Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 22 Filed 06/12/2003 Page 1 of 2
..t7J ,,'- I' c:- r:, ..

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cc1UJIr

~

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALhBAMA JASPER DIVISION

03 JUN '2 PH 3: 15 , tJ;::llkICl Co.UHl
~f.b': OF ALAIAHA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

PLAINTIFF,

)

VS.

)

RPH MANAGEMENT, INC.,

d/b/a McDONALD'S,

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. CV -03-RRA-0502-3

DEFENDANT.

)

COMPLAINT UPON INTERVENTION ON BEHALF OF SAMANTHA ROBICHAUD
Comes now the intervenor, Samantha Robichaud, and in accordance with Rule 24(c) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this Complaint upon Intervention.
Jurisdiction and Venue
1. Your intervenor, Samantha Robichaud, is the aggrieved employee referred to in this Complaint and, thus, is entitled to intervene as a matter of right under 42 USC 2000e-5(f)(1).
2. Intervenor adopts the jurisdictional allegations of the Complaint, but alleges that venue is proper in the Western Division of the Northern District of Alabama. The intervenor's place of employment was in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama.
Parties
3-6. Intervenor adopts the allegations of the original complaint.
7. Intervenor further states that she is the aggrieved employee.
Statement of Claims
Intervenor adopts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7-13 of the original complaint.

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 22 Filed 06/12/2003 Page 2 of 2
2
WHEREFORE, intervenor requests such request to be made whole with back pay, pre-judgment interest, front pay, compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Prayer for Relief
Intervenor also requests that the Court allow attorney's fees from the defendant.

OF COUNSEL:

ZEANAR, RUST, SUMMERFORD, DAVIS & WILLIAMSON P.O. Box 1310 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403 (205) 349-1383

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this day served Ms. Prisca M. DeLeonardo U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1130 22nd Street South,
Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000, Birmingham, AL, 35205; Mr. Mason D.
Barrett, Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1120 22nd Street South, Suite 2000, Birmingham, AL, 35205;
Mr. Charles A. Powell, III and Heather F. Lindsay, Johnston, Barton, Proctor & Powell, 2900 AmSouthlHarbert Plaza, 1901 6th Avenue North, Birmingham, AL, 35203, in the foregoing matter with a copy of this pleading by
depositing in the United States Mail a copy of same in an envelope with adequate
postage prepaid thereon and properly addressed to them.

1 This _---"~'-----_ day of ;1.1 P\

,2003.

Wilbor J. Rust, Jr., Attorney for Samantha Robichaud

 
 - Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 57 Filed 08/11/2004 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ILED

',~H.~O:(/l NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 04 AUG I

WESTERN DIVISION

U.". ", . •

C

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

N.D. Ut A,L/\BA~

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

F;o;n,,·,~ 4"'
f" ~
L::

)

SAMATHA ROBICHAUD,

)

)

Intervenor,

)

)

vs.

) Civil Action No. CV-03-RRA-502-W

)

RPH MANAGEMENT, INC., )

d/b/a McDonald's, an Alabama )

Corporation,

)

Defendant.

)

ORDER

This action is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. no. 3).

A report and recommendation was filed on April 28, 2004 (doc. no. 53), and plaintiff

filed its objection on May 12,2004 (doc. no. 55). After careful consideration of the

record in this case and the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, the court

hereby ADOPTS the findings of the magistrate judge. The court ACCEPTS the

recommendation ofthe magistrate judge, and it is therefore ORDERED that the action

by plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, be dismissed with

prejudice based on its failure to conciliate in good faith.

The case is hereby returned to Magistrate Judge Robert R. Armstrong for

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 57 Filed 08/11/2004 Page 2 of 2
tl. U further proceedings. DONE this 11- day of August, 200~ Unite tates DIstnct Judge
2

 
 Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA

Document 79

Filed 05/03/2005

Page 1 of 2

FILED
2005 May-03 AM 11:16 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and
SAMANTHA ROBICHAUD, Intervenor,
v. RPH MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a McDONALD’S,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-RRA-0502-W ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER Intervenor Samantha Robichaud and defendant RHP Management, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s, having filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal, Robichaud’s intervenor complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These parties shall bear their own costs.1 DONE this 3rd day of May, 2005.

ROBERT R. ARMSTRONG, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1The complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was previously involuntarily dismissed. The defendant’s motion that its costs and fees be assessed against the EEOC is the only matter remaining in this action.

