been and continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ violations of the laws cited herein.
64. Defendants’ actions have caused and continue to cause distinct, palpable, and perceptible injury to CCDC.
65. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other
18

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 29
outreach, advocacy, legislative, and educational efforts, to communicating with the Defendants in an attempt to secure non-discriminatory conditions for Defendants’ OTRB services.
66. CCDC has devoted resources, which could have been devoted to its other outreach, advocacy, legislative, and educational efforts, to counseling members and others who have been injured by Defendants’ discrimination.
67. Defendants’ discrimination has been and continues to be a barrier to the full participation of persons with disabilities and, therefore, frustrates CCDC’s ability to achieve full inclusion for persons with disabilities.
68. Defendants’ discrimination has required and continues to require CCDC to make a greater effort -- and to allocate significant resources -- to educate the public that such discrimination is wrong and otherwise to counteract the adverse impact of such discrimination. This perceptibly impairs CCDC’s counseling, advocacy, legislative, educational, and training missions.
69. CCDC also has devoted and continues to devote resources -- including but not limited to those devoted to the present lawsuit -- to identifying and counteracting the sources of discrimination in the community, including that of Defendants.
70. CCDC’s injuries -- including, without limitation, those described herein -- are traceable to Defendants’ discriminatory conduct alleged in this Complaint and will be redressed by the relief requested in it.
71. CCDC’s members and their spouses, friends, relatives, and associates have been injured and will continue to be injured by Defendants’ discrimination.
19

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 29
72. The elimination of discrimination, such as that of Defendants, and the integration of persons with disabilities into all aspects of community life are at the core of CCDC’s organizational purpose.
73. The participation of individual CCDC members in the lawsuit is not required either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief.
74. Defendants acted intentionally or with reckless, callous and/or deliberate indifference to the federally protected rights of others.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act) 75. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 76. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by a private entity that is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a). 77. All Defendants operate specified public transportation services, OTRB services, that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and their operations affect commerce. 78. The regulations implementing 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) are found at 49 C.F.R., part 37. These regulations took effect with respect to large operators on October 30, 2000, and to small operators on October 29, 2001.
20

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 29
79. All over-the-road, fixed route transportation providers that have purchased or leased new vehicles since the effective dates above have been required to purchase or lease accessible buses, or, in the case of small operators, they have had the option of providing equivalent service. 49 C.F.R. § 37.183. For large operators, half of their bus fleet was required to be accessible by October 30, 2006, unless an extension was requested. 49 C.F.R. § 37.185.
80. On information and belief, Defendants have not acquired accessible buses as required by the regulations.
81. With respect to interline service, “[w]hen the general public can purchase a ticket or make a reservation with one operator for a fixed-route trip of two or more stages in which another operator provides service, the first operator must arrange for an accessible bus, or equivalent service, as applicable, to be provided for each stage of the trip to a passenger with a disability.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(a). Each operator retains the responsibility for providing the transportation required by the regulations to the passenger for its portion of an interline trip. 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(b). The passenger shall be required to make only one request, which covers all legs of the requested trip (e.g., in the case of a round trip, both the outgoing and return legs of the trip; in the case of a multi-leg trip, all connecting legs). 49 C.F.R. § 37.213(a). In addition, all fixed-route operators involved in interline service shall ensure that they have the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities, 49 C.F.R. § 37.187(c), and confirmation of requests for accessible buses must be communicated to the passenger in one business day, using the Service Request Form in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
21

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 29
82. As described in this Complaint, Defendants have failed to ensure that individuals who require accessible transportation are able to schedule accessible vehicles for all legs of their trip and have failed to maintain the capacity to receive communications at all times concerning interline service for passengers with disabilities. As described herein, Defendants have failed to communicate confirmation of accessible buses to Plaintiffs within one business day, using the Service Request Form in Appendix A of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37. 49 C.F.R. § 213(a).
83. Until all buses in an operator’s fleet are accessible, OTRB transportation providers must make accessible buses available on request. 49 C.F.R. § 37.193(a)(1). The operator may require up to 48 hours advance notice to provide this service. 49 C.F.R. § 37.193(a)(1)(I).
84. Despite Plaintiffs’ efforts to make requests for accessible bus services 48 hours or more in advance and their repeated attempts to confirm accessible buses, Defendants failed to provide accessible buses.
85. With respect to intermediate and rest stops, “a passenger with a disability, including an individual using a wheelchair, shall be permitted to leave and return to the bus on the same basis as other passengers. The operator shall ensure that assistance is provided to passengers with disabilities as needed to enable the passenger to get on and off the bus at the stop (e.g., operate the lift and provide assistance with securement; provide other boarding assistance if needed, as in the case of a wheelchair user who has transferred to a vehicle seat because other wheelchair users occupied all securement locations).” 49 C.F.R. § 37.201(a).
86. As explained in this Complaint, Defendants failed to allow Plaintiffs to leave and
22