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 79 Filed 05/03/2005 Page 2 of 2 2

 
 Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA

Document 89

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 1 of 9

FILED
2005 Sep-02 AM 10:30 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, SAMANTHA ROBICHAUD,
Plaintiff-Intervenor, vs. RPH MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a McDONALDS,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 03-RRA-0502-W

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Memorandum of Opinion
(Re: Defendant’s Motion for Fees and Expenses, ct. doc. 60)

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a civil action filed, on March 6, 2003, by the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”) against RPH Management, Inc. (“RPH”). In its Complaint the EEOC

alleged that RPH violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to promote and

by discharging Samantha A. Robichaud, because of her disability. On June 12, 2003, the Court

allowed Ms. Robichaud to intervene in the case. On April 24, 2003, RPH filed a Motion to Dismiss

claiming, inter alia that the EEOC had failed to engage in good faith conciliation of the charge of

discrimination prior to filing suit. On April 28, 2004, the undersigned issued a Report and

Recommendation in which he recommended that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the EEOC’s

complaint be granted. On August 11, 2004, the District Court adopted the Report and

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 2 of 9
Recommendation and ordered that the EEOC’s complaint would be dismissed with prejudice.1 The case was then returned to the undersigned for further proceedings.
This case is now before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Fees and Expenses. (Doc.
60). For the reasons stated herein, the Defendant’s motion will be DENIED.
II. ANALYSIS The Defendant bases its right to attorneys fees and expenses on two grounds. First, the
Defendant claims it is entitled to the fee as set out by statute in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Secondly, the Defendants contend the award should be made as a sanction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The Court will address these grounds in turn.
A. The Attorney’s Fee Provision in Title VII Title VII provides that In any action or proceeding under this subchapter the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee (including expert fees) as part of the costs, and the Commission and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). The Supreme Court, interpreting this section, has stated: [A] district court may in its discretion award attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant in a Title VII case upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith. In applying these criteria, it is important that a district court resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation. This kind of hindsight logic could discourage all but the most airtight claims, for seldom can a prospective plaintiff be sure of ultimate success. No matter how honest
1The Intervenor’s complaint was not dismissed at that time. 2

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 3 of 9
one's belief that he has been the victim of discrimination, no matter how meritorious one's claim may appear at the outset, the course of litigation is rarely predictable. Decisive facts may not emerge until discovery or trial. The law may change or clarify in the midst of litigation. Even when the law or the facts appear questionable or unfavorable at the outset, a party may have an entirely reasonable ground for bringing suit.
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 421-422
(1978).
1. Whether the Defendant Was a Prevailing Party
The EEOC correctly points out that in order for an award of attorneys fees to be made, it must
first be shown that the Defendant is a “prevailing party”. The EEOC cites cases for the proposition
that, under these circumstances, the Defendant is not a prevailing party. However, it seems the
Eleventh circuit has addressed this issue to the contrary in the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Asplundh Tree Expert Company, 340 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2003).
In Asplundh, the Eleventh Circuit held that the sanction of dismissal and awarding of
attorneys’ fees against the EEOC was proper where it was held that the EEOC failed to fulfill its
statutory duty to act in good faith to achieve conciliation. In particular, the court wrote:
As we said above, conciliation is at the heart of Title VII. In its haste to file the instant lawsuit, with lurid, perhaps newsworthy, allegations, the EEOC failed to fulfill its statutory duty to act in good faith to achieve conciliation, effect voluntary compliance, and to reserve judicial action as a last resort. Under these circumstances, the sanction of dismissal, awarding attorneys' fees, is not an unreasonable remedy or an abuse of the district court's discretion. See EEOC v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 608 (9th Cir.1982) (affirming dismissal of EEOC's action and awarding attorneys' fees to defendant where EEOC acted unreasonably failing to engage in conciliation and filing suit). See also Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1106 (11th Cir.2001) (“The key to unlocking a court's inherent power [to award sanctions] is a finding of bad faith”) (citing Barnes v. Dalton, 158 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir.1998)). E.E.O.C. v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 2003). What is notable about
3

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 4 of 9
the Eleventh Circuit’s holding is its citation to the Ninth Circuit case of EEOC v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 608 (9th Cir.1982) as a basis for its reasoning.
While the Eleventh Circuit does not particularly spell out the means to which it reaches the ends of granting attorneys fees in Asplundh, the Pierce case, which it cites to approvingly, does so. In Pierce, a case similar factually to the instant case, the Court wrote:
The Commission's enabling act specifically provides for the award of fees and costs to the prevailing party in a Title VII action. 42 U.S.C. s 2000e-5(k). The award is subject to the qualified discretion of the trial court. “In sum, a district court may in its discretion award attorneys fees to a prevailing defendant in a Title VII case upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.”Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421, 98 S.Ct. 694, 700, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). The district court found that: “These procedural and regulatory defects committed by the EEOC were clearly cognizable at an early stage in this litigation's history. The EEOC's obvious disregard for such promulgated regulations is the apex of unreasonableness.” There is adequate support in the record to uphold this finding. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 609 (9th Cir. 1982). The Pierce Court wrote this language in affirming a District Court’s dismissal of an EEOC complaint and awarding of attorneys’ fees against the EEOC for failure of the EEOC to properly conciliate a claim before filing suit. Thus, the Pierce Court determined that the Defendant in this context was a “prevailing party”. In citing the Pierce case approvingly, the Eleventh Circuit has essentially held that, in cases such as the instant case, the Defendant is a “prevailing party” under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
2. Was the Action Frivolous, Unreasonable, or Without Foundation Having determined that the Defendant was a prevailing party, the Court must next determine whether the action was “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 434 U.S. 412, 421-422 (1978).
4

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 5 of 9
The Defendants cite Asplundh and contend this case is based upon similar facts. The Court
in Asplundh, summarized the facts as follows:
In August of 1996, Lewis filed his charge of discrimination, alleging disparate pay, racial harassment and retaliation. The charge specifically stated that Lewis was subjected to racial harassment “from Pete Evens (sic), GRU Inspector.” Additionally, the charge alleged that Lewis was “subjected to different terms and conditions of employment than my White co-workers (Blacks were paid lower than Whites and denied pay increases).” Lewis acknowledged in the charge that he was informed that his lay-off was due to a “lack of work.” He further asserted that “no reason was given for Evens' (sic) harassment or the different terms and conditions of employment [pay disparity].”
The EEOC, through Investigator West, commenced an investigation of the allegations. This investigation continued for thirty-two months. Throughout the investigation, which focused on the disparate pay issue, Asplundh cooperated with the EEOC.
On March 31, 1999, the Commission issued a “Letter of Determination” finding “reasonable cause to believe the charge is true” on the harassment and retaliation allegations. No additional facts constituting harassment or retaliation were cited; nor did the Commission find any cause to believe that there was any discrimination by Asplundh in pay.
On April 7, 1999, West sent a document titled “Conciliation Agreement” to Asplundh's General Counsel, Phillip Tatoian, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, requiring a response by April 23. This deadline provided 12 business days within which Asplundh was required to respond regarding the Gainesville, Florida incident. The proposal sought, inter alia, both reinstatement and front pay (despite the termination of the project on which Lewis had worked and the closure of the Gainesville office in 1996). It would also have required Asplundh to provide nationwide notice to its employees of Lewis' allegations and to conduct, within ninety days, nationwide anti-discrimination training of all its management and hourly employees. The proposal did not identify the EEOC's theory of Asplundh's liability for GRU employee Evan's alleged racial harassment of Lewis.
General Counsel Tatoian promptly retained a local Gainesville, Florida law firm to investigate the Florida incident and Asplundh's potential liability and respond to the EEOC. On April 28, 1999, Peter Sampo, a partner in that firm, forwarded by facsimile the following correspondence to EEOC Investigator West:
The firm has been retained to represent the Respondent in the above-
5

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 6 of 9
referenced matter. Your letter to General Counsel, Phillip Tatoian, dated April 7, 1999 and enclosing a proposed Conciliation Agreement has been forwarded to me for response. In order for me to provide informed advice to my client about this issue, I would like to arrange a phone call with you to discuss this case and attempt to understand the Commission's basis for its determination. Therefore, I ask that you extend the time for responding to the proposed Conciliation Agreement until we have had an opportunity to review this matter and you and I have had an opportunity to discuss the issues.
The EEOC did not respond to Sampo's letter that day or even acknowledge having received it. Instead, the next day, on April 29, 1999, the EEOC sent another letter to Tatoian in Philadelphia, declaring that “the Commission has not received ··· a reply to the conciliation proposal,” that “efforts to conciliate this charge ··· were unsuccessful,” and that “further conciliation efforts would be futile or nonproductive.”
Tatoian notified Sampo of this letter. Sampo attempted to contact West by telephone, but was unable to reach her, leaving her a message. On May 10, 1999, eleven days after receipt of Sampo's letter, West left a message on Sampo's office voice mail stating that the “case was out of [her] hands” and that Sampo should “contact the Regional Attorney.” Two days later, on May 12, 1999, the EEOC filed this lawsuit.
E.E.O.C. v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1257 -1259 (11th Cir. 2003).
The Eleventh Circuit, in agreeing that sanctions of dismissal and attorneys fees were
appropriate wrote:
In this case, the EEOC conducted an investigation of Lewis' allegations for almost three years before issuing its Letter of Determination, finding cause to believe that Asplundh had violated Title VII. During this extended period of time, Asplundh did not apprehend that this local incident, not involving its employee, would result in charges, so it did not retain local Gainesville counsel to investigate the allegations.
Then, in a flurry of activity, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination, followed one week later by a proposed, nation-wide Conciliation Agreement, which provided twelve business days for Asplundh's General Counsel in Philadelphia to accept the agreement, submit a counter proposal to the EEOC or inform the EEOC that no agreement would be entered into. In neither of these communications did the EEOC identify any theory on which Asplundh could be held liable for the alleged conduct of Evans, the City of Gainesville, Florida's employee.
6