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 29
return to the bus on the same basis as other passengers and failed to provide other boarding assistance.
87. Wheelchair lifts are required to be maintained and inspected to ensure they are operative, and buses with inoperative lifts are to be taken out of service for maintenance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.203.
88. On information and belief, during the incidents described in this Complaint, and at other times, Defendants failed to inspect and maintain bus lifts to ensure they were operative and failed to take buses with inoperative lifts out of service as required by the regulations.
89. Unlawful discrimination under the regulations includes, without limitation: (1) Denying transportation to passengers with disabilities; (2) requiring or requesting a passenger with a disability to reschedule his or her trip, or travel at a time other than the time the passenger has requested; (3) failing to provide reservation services to passengers with disabilities equivalent to those provided other passengers; and (4) failing or refusing to comply with any applicable provision of the regulations. 49 C.F.R. § 37.207.
90. Defendants, through their actions described in this Complaint, engaged in unlawful discrimination prohibited by 49 C.F.R. § 37.207.
91. All bus drivers are required to receive training in proper operation and maintenance of accessibility features and equipment, boarding assistance, securement of mobility aids, sensitive and appropriate interaction with passengers with disabilities, handling and storage of mobility devices, and familiarity with the requirements of the regulations. 49 C.F.R. § 37.209. OTRB operators shall provide refresher training to personnel as needed to
23

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 29
maintain proficiency. Id. Entities which operate fixed route systems shall ensure that personnel are trained to proficiency, as appropriate to their duties, so that they operate vehicles and equipment safely and properly assist and treat individuals with disabilities who use the service in a respectful and courteous way, with appropriate attention to the difference among individuals with disabilities. 49 C.F.R. § 37.173.
92. On information and belief, during the incidents described in this Complaint, Defendants failed to provide appropriate training as required by the regulations.
93. Defendant’s violations of the ADA have harmed Plaintiffs, who have sustained damages as a result.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) 94. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 95. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from denying, on the basis of disability, the benefits provided by the recipient, or from subjecting persons with disabilities to discrimination. 29 U.S.C. § 794. 96. For OTRB companies entities receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation, compliance with applicable requirements of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37, is a condition of compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and of receiving financial assistance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.21(b). 97. On information and belief, Defendants receive federal financial assistance from
24

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 29
the Department of Transportation and/or other federal agencies. 98. For OTRB companies entities receiving federal financial assistance from the
Department of Homeland Security, compliance with applicable requirements of 49 C.F.R., pt. 37 is a condition of compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and of receiving financial assistance. 49 C.F.R. § 37.21(b).
99. On information and belief, Defendants receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Homeland Security.
100. Defendants have violated Section 504 the Rehabilitation Act by denying Plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities the benefits of their OTRB services and otherwise failing to comply with the regulations applicable to OTRB companies as described in this Complaint.
101. Defendants’ violations of the Rehabilitation Act have harmed Plaintiffs. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma Coaches, Inc.: Colorado Consumer Protection Act)
102. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
103. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) requires that “[e]xcept in a class action, any person who, in a private civil action, is found to have engaged in or caused another to engage in any deceptive trade practice . . . shall be liable in the amount equal to the sum of . . .[t]hree times the actual damages sustained or two hundred and fifty dollars, whichever is greater; and . . . [i]n the case of a successful action to enforce said liability the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court.”
25

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 29
104. Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin and Loraine Johnson seek recovery under the CCPA. 105. In addition, the CCPA provides, “[a]ny person who violates or causes another to violate any provision of [the CCPA] shall forfeit and pay to the general fund of this state a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars for each such violation [;] a violation of any provision shall constitute a separate violation with respect to each consumer or transaction involved; except that the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars for any related series of violations.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-112(1). 106. Section 6-1-112 is enforceable by a plaintiff in a private cause of action. 107. Under the CCPA, “[a] person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of such person’s business . . . such person:”
a. “[k]nowingly makes a false representation as to the characteristics . . . uses, alterations, or quantities of . . . services . . . ;
b. “[r]epresents that . . . services . . . are of a particular standard, quality or grade . . . if he knows or should know that they are of another;”
c. “[a]dvertises . . . services with intent not to sell them as advertised;” d. “[a]dvertises . . . services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable
public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;” e. “[e]mploys ‘bait and switch’ advertising, which is advertising accompanied by an effort to sell . . .services . . .other than those advertised or on terms other than those advertised and which is also accompanied by
26

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 29
[the] following practice . . . demonstrating defective . . . services which are unusable or impractical for the purposes set forth in the advertisement; and f. “[f]ails to disclose material information concerning . . .services . . . which information was known at the time of an advertisement or sale if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer to enter into a transaction. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1). 108. Defendants Greyhound and TNM&O advertise that they provide accessible buses with 48 hours prior notice. As set forth in this Complaint, these Defendants did not and, on information and belief, do not provide accessible buses with 48 hours prior notice. 109. Plaintiffs Julie Reiskin and Loraine Johnson were led to believe and did believe that they would have accessible transportation based on Greyhound’s and TNM&O’s representations. Plaintiffs did not receive the service they were promised.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray: 1. That this Court assume jurisdiction. 2. That this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendants to comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the CCPA. 3. That this Court award compensatory damages to Plaintiffs as permitted under the referenced statutes.
27

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 29

4. That this Court award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

5. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper

and equitable.

JURY DEMAND: Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues which can be heard by a jury.