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 7 of 9
Upon receipt of the Letter of Determination, Asplundh promptly retained local counsel to investigate the allegations, who responded to the proposed Conciliation Agreement by requesting a reasonable extension of time within which to “understand the Commission's basis for its determination” and to adequately prepare a response. This faxed communication was not immediately acknowledged. Instead, the very next day the Commission sent another letter to Asplundh, again in Philadelphia, terminating conciliation and announcing its intent to sue. This action was filed thirteen days later.
Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the EEOC acted in good faith. In fact, its conduct smacks more of coercion than of conciliation.” See EEOC v. Pet, Inc., Funsten Nut Div., 612 F.2d 1001, 1002 (5th Cir.1980). Despite the extended period of investigation, it appears that, once the EEOC decided it was ready to move forward, it would tolerate no “dallying” by Asplundh. Not even if Asplundh was given only one week between notice that, after almost three years, the Commission found “good cause” to believe it had violated Title VII, and its receipt of the Commission's conciliation “proposal.” Not even if this proposal, which included no theory of liability, demanded a remedy that was on the one hand, national in scope, and on the other, impossible to perform (no reinstatement or front pay being available as the Gainesville Asplundh project had ended three years earlier). Not even if the Commission had received a letter evidencing Asplundh's clear intent to resolve the matter outside the courtroom, prior to notifying Asplundh that conciliation had been “unsuccessful.” As we have said before, such an “all or nothing” approach on the part of a government agency, one of whose most essential functions is to attempt conciliation with the private party, will not do. Id.
E.E.O.C. v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1259 -1260 (11th Cir. 2003).
The case before this court does not “smack of coercion,” as was the case in Asplundh. While
it is true that the Court found that the EEOC did not engage in good-faith conciliation, that fact alone
does not require a finding that attorney’s fees should be awarded. The facts of each case must be
examined. There is a difference in the conduct here and that described in Asplundh. In contrast to
Asplundh, there is no evidence in this case that untoward pressure was exerted upon the Defendants
to settle the case on the EEOC’s terms. To the contrary, the present Defendants actually made an
offer to the EEOC which the EEOC presented to Robichaud. Robichaud, however, roundly rejected
the offer, stating that the offer was tantamount to being kicked in the face, and that she felt that
7

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 8 of 9
McDonald’s was not making a real attempt to settle the case. The EEOC then decided there was no point in further settlement talks. Also, there is no evidence of further contact from the Defendant after the EEOC told the Defendant that it would make no further attempts at conciliation. Notably, the EEOC did not file suit until March of 2003, a year and a half after its September 30, 2001,notice that no further attempts at conciliation would be made. Such a period of time does not indicate a rush to file as was the case in Asplundh.
Simply put, this is a case not of coercion but more of negligence or lack of due diligence on the part of the EEOC to engage in the traditional “back and forth” aspect of negotiations. The EEOC subjectively failed to recognize that a low settlement offer could be merely a starting point for an experienced negotiator and that the bottom line offer of settlement might have been substantially higher. Rather, the EEOC took the Defendants’ initial offer seriously, or at least considered it so unreasonable as to make further talks a waste of time, especially in light of Robichaud’s expression of contempt for the Defendants’ offer.
Wherefore, it is concluded that the EEOC’s filing of this action does not rise to the level of being “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation,” and, therefore, the court will decline to exercise its discretion to award attorney’s fees.
B. Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides for sanctions where a person “so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Rule 11 protects parties from harassing, delaying and costly pleadings and defenses and those pleadings and defenses which are knowingly filed without merit. As is noted above, on June 12, 2003, the Court allowed Ms. Robichaud to intervene in the case. Whether the EEOC was a party to the action or not, the case would have
8

Case 7:03-cv-00502-RRA Document 89 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 9 of 9 proceeded. Indeed, the case did in fact proceed with Ms. Robichaud after the EEOC was dismissed. III. RECOMMENDATION
After careful review of the facts of this case, the evidence does not suggest that either sanction is warranted. Wherefore, the Defendants’ Motion for Fees and Expenses will be denied.
DONE this 2nd day of September, 2005. ROBERT R. ARMSTRONG, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...
CONMAG, MEDIATION, REPORT & RECOMMEND, STAY
U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama (Western) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:03-cv-00502-RRA

EEOC v. RPH Management, Inc. Assigned to: Magistrate-Judge Robert R Armstrong Demand: $0 Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 03/06/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Heather F Lindsay JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & POWELL LLP 1901 6th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 458-9400 Email: hfl@jbpp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wilbor J Hust ZEANAH HUST SUMMERFORD DAVIS & WILLIAMSON PO Box 1310 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403 1-205-349-1383 Email: bhust@zeanahhust.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles Guerrier EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205 205-212-2044 Fax: 205-212-2041 Email: charles.guerrier@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street NW Washington, DC 20507 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mason D Barrett

1 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

V.
Defendant
RPH Management, Inc. doing business as McDonald's

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street, South Birmingham, AL 35205 212-2047 Fax: 212-2041 Email: mason.barrett@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas M Inzeo EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street NW Washington, DC 20507 1-202-663-4639 fax Fax: 1-202-663-4639 fax ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Prisca M DeLeonardo EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street, South Birmingham, AL 35205 205-212-2048 Fax: 205-212-2041 Email: prisca.deleonardo@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Justin Anthony Barkley JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & POWELL LLP AmSouth/Harbert Plaza, Suite 2900 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 205-458-9457 Fax: 205-458-9500 Email: jab@jbpp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mason D Barrett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wilbor J Hust (See above for address)