Dated: September 5, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin W. Williams Kevin W. Williams Carrie Ann Lucas Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 Voice: 303.839.1775 TTY: 303.839.0015 Facsimile: 303.839.1782 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org E-mail: clucas@ccdconline.org

Timothy P. Fox Amy F. Robertson Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910 - 16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Voice: 303.595.9700 TTY: 303.595.9703 Facsimile: 303.595.9705 E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com E-mail: arob@foxrob.com

Address of Plaintiff Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition:

655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203

Address of Julie Reiskin:

28

Case 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH Document 125 Filed 09/05/08 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 29
3645 Milwaukee Street Denver, Colorado 80205 Address of Plaintiff Loraine Johnson: 2716 Abrams Avenue Montrose, Colorado 81401 Address of Plaintiff Barbara Moczygemba: 105 W. Weston # 5 Fleming CO 80728 Address of Plaintiff Hope Krause: 414 Southridge St., Apt. 101A Fort Morgan, CO 80701
29

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 1 of 16
NDISPO,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−00598−CMA−MEH

Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition et al v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al Assigned to: Judge Christine M. Arguello Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty Cause: 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/27/2007 Date Terminated: 03/16/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition a Colorado non−profit Corporation

represented by Kevin William Williams Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition 655 Broadway #775 Denver, CO 80203 303−839−1775 Fax: 303−839−1782 Email: kwilliams@ccdconline.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ari Reuben Krichiver Smith &West, LLC−Denver 1860 Blake Street Blake Street Terrace #420 Denver, CO 80202 303−391−0100 Fax: 303−391−0102 Email: ari@smithandwest.com TERMINATED: 07/25/2007

Carrie Ann Lucas Center for Rights of Parents with Disabilities P.O. Box 756 Windsor, CO 80550 720−363−1131 Fax: 970−818−9295 Email: clucas@disabledparentrights.org

Timothy Patrick Fox Fox &Robertson, P.C. 104 Broadway #400 Denver, CO 80203 303−595−9700 Fax: 303−595−9705 Email: tfox@foxrob.com

Plaintiff Timothy J. Coenen

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ari Reuben Krichiver (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2007

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 2 of 16

Carrie Ann Lucas (See above for address)

Timothy Patrick Fox (See above for address)

Plaintiff Julie Reiskin

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ari Reuben Krichiver (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2007

Carrie Ann Lucas (See above for address)

Timothy Patrick Fox (See above for address)

Plaintiff Loraine A. Johnson

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ari Reuben Krichiver (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2007

Carrie Ann Lucas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy Patrick Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Barbara Moczygemba

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Eileen Hope Krause

represented by Kevin William Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Greyhound Lines, Inc. a Delaware corporation

represented by Leslie Lynn Schluter Schluter &Associates, P.C. 5105 DTC Parkway #325 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303−221−4661

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 3 of 16

Fax: 303−221−4594 Email: lschluter@lawincolorado.com

Defendant
CUSA Parts, LLC a Delaware corporation TERMINATED: 03/13/2008 doing business as Powder River Transportation TERMINATED: 03/13/2008

represented by Susan Penniman Klopman Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP−Denver 410 17th Street #2200 Denver, CO 80202−4432 303−223−1100 Fax: 303−223−1111 Email: sklopman@bhfs.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd. an Iowa corporation doing business as Burlington Trailways

represented by Susan Penniman Klopman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc. a Delaware corporation

represented by Leslie Lynn Schluter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Busco, Inc. a Nebraska corporation TERMINATED: 11/18/2008 doing business as Busco, Inc. Arrow Stage Lines TERMINATED: 11/18/2008

represented by Andrew James Carafelli Dewhirst &Dolven, LLC−Denver 650 South Cherry Street #600 Denver, CO 80246 303−757−0003 Fax: 303−757−0004 Email: acarafelli@dewhirstdolven.com

Andrew David Ringel Hall &Evans, LLC−Denver 1125 17th Street #600 Denver, CO 80202−2052 303−628−3300 Fax: 303−293−3238 Email: ringela@hallevans.com

Jay S. Jester Jester Gibson &Moore, LLP 1999 Broadway #3225 Denver, CO 80202 303−377−7888 Fax: 303−377−7075 Email: jjester@jgllp.com TERMINATED: 07/03/2008

Marcel Krzystek Jester Gibson &Moore, LLP 1999 Broadway #3225 Denver, CO 80202 303−377−7888 Fax: 303−377−7075

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 4 of 16

Email: mkrzystek@jgllp.com TERMINATED: 07/03/2008

Defendant
All Over− The− Road− Bus Transportation Companies

Defendant
Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. TERMINATED: 11/18/2008

represented by Andrew James Carafelli (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew David Ringel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jay S. Jester (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/03/2008

Marcel Krzystek (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/03/2008

Date Filed 03/27/2007
03/27/2007 03/28/2007 04/11/2007 05/02/2007
05/29/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/08/2007 06/11/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Greyhound Lines, Inc., CUSA Parts, LLC, Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350, Receipt Number COX000206) Summons issued, filed by Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet # 2 Receipt)(llr, ) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
2 MEMORANDUM from Judge Matsch RETURNING CASE for reassignment to another district judge. (llr, ) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
3 LETTER REASSIGNING CASE per memo of 3/27/2007. Case reassigned to Judge Lewis T. Babcock for all further proceedings. Judge Richard P. Matsch is no longer assigned to case. (llr, ) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. CUSA Parts, LLC waiver sent on 3/27/2007, answer due 5/29/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document Executed Waiver)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd. waiver sent on 4/9/2007, answer due 6/8/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document Executed Waiver)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
6 Defendants ANSWER to Complaint by CUSA Parts, LLC.(Klopman, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
7 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Carrie Ann Lucas on behalf of all plaintiffs (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
8 NOTICE OF CONSENT OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson (Lucas, Carrie) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
9 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Defendant Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Klopman, Susan) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
10 NOTICE OF CONSENT OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 5 of 16