2 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

Intervenor
Samantha Robichaud TERMINATED: 05/03/2005

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles A Powell, III JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & POWELL LLP AmSouth/Harbert Plaza, Suite 2900 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 205-458-9449 Fax: 205-458-9500 Email: cap@jbpp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
F Daniel Wood, Jr THE KULLMAN FIRM 600 University Park Place, Suite 340 Birmingham, AL 35209 205-871-5858 Fax: 205-871-5874 Email: fdw@kullmanlaw.com TERMINATED: 04/30/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather F Lindsay JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & POWELL LLP AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Suite 2900 1901 6th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 458-9400 Fax: 458-9500 fax Email: hfl@jbpp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan S Harbuck THE KULLMAN FIRM 600 University Park Place, Suite 340 Birmingham, AL 35209 205-871-5858 Fax: 205-871-5874 Email: jsh@kullmanlaw.com TERMINATED: 04/30/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah A Mattison WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS The Kress Building 301 19th Street, North

3 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

Birmingham, AL 35203-3204 328-0640 Fax: 254-1500 fax Email: dmattison@wcqp.com TERMINATED: 05/03/2005
Susan Donahue WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS The Kress Building 301 19th Street, North Birmingham, AL 35203-3204 328-0640 Fax: 254-1500 fax Email: sgd@wcqp.com TERMINATED: 05/03/2005
Wilbor J Hust ZEANAH HUST SUMMERFORD DAVIS & WILLIAMSON PO Box 1310 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403 1-205-349-1383 Fax: 1-205-391-1319 fax Email: bhust@zeanahhust.com TERMINATED: 05/03/2005

Date Filed 03/06/2003 03/13/2003 04/22/2003 04/22/2003 04/22/2003 04/25/2003
04/28/2003 04/28/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed (w/notation that waiver of service forms will be sent w/ the complaint) (CTS) Modified on 03/14/2003 (Entered: 03/07/2003)
2 NOTICE of appearance for dft by Jonathan S Harbuck, F Daniel Wood Jr filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
3 MOTION by dft to dismiss filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by dft cs (CTS) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
5 ANSWER by dft filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
6 ORDER the plaintiff shall file a written response to the motion to dismiss no later than 5/5/03; defendant may file a reply no later than 5/22/03 filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) cm (KSS) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
7 MOTION by dft's counsel to withdraw attorneys Jonathan S Harbuck & F Daniel Wood filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
8 MOTION by pla to extend time for planning meeting filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 04/29/2003)

4 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

04/29/2003
04/29/2003 04/29/2003
04/30/2003
05/02/2003
05/05/2003 05/09/2003 05/09/2003 05/23/2003 05/23/2003 06/06/2003 06/12/2003
06/12/2003
06/12/2003 06/12/2003 06/12/2003
06/12/2003

9 8 - ORDER granting motion to extend time for planning meeting [8-1] to June 6, 2003 ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr entered cm (CTS) (Entered: 04/29/2003)
10 BRIEF by dft in support of its motion to dismiss filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
11 7 - ORDER granting motion to withdraw attorneys Jonathan S Harbuck & F Daniel Wood [7-1] ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) entered cm (CTS) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
DOCKET modification (utility event) withdrawing attorney attorneys F Daniel Wood & Jonathan S Harbuck for RPH Management, Inc. (CTS) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
12 ORDER that pla's time to respond to doc #3 is extended to 5/23/03 & dft may file a reply by 6/12/03 filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) cm (CTS) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
13 MOTION by movant Samantha Robichaud to intervene filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
14 RESPONSE by dft RPH Management, Inc. to motion to intervene [13-1] filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
15 ORDER re doc #13, any party wishing to object shall do so by 5/23/03 filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) cm (CTS) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
16 RESPONSE by pla in opposition to motion to dismiss [3-1] filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
17 OPPOSITION brief by pla to motion to dismiss [3-1] filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
18 Report of Parties (form 35) of compliance with FRCP 26 filed (CTS) (Entered: 06/09/2003)
19 ORDER directing parties to notify Clerk by 6/30/03 if they wish to have mag-jdg exercise jurisdiction in this case filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr cm w/ form (CTS) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
20 ORDER (Scheduling) seting discovery cutoff date of 3/31/04 along w/ other time limits & conditions as set out by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr entered cm (CTS) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
21 ORDER granting Samantha Robichaud's motion to intervene [13-1] filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) cm (CTS) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
22 INTERVENOR complaint filed pursuant to doc #21 (CTS) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
23 MOTION by defendant RPH Management, Inc. to strike in camera evidence , or for order to require disclosure to dft of in camera submission filed cs (MAA) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
24 MOTION by defendant RPH Management, Inc. to extend time to file brief in suppport of motion to dismiss filed cs (MAA) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

5 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

06/18/2003 06/18/2003 06/23/2003 07/02/2003 07/02/2003 07/02/2003 07/07/2003 07/10/2003 07/15/2003 07/17/2003 07/18/2003
07/21/2003 07/21/2003 07/23/2003
08/22/2003 08/27/2003