06/11/2007 06/14/2007 06/14/2007 06/15/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/27/2007 06/27/2007 06/28/2007 06/29/2007 07/10/2007
07/13/2007
07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/20/2007 07/24/2007

11 MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendant Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., d/b/a Burlington Trailways' Stipulated 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to 1 Complaint, Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd. answer due 6/15/2007, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/11/07.(mrs, ) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
12 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Ari Reuben Krichiver on behalf of all plaintiffs (Krichiver, Ari) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
13 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Timothy Patrick Fox on behalf of all plaintiffs (Fox, Timothy) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
14 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint by Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd..(Klopman, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
15 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty by Judge Lewis T. Babcock. (mrs, ) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
16 MINUTE ORDER setting Scheduling Conference for 9/21/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty pursuant to the 15 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge, by Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/18/07. (mrs, ) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
17 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Designate Non−Party at Fault by Defendant CUSA Parts, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Klopman, Susan) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
18 DESIGNATION OF NON−PARTY at Fault by Defendant CUSA Parts, LLC. (Klopman, Susan) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
19 MEMORANDUM regarding 17 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Designate Non−Party at Fault filed by CUSA Parts, LLC. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/28/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(mrs, ) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
20 MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendant CUSA Parts [sic], LLC's Unopposed 17 Motion for Leave to Designate Non−Party at Fault, Defendant CUSA Parts, LLC's designation of non−party at fault, is accepted as timely, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/29/07.(mrs, ) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
21 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all defendants. Greyhound Lines, Inc. served on 5/3/2007, answer due 5/23/2007; Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc. served on 5/3/2007, answer due 5/23/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Service − Greyhound# 2 Affidavit Affidavit of Service − TNMKevin) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
22 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to 1 Complaint by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order Granting Motion for Extension to Answer)(Schluter, Leslie) Modified on 7/16/2007 to add linkage to DN 1 (mrs, ). (Entered: 07/13/2007)
23 Docket Annotation re: 22 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. This docket entry modified to add linkage to DN 1. Text only entry − no document attached. (mrs, ) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
24 MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendants 22 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer 1 Complaint. Greyhound Lines, Inc. answer due 7/20/2007; Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc. answer due 7/20/2007, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/16/07.(mrs, ) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
25 Greyhound and TNMs ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc..(Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
26 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Krichiver, Ari) (Entered: 07/24/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 6 of 16

07/25/2007 08/29/2007
08/31/2007
08/31/2007 09/04/2007
09/04/2007
09/05/2007 09/14/2007 09/17/2007 09/17/2007
09/25/2007
10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/02/2007

27 MINUTE ORDER GRANTING 26 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Ari Reuben Krichiver terminated for Plaintiffs, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/25/07.(mrs, ) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
28 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 1 Complaint by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document Amended Complaint)(Williams, Kevin) Modified on 8/30/2007 to add linkage (mrssl, ). (Entered: 08/29/2007)
29 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 1 Complaint, Corrected by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document Amended Complaint − Corrected# 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
30 Joint MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
31 MINUTE ORDER Defendants have up to and including 9/14/07 to file a response re: Plaintiffs 29 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 1 Complaint, Corrected filed by Loraine A. Johnson, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/4/07. (mrs, ) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
32 MEMORANDUM regarding 30 Joint MOTION to Reset Scheduling Conference filed by Loraine A. Johnson, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/4/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(mrs, ) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
33 MINUTE ORDER GRANTING the Joint 30 Motion to Reset Scheduling Conference, Scheduling Conference RESET for 11/20/2007 09:45 AM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/5/07.(mrs, ) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
34 RESPONSE to Motion re 29 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 1 Complaint, Corrected filed by Defendants CUSA Parts, LLC, Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd. (Klopman, Susan) Modified on 9/18/2007 to remove duplicated text(mrs). (Entered: 09/14/2007)
35 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs' 29 Motion to Amend Complaint, the same is accepted for filing. Signed by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/17/07.(mrs) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
36 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Greyhound Lines, Inc., CUSA Parts, LLC, Busco, Inc., Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc., filed by Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson.(mrs, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
37 AFFIDAVIT/RETURN of Service of Summons upon Roger Riggert on 09/21/07, filed by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document Summons)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
38 Defendant's ANSWER to Amended Complaint by CUSA Parts, LLC.(Klopman, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
39 Defendant's ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd..(Klopman, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
40 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. Busco, Inc. served on 9/21/2007, answer due 10/11/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document Summons)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 10/02/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 7 of 16

10/02/2007 10/02/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007 10/30/2007
10/31/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007
10/31/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/20/2007 11/21/2007 11/21/2007 12/26/2007 12/27/2007

41 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc..(Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
42 SUMMONS Returned Executed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document Notice of Amended Return of Service)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
43 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
44 Stipulated MOTION For Extension of Time to hold Scheduling Conference by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
45 MEMORANDUM regarding 44 Stipulated MOTION For Extension of Time to hold Scheduling Conference filed by Eileen Hope Krause, Loraine A. Johnson, Timothy J. Coenen, Barbara Moczygemba, Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, 43 Stipulated MOTION for Protective Order filed by Eileen Hope Krause, Loraine A. Johnson, Timothy J. Coenen, Barbara Moczygemba, Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 10/30/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(mrs) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
46 MINUTE ORDER GRANTING the Parties' Stipulated 43 Motion for Protective Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/31/07.(mrs) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
47 Stipulated PROTECTIVE ORDER Concerning Pre−Discovery Disclosures of COnfidential Information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/31/07. (mrs) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
48 MINUTE ORDER GRANTING the parties' Second Stipulated 44 Motion for Extension of Scheduling Conference. The Scheduling Conference is converted to a Status Conference by telephone. The Scheduling Conference is RESET for a Status Conference for 1/15/08 at 9:45 AM in Courtroom 203, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/31/07.(mrs) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
49 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/15/2008 09:45 AM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty pursuant to Minute Order dated 10/31/07. Text only entry − no document attached. (mrs) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
50 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jay S. Jester on behalf of Busco, Inc. (Jester, Jay) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
51 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Marcel Krzystek on behalf of Busco, Inc. (Krzystek, Marcel) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
52 Minute Entry/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty: Status Conference held on 11/20/2007. (Court Reporter FTR − C. Coomes) (mehcd) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
53 ANSWER to 36 Amended Complaint, by Busco, Inc..(Krzystek, Marcel) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
54 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT of Busco, Inc. by Defendant Busco, Inc... (Krzystek, Marcel) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
55 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 47 Protective Order by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 12/26/2007)
56 MEMORANDUM regarding 55 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 47 Protective Order filed by Eileen Hope Krause, Loraine A. Johnson, Timothy J. Coenen, Barbara Moczygemba, Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross−Disability

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 8 of 16

12/28/2007 01/02/2008 01/02/2008 01/08/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008
01/18/2008 01/22/2008 01/25/2008
01/28/2008 01/29/2008 01/29/2008
01/30/2008

Coalition. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/27/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(mrs, ) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
57 MINUTE ORDER granting 55 Motion to Amend 10/31/07 Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/28/07.(mrs, ) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
58 NOTICE of Change of Firm Name by Defendant CUSA Parts, LLC (Klopman, Susan) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
59 NOTICE of Change of Firm Name by Defendant Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd. (Klopman, Susan) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
60 Proposed Scheduling Order by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc., CUSA Parts, LLC, Busco, Inc., Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc., Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
61 SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 2/27/2008 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. Discovery due by 7/30/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 9/1/2008. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/3/2008 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/15/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
62 Minute Entry/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty: Scheduling Conference held on 1/15/2008. Settlement Conference set for 2/27/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. Confidential Settlement Statements due by 2/20/2008. Discovery due by 7/30/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 9/1/2008. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/27/2008. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/3/2008 09:30 AM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. (Court Reporter FTR − C. Coomes) (mehcd) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
63 MINUTE ORDER Trial Preparation Conference set for 5/29/2009 at 08:30 AM before Judge Lewis T. Babcock, 7 day Jury Trial set to start on 6/22/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom C401 before Judge Lewis T. Babcock, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/18/2008. (sah, ) Modified to correct entry, 1/22/2008 (sah2, ). (Entered: 01/18/2008)
64 Docket Annotation re: 63 Order, Entry modified to correct courtroom designation, Text only entry − no document attached (sah2, ) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
65 Second MOTION for Protective Order by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc., CUSA Parts, LLC, Busco, Inc., Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc., Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
66 MEMORANDUM regarding 65 Second MOTION for Protective Order, Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/28/2008. Text Only Entry − No Document Attached(sah2, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
67 Minute ORDER granting Parties Second Stipulated 65 Motion for Protective Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/29/2008.(sah, ) Modified to correct filers of motion on 1/30/2008 (sah, ). (Entered: 01/29/2008)
68 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. On October 31, 2007, this Court issued a Stipulated Protective Order Concerning Pre−Discovery Disclosure on 10/31/2007 47 . All terms of that order dated 10/31/2007 remain in effect except, by agreement of the parties and this Court, Plaintiffs counsel has until February 29, 2008 to return the documents covered by that Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/29/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
69 Docket Annotation re: 67 Order on Motion for Protective Order. Entry modified to correct filers of motion. Text only entry − no document attached (sah, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 9 of 16

03/12/2008 03/13/2008 03/31/2008 04/10/2008 04/11/2008 04/11/2008 04/13/2008
04/15/2008
04/16/2008 04/21/2008

01/30/2008)
70 Stipulated MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice by Defendant CUSA Parts, LLC, Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
71 ORDER re: 70 Stipulated MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice. This matter shall be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE against Defendant CUSA PRTS, LLC, d/b/a Power River Transportation only. Each party to pay their own fees and costs. CUSA Parts, LLC terminated. Signed by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 03/13/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
72 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty: Settlement Conference held on 3/31/2008. A written record was made with regard to CUSA PRTS, LLC. (sah, ) (Entered: 04/01/2008)
73 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Timothy J. Coenen, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document, # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
74 MINUTE ORDER granting 73 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint. The tendered First Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint is accepted for filing by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 04/11/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
75 First Supplemental and Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc., Greyhound Lines, Inc., Busco, Inc., Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc., All Over− The− Road− Bus Transportation Companies, filed by Barbara Moczygemba, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson.(sah, ) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
76 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Respond to Discovery Requests Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(A) by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc., Busco, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc., Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 04/13/2008)
77 MEMORANDUM regarding 76 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Respond to Discovery Requests Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(A) Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Respond to Discovery Requests Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1(A) filed by Eileen Hope Krause, Julie Reiskin, Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc., Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc., Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba, Greyhound Lines, Inc., Busco, Inc.. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 04/15/2008. Text Only Entry − No Document Attached(sah, ) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
78 MINUTE ORDER granting 76 Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to Respond toDiscovery Requests. Plaintiffs and Defendants Greyhound, TNMBusco and Black Hills shall respond to pending discovery requests on or before 5/5/2008 by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 04/16/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
79 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 61 Scheduling Order Deadlines by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc., Busco, Inc., Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc., Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) Modified on 4/22/2008 to create linkage to scheduling order (sah, ). (Entered: 04/21/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 10 of 16