25 Notice of intervenor Samantha Robichaud of filing of attorney time records w/sealed envelope of time records attached filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
26 MOTION by intervenor Samantha Robichaud to change venue to Western Div filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
27 24 - ORDER granting motion to extend time to file brief in suppport of motion to dismiss [24-1] ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) entered cm (MAA) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
28 ORDER re doc #26, any opposition shall be filed by 7/15/03 filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr cm (CTS) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
29 ORDER re doc #23, pla shall file a written response by 7/15/03 filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr cm (CTS) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
30 BRIEF by dft in support of doc #23 DEEMED filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
31 MOTION by pla for order to suspend discovery filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
32 ORDER re doc #31, dft has until 7/21/03 to file a written response filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) cm (CTS) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
33 RESPONSE by pla to motion to change venue to Western Div [26-1] filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
35 31 - ORDER granting motion for order to suspend discovery [31-1] ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) entered cm (CTS) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
34 ORDER terminating motion to strike in camera evidence [23-1], granting motion for order to require disclosure to dft of in camera submission [23-2]; pla shall disclose to dft is in camera submissions w/in 7 days fm this date filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) cm (CTS) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
36 MOTION by dft RPH Management, Inc. for reconsideration of this Court's Order granting pla's motion to suspend discovery filed cs (CTS) Modified on 07/21/2003 (Entered: 07/21/2003)
37 OPPOSITION by dft RPH Management, Inc. to pla's motion for order to suspend discovery [31-1] filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
38 ORDER as set out granting motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order as to conciliation discovery [36-1], & that part of suspension order is hereby SET ASIDE filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) cm (CTS) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
39 MOTION by dft RPH Management, Inc. to compel discovery from EEOC filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
40 ORDER re doc #39, pla shall file a written response by 9/16/03 filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) cm (CTS) (Entered: 08/27/2003)

6 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

09/08/2003 09/16/2003 09/16/2003 09/26/2003 11/19/2003 01/29/2004 02/03/2004 02/06/2004 02/11/2004
02/12/2004 02/13/2004 02/27/2004 03/11/2004 04/28/2004 04/28/2004

41 Notice of intervenor Samantha Robichaud of filing of attorney time records w/ envelope of time records attached filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 09/08/2003)
42 RESPONSE by pla to dft's motion to compel discovery from EEOC [39-1] filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
43 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND/OR OBJ to dft's 1st set of interrogatores by pla filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
44 RESPONSE by dft RPH Management, Inc. in support of its motion to compel discovery from EEOC [39-1] filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
45 Notice of intervenor Samantha Robichaud of filing of attorney time records w/sealed envelope of time records attached filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
46 MOTION by dft for order for court to issue a scheduling order w/ ddl to complete conciliation discovery filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
47 26 - ORDER granting motion to change venue to Western Div [26-1] transferring case to Western division ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) entered cm (CTS) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
48 ORDER Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss set for 2:00PM 2/11/04 filed (by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr) cm (DRR) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
COURTROOM NOTES ( before Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ): Motion hearing held; C. Powell and H. Lindsay present for deft; P. DeLeonardo and M. Barrett present for pltf; arguments; exhibits 1 thru 8 admitted & offered by the deft; exhibits 1 thru 11 offered and admitted by pltf with objections to exhibit 5, 6 & 8 with ruling on these exhibits reserved; hrg adj. CrtRptr Pat Gass (SLF) (Entered: 02/12/2004)
49 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF by defendant in support of its motion to dismiss the EEOC's complaint with prejudice filed cs (DRR) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
50 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing as to EEOC & RPH Management, Inc. on 2/11/04 before Honorable Robert R Armstrong Jr, CrtRptr Patricia L Gass filed (CTS) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
51 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF in opposition to motion to dismiss by pla filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
52 MOTION by dft RPH Management, Inc. to strike certain items in EEOC's post-argument evidentiary submission and response to EEOC's Supp'l Brief filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
53 Report and Recommendation filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) re: dft's motion to dismiss [3-1] (CTS) Modified on 05/04/2004 (Entered: 04/28/2004)
54 52 - ORDER re motion to strike certain items in EEOC's post-argument evidentiary submission [52-1] - as to #1 - DENIED; as to #2 - Objection sustained, except to the extent that it is noted that the EEOC has attempted to engage in negotiations after the filing of this lawsuit, for whatever worth that might be ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) entered cm (CTS) (Entered: 05/04/2004)

7 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

05/12/2004 06/01/2004 08/11/2004
08/17/2004 08/17/2004
08/17/2004
08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/27/2004 09/30/2004 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 10/04/2004 10/19/2004
11/01/2004 11/15/2004
11/23/2004 12/01/2004