04/22/2008
04/22/2008 04/24/2008
04/24/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/28/2008 05/12/2008
05/13/2008 05/27/2008 05/27/2008

80 MEMORANDUM regarding 79 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order Deadlines filed by Eileen Hope Krause, Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd., Julie Reiskin, Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc., Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc., Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba, Greyhound Lines, Inc., Busco, Inc. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 04/22/2008. Text Only Entry − No Document Attached(sah, ) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
81 Docket Annotation re: 79 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order Deadlines. Entry modified to create linkage to scheduling order Text only entry − no document attached (sah, ) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
82 MINUTE ORDER granting 79 the Stipulated Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Deadlines. The Scheduling Order in this case shall be amended asfollows: Expert Witness Designation: 7/1/2008; Deadline for Written Discovery: 7/15/2008; Rebuttal Expert Deadline: 8/1/2008; Discovery Cut−off: 8/29/2008; Dispositive Motion Deadline: 10/01/2008; All other deadlines and conferences dates shall remain the same by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 04/24/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
83 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to Minute Order dated 4/24/2008, Discovery due by 8/29/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 10/1/2008. Text only entry − no document attached. (sah, ) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
84 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief by Defendants Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.. (Krzystek, Marcel) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
85 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief by Defendants Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Steve Busskohl)(Krzystek, Marcel) Modified on 6/5/2008 as WITHDRAWN pursuant to Minute Order dated 6/5/2008(sah, ). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
86 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Defendant Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc... (Krzystek, Marcel) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
87 ANSWER to 75 Amended Complaint, First Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint by Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc..(Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
88 ANSWER to 75 Amended Complaint, (Second) by Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd..(Klopman, Susan) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
89 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief, 84 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
90 MINUTE ORDER granting 89 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has up to and including 5/26/2008 to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 05/13/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 05/13/2008)
91 RESPONSE to Motion re 84 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief filed by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
92 RESPONSE to Motion re 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief filed by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tab 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 11 of 16

05/28/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/03/2008
06/04/2008 06/04/2008 06/04/2008
06/04/2008
06/05/2008 06/05/2008 06/05/2008 06/10/2008

Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit R, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit T, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit U, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit V, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit W, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit X, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit Y, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit Z)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
93 NOTICE of Change of Address effective June 1, 2008 by Leslie Lynn Schluter (Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
94 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order Deadlines by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tab 1, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
95 DECLARATION of Kevin W. Williams regarding Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order Deadlines 94 by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
96 MEMORANDUM regarding 94 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order Deadlines filed by Eileen Hope Krause, Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba, Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 06/03/2008. Text Only Entry − No Document Attached(sah, ) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
97 MOTION to Withdraw Document re 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief by Defendants Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.. (Krzystek, Marcel) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
98 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendants Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.. (Krzystek, Marcel) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
101 MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 94 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Deadlines. The Scheduling Order in this case shall be amended as follows: Expert Witness Designation: 09/2/2008Deadline for Written Discovery: 9/15/2008; Rebuttal Expert Deadline: 10/01/2008; Discovery Cut−off: 10/29/2008; Dispositive Motion Deadline: 11/13/2008 In addition, the Final Pretrial Conference currently set for 11/3/2008 is hereby VACATED and RESCHEDULED for 12/1/2008 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 203 by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 05/04/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
102 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to the Minute Order dated 6/4/2005, Discovery due by 10/29/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 11/13/2008. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/1/2008 09:45 AM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. Text only entry − no document attached. (sah, ) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
99 MINUTE ORDER granting 97 Defendants Busco, Inc. And Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.s Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Second Claim for Relief; withdrawing 85 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 06/05/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
100 Docket Annotation re: 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief. Entry modified on 6/5/2008 as WITHDRAWN pursuant to Minute Order dated 6/5/2008 Text only entry − no document attached (sah, ) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
103 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendants Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.. (Jester, Jay) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
104 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 91 Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Claim for Relief by Defendants Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Krzystek, Marcel) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 12 of 16

06/11/2008
06/18/2008 07/03/2008 07/07/2008 07/18/2008
07/23/2008
07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/31/2008 08/01/2008 08/04/2008
08/04/2008 08/05/2008
08/05/2008

105 MINUTE ORDER granting 104 Defendants Busco, Inc. And Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Defendants Busco, Inc and Black Hills Stage Line, Inc have up to and including 6/20/2008 by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 06/11/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
106 REPLY to Response to Motion re 84 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief filed by Defendants Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.. (Krzystek, Marcel) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
107 MINUTE ORDER granting 98 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jay S. Jester and Marcel Krzystek terminated; granting 103 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jay S. Jester and Marcel Krzystek terminated by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 07/03/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
108 NOTICE re 84 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
109 MINUTE ORDER: Settlement Conference with Plaintiff Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition and Defendant Burlington Stage Lines, LTD is set for 7/30/2008 01:30 PM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 7/18/08. (pap, ) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
110 MINUTE ORDER The Motions to Withdraw as Counsel 98 and 103 are GRANTED. Jay S. Jester and Marcel Krzystek of Jester &Gibson, LLP are allowed to withdraw as counsel for Defendants Busco, Inc. d/b/a Busco, Inc. Arrow Stage Lines, and Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 07/23/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
111 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Andrew David Ringel on behalf of Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. (Ringel, Andrew) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
112 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Andrew James Carafelli on behalf of Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. (Carafelli, Andrew) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
113 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty: Settlement Conference held on 7/31/2008. Settlement was reached with Defendant Burlington Trialways. A written record was made. (sah, ) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
114 MOTION For Extension of Time by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
115 MEMORANDUM regarding 114 MOTION For Extension of Time filed by Eileen Hope Krause, Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba, Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 08/04/2008. Text Only Entry − No Document Attached(sah, ) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
116 RESPONSE to Motion re 114 MOTION For Extension of Time to Extend Deadlines filed by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc.. (Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
117 MINUTE ORDER granting 114 Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Deadlines. No further extensions of time shall be granted except upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. Expert Witness Designation: 10/3/2008Deadline for Written Discovery: 10/15/2008; Rebuttal Expert Deadline: 11/03/2008; Discovery Cut−off: 12/1/2008; Dispositive Motion Deadline: 12/15/2008. The Final Pretrial Conference currently set for 12/01/2008 is hereby vacated and rescheduled for 01/12/2009 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 203 by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 08/05/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
118 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to the Minute Order dated 08/05/2008, Discovery due by 12/1/2008. Dispositive Motions due by 12/15/2008. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/12/2009 09:45 AM in Courtroom C203. Text only entry − no document attached. (sah, ) (Entered: 08/06/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 13 of 16

08/29/2008 08/29/2008 09/03/2008 09/04/2008
09/04/2008
09/05/2008 09/05/2008 09/05/2008 09/08/2008
09/08/2008 09/10/2008 09/10/2008 09/29/2008 10/01/2008

119 ORDER of Recusal directing assignment to another judge. Signed by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/29/08. (pap, ) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
120 LETTER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Zita L. Weinshienk for all further proceedings. Judge Lewis T. Babcock no longer assigned to the case. (pap, ) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
121 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Case with Prejudice Defendant Burlington Stage Lines, LTD by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Order)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
122 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Written Discovery by Defendants Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Re Defendants Busco, Inc.'s and Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Written Discovery)(Ringel, Andrew) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
123 MEMORANDUM regarding 122 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Written Discovery filed by Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 09/04/2008. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(sah, ) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
124 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 75 Amended Complaint, Second Supplemental and Third Amended by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
125 AMENDED 124 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 75 Amended Complaint, Second Supplemental and Third Amended by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
126 NOTICE re 84 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
127 MINUTE ORDER granting 122 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond toPlaintiffs Third Set of Written Discovery filed by Defendants Busco, Inc. and Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs third set of written discovery on or before 09/11/2008 by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 09/08/2008.(sah, ) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
128 NOTICE of Change of Address by Timothy Patrick Fox (Fox, Timothy) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
129 ORDER of Recusal directing reassignment to another judge. Signed by Judge Zita L. Weinshienk on 09/10/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
130 LETTER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Walker D. Miller for all further proceedings. Judge Zita L. Weinshienk no longer assigned to the case. (sah, ) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
131 RESPONSE to Motion re 124 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 75 Amended Complaint, Second Supplemental and Third Amended filed by Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
132 MEMORANDUM regarding 124 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 75 Amended Complaint, Second Supplemental and Third Amended filed by Eileen Hope Krause, Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba, Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty by Judge Walker D. Miller on 10/1/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(wdmsec, ) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 14 of 16

10/01/2008 10/02/2008 10/10/2008 10/14/2008 10/14/2008 10/14/2008 10/21/2008 10/22/2008
10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/28/2008 10/28/2008 10/29/2008

133 MEMORANDUM RETURNING CASE for reassignment by Senior District Judge Miller. (sah, ) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
134 LETTER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Wiley Y. Daniel for all further proceedings. Judge Walker D. Miller no longer assigned to the case. (sah, ) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
135 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference to Set Settlement Conference by Defendants Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.. (Carafelli, Andrew) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
136 MEMORANDUM regarding 135 Unopposed MOTION for Hearing/Conference to Set Settlement Conference filed by Busco, Inc., Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc.. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 10/14/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(erv, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
137 MINUTE ORDER granting 135 Unopposed Motion for Hearing/Conference. A settlement conference is hereby scheduled in this case for October 20, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 203 on the second floor of the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/14/08.(erv, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
138 Utility Resetting Hearings: Text only entry − no document attached. Settlement Conference set for 10/20/2008 01:30 PM in Courtroom C203 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. Text only entry − no document attached. (erv, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
139 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty: Settlement Conference held on 10/21/2008. Settlement was reached. Settlement conference was concluded. (sss, ) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
140 REASSIGNING JUDGE. This action is reassigned to Judge Christine M. Arguello, upon her appointment. All future pleadings should reference Judge Arguello at the end of the civil action number (such as 08−cv−00001−CMA). Unless otherwise ordered, the dates and times for all previously scheduled matters will be maintained and will now be handled by Judge Arguello in Courtroom A−602. Her chambers are located in Room A−638. Her telephone number is 303−335−2174. (Text only entry − no document attached) (gmssl, ) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
141 NOTICE re 121 Stipulation of Dismissal of Case, with Prejudice Defendant Burlington Stage Lines, LTD. by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
142 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw 125 Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental and Third Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
143 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Serve Responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Written Discovery Requests by Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
144 MEMORANDUM regarding 143 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Serve Responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Written Discovery Requests filed by Greyhound Lines, Inc. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/28/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(erv, ) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
145 MINUTE ORDER granting 143 Unopposed Motion for 20−Day Extension of Time to Serve Responses to Plaintiffs Third Set of Written Discovery filed by Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.; Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs third set of written discovery on or before November 17, 2008. by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/29/08.(erv, ) (Entered: 10/29/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 15 of 16