55 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff to [53-1] filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
56 RESPONSE by dft RPH Management, Inc. to pla's objection [55-1] filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
57 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation [53-1], and the case dismissed with prejudice based on its failure to conciliate in good faith, as more fully set out in the order filed ( by Judge C L. Smith Jr ) cm (MNH) (Entered: 08/11/2004)
DOCKET modification (utility event) terminating motion to dismiss [3-1] (ruled on by doc. #57) (CTS) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
58 46 - ORDER finding the motion for order for court to issue a scheduling order w/ ddl to complete conciliation discovery [46-1] moot ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) entered cm (CTS) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
59 39 - ORDER finding the motion to compel discovery from EEOC [39-1] moot ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) entered cm (CTS) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
60 MOTION by dft RPH Management, Inc. for order for fees & expenses filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
61 BILL of costs submitted by dft RPH Management, Inc. filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
62 ORDER re doc #60, plas shall file a response w/in 30 days filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr ) cm (CTS) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
63 Notice of dft of filing of attorney time records in response to order # w/sealed envelope of time records attached filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
64 NOTICE of appearance for intervenor Samantha Robichaud by Deborah A Mattison filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
65 NOTICE of appearance for intervenor Samantha Robichaud by Susan Donahue filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
66 OPPOSITION by pla to motion for order for fees & expenses [60-1] filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
67 ORDER that dft has 10 days to file a written reply to EEOC'S opposition to dft's motion for atty's fees and costs filed ( by Magistrate-Judge Robert R. Armstrong Jr cm (CTS) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
68 BRIEF by dft RPH Management, Inc. in support of its motion for fees & costs filed cs (CTS) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
69 MOTION for Hearing re [61]dft's Motion for Bill of Costs, 60 & Motion for fees & expenses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (CTS, ) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
70 JOINT MOTION to conduct scheduling conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, RPH Management, Inc.. (CTS, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
71 ORDER entered re 70 Motion for Hearing, ordering parties to conduct a 2nd planning meeting & submit a revised scheduling order by 12/30/04 . Signed by

8 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

12/29/2004 01/04/2005 01/04/2005 01/11/2005
02/04/2005 02/07/2005 03/14/2005 03/15/2005 05/02/2005 05/03/2005
05/03/2005 05/04/2005 06/21/2005 06/23/2005

Judge Robert R Armstrong on 12/1/04. (CTS, ) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
72 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (CTS, ) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
73 SCHEDULING ORDER:Setting Discovery ddl of 8/31/2005 along w/ other time limits & conditions as set out.. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 1/4/05. (w/ Exhibit A attached)(CTS, ) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
74 ORDER directing parties to notify Clerk if they wish for this Mag-Judge to exercise jurisdiction in this case as set out. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong (w/ Consent Form attached)(CTS, ) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
75 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation as set out; while this action is referred to the ADR program, all proceedings are STAYED for a period of sixty days.. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 1/11/05. (CTS, ) (Entered: 01/11/2005)
76 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by RPH Management, Inc.. (Lindsay, Heather) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
ORDER granting 76 Motion to Stay, the parties shall inform the court as soon as practical as to the results of mediation. . Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 2/07/2005. (JSR, ) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
77 Second MOTION to Stay Proceedings by RPH Management, Inc.. (Lindsay, Heather) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
ORDER granting 77 Motion to Stay. The parties shall inform the court as soon as practical after April 18, 2005, of the results of mediation. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 03/15/2005. (JSR, ) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
78 Joint MOTION to Dismiss by RPH Management, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order to Dismiss with Prejudice)(Powell, Charles) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
79 ORDER granting 78 stipulation of dismissal of Intervenor Robichaud & dft RHP Management; Robichaud's intervenor complaint is DISMISSED W/ PREJUDICE w/ these parties bearing their own costs. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 5/3/05. (CTS, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
80 MOTION to Amend/Correct Clerical Error by RPH Management, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order to Correct Clerical Error)(Powell, Charles) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
81 ORDER as set out re 80 Motion to Amend/Correct - amending 5/3/05 Order to correct the name of the dft as RPH Management, Inc.. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 5/4/05. (CTS, ) (Entered: 05/04/2005)
82 MOTION for Extension of Time FOR APPEAL by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Barrett, Mason) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
Oral argument on EEOC's motion to extend time to appeal is set for 6/28/2005 02:00 PM before Magistrate-Judge Robert R Armstrong.. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 06/23/2005. (JSR, ) (Entered: 06/23/2005)

9 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

06/27/2005 06/27/2005 06/27/2005 06/28/2005 07/22/2005
08/02/2005
09/02/2005 09/02/2005
09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 10/07/2005 10/28/2005