11/10/2008 11/12/2008
11/12/2008 11/13/2008 11/18/2008 12/04/2008 12/04/2008 12/04/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/15/2008

146 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants' Greyhound Lines and TNMby Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Kevin W. Williams, # 2 Deposition Excerpts Exhibit A of Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
147 MEMORANDUM regarding 146 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants' Greyhound Lines and TNMOfiled by Eileen Hope Krause, Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba, Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, 142 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental and Third Amended Complaint filed by Eileen Hope Krause, Loraine A. Johnson, Barbara Moczygemba, Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/12/08. (erv, ) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
148 MINUTE ORDER granting 142 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental and Third Amended Complaint; withdrawing 124 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental and Third Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/12/08.(erv, ) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
149 Stipulated MOTION to Dismiss Party with Prejudice Defendants' Busco Inc. and Black Hills Stage Lines Inc. by Plaintiffs Barbara Moczygemba, Eileen Hope Krause, Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
150 ORDER granting 149 Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Parties Party Black Hills Stage Lines, Inc. and Busco, Inc. are Dismissed With Prejudice, each party shall pays his, her or its own costs, attorneys fees and expenses. Signed by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/18/08.(erv, ) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
151 RESPONSE to Motion re 146 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants' Greyhound Lines and TNMfiled by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc.. (Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
152 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Substitute Amended Response by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
153 AMENDED RESPONSE to Plaintiff's 146 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants' Greyhound Lines and TNMOAmended filed by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J (Part 1), # 11 Exhibit J (Part 2), # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R)(Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
154 MEMORANDUM regarding 152 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Substitute Amended Response filed by Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/4/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(erv, ) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
155 MINUTE ORDER granting 152 Defendant Greyhound Lines Unopposed Motion for Leave to Substitute Amended Response. The Court will accept as filed the Amended Response found at docket 153 . by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/5/08.(erv, ) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
156 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to file Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Schluter, Leslie) (Entered: 12/15/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-00598-CMA-MEH As of: 04/24/2012 04:01 PM MDT 16 of 16

12/16/2008
12/17/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008
12/29/2008 12/29/2008 01/05/2009 02/03/2009 02/06/2009 02/13/2009 03/13/2009 03/13/2009 03/16/2009

157 MEMORANDUM regarding 156 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to file Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Greyhound Lines, Inc., Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma (TNMCoaches, Inc. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/16/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(erv, ) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
158 MINUTE ORDER granting 156 Defendant Greyhound Lines Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment. The dispositive motions deadline in this case is hereby extended to December 23, 2008. by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/17/08.(erv, ) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
159 Utility Resetting Deadlines: Pursuant to the 12/17/08 Minute Order, Dispositive Motions due by 12/23/2008. Text only entry − no document attached. (erv, ) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
160 REPLY to Response to Motion re 146 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants' Greyhound Lines and TNMfiled by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Declaration of Kevin W. Williams, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F − Part 1, # 8 Exhibit F − Part 2, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L)(Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
161 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty: Settlement Conference held on 12/29/2008. (erv, ) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
162 MINUTE ORDER Denying as moot 146 Plaintiffs and Defendants GreyhoundLines, Inc. and TNMOCoaches, Inc., Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 12/29/08.(erv, ) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
163 MINUTE ORDER In light of the settlement of this matter on December 29, 2008 161 , the Final Pretrial Conference scheduled for Monday, January 12, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. is hereby vacated. by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/5/09. (erv, ) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
164 ORDER. The parties shall file a joint Status Report in this case or final settlement documents on or before 02/13/2009 by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 02/03/2009. (sah, ) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
165 NOTICE of Change of Address by Timothy Patrick Fox (Fox, Timothy) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
166 Joint STATUS REPORT by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 02/13/2009)
167 Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss Claims Against Greyound Lines, Inc., with Prejudice by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
168 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party TNMOwith Prejudice by Plaintiffs Colorado Cross−Disability Coalition, Julie Reiskin, Loraine A. Johnson. (Williams, Kevin) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
169 ORDER granting 167 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Claims Against Greyhound Lines, Inc. With Prejudice, each party to pay his, her or its own costs and attorneys fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Defendant Burlington Stage Lines, Ltd. having been dismissed by stipulation 121 on September 3, 2008, and Defendant TNMOCoaches, Inc. having been dismissed by stipulation 168 on March 13, 2009, this case is now DISMISSED in its entirety. by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 3/16/09.(erv, ) (Entered: 03/17/2009)