83 RESPONSE to Motion re 82 MOTION for Extension of Time FOR APPEAL filed by RPH Management, Inc.. (Lindsay, Heather) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
Oral argument set for 6/28/05 at 2:00 p.m. is canceled. A ruling will be entered on the parties' submissions. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 06/27/2005. (JSR, ) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
84 REPLY to Response to Motion re 82 MOTION for Extension of Time FOR APPEAL filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Guerrier, Charles) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
85 ORDER as set out granting 82 EEOC's Motion for Extension of Time . Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 6/28/05. (CTS, ) (Entered: 06/28/2005)
86 ORDER re 60 Motion for fees & expenses as set out, querying EEOC & RPH as to whether they would consent to the jurisdiction of this magistrate judge to exercise full jurisdiction over this motion - if so the attached form should be signed & filed w/ the Clerk no later than 8/3/05 . Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 7/22/05. (CTS, ) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
87 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission & RPH Management, Inc.. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Robert R Armstrong. (CTS, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/3/2005 (CTS, ). (Entered: 08/02/2005)
88 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 60 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by RPH Management, Inc., Objections to R&R due by 9/19/2005. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 9/1/05. (CTS, ) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
ORDER -- On September 1, 2005, the Court in this matter inadvertently filed a Report and Recommendation instead of a Memorandum of Opinion and Order. Said Report and Recommendation is hereby set aside. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 09/02/05. (JTR) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
89 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 09/02/05. (JTR) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
90 ORDER denying 60 Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 09/02/05. (JTR) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
91 NOTICE OF APPEAL by RPH Management, Inc.. (Lindsay, Heather) Modified on 10/4/2005 (CTS, ). (Entered: 09/30/2005)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 91 Notice of Appeal (CTS, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 255.00 receipt number 200-219352 re 91 Notice of Appeal filed by RPH Management, Inc., (CTS, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
USCA Case Number 05-15457G for 91 Notice of Appeal filed by RPH Management, Inc.,. (CTS, ) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
92 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Guerrier, Charles) Modified on 10/28/2005 (CTS, ). (Entered: 10/28/2005)

10 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

10/28/2005 11/03/2005 11/23/2005
11/30/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005
12/01/2005
12/02/2005
12/23/2005

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 92 Notice of Appeal (CTS, ) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
USCA Case Number 05-15457GG for 92 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,. (CTS, ) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
93 DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal by RPH Management, Inc. re 91 Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2 - Part a# 4 Exhibit 2 - Part b# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4 - Part a# 7 Exhibit 4 - Part b# 8 Exhibit 5 -Part a# 9 Exhibit 5 - Part b# 10 Exhibit 5 - Part c# 11 Exhibit 5 - Part d# 12 Exhibit 5 - Part e# 13 Exhibit 6 - Part a# 14 Exhibit 6 - Part b# 15 Exhibit 6 - Part c# 16 Exhibit 6 - Part d# 17 Exhibit 7# 18 Exhibit 8)(Lindsay, Heather) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
94 ORDER Denying Motion to Supplement Record. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 11/30/05. (JTR) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 94 Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Supplement the Record by RPH Management, Inc.. (Barkley, Justin) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
96 MOTION to Amend/Correct 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 94 Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Supplement the Record by RPH Management, Inc.. (Barkley, Justin) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
ORDER granting by consent of the parties 95 Motion for Reconsideration, finding as moot 96 Motion to Amend/Correct. Within 24 hours the Defendant is DIRECTED to submit to the clerk of the court a computer diskette with individual PDF files containing the separate record documents she wishes to be added. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 12/01/05. (JTR) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
ORDER -- After reconsideration, the previous order entered in this case is hereby VACATED. The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED by consent. The motion to correct clerical error is deemed MOOT. The Defendant is hereby DIRECTED to electronically file the documents with which it wishes to supplement the record. This should be done by filing a pleading entitled "Supplement to Record Pursuant to Court Order", and attaching the documents thereto. Additionally, Defendant is required to provide a hard copy of this pleading and its attachments to the clerk of court. Signed by Judge Robert R Armstrong on 12/01/05. (JTR) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
97 NOTICE by RPH Management, Inc. of Filing Supplement to Record Pursuant to Court Order with Attached Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2 Part a# 3 Exhibit 2 Part b# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4 Part a# 6 Exhibit 4 Part b# 7 Exhibit 5 Part a# 8 Exhibit 5 Part b# 9 Exhibit 5 Part c# 10 Exhibit 5 Part d# 11 Exhibit 5 Part e# 12 Exhibit 6 Part a# 13 Exhibit 6 Part b# 14 Exhibit 6 Part c# 15 Exhibit 6 Part d# 16 Exhibit 7# 17 Exhibit 8 - Re Notice of Appeal Filed 9-30-05)(Lindsay, Heather) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
98 ORDER of USCA filed 12/21/05 & issued as the mandate of this court re 91 Notice of Appeal filed by RPH Management Inc. - "The parties' joint motion to dismiss the cross-appeal w/ prejudice, w/ the parties bearing their own costs, is GRANTED. This Order shall not affect the appeal filed by Appellant".

11 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?474669645184483-L_9...

07/18/2006 07/19/2006

(Anderson & Birch, Cr.Jdgs) (CTS, ) Modified on 1/25/2006 (CTS, ). (Entered: 12/29/2005)
99 USCA JUDGMENT w/ attached opinon filed on 5/22/06 & issued as a mandate of this court on 7/17/06 as to 92 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - PER CURIAM: After review & oral argument, we find no reversible error in the magistrate judge's order dated 9/2/05. (Hull & Wilson, Crt.Jdgs & Duplantier, Dist.Judge) (CTS, ) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
Remark: Original record w/ exhibits returned by USCA. (CTS, ) (Entered: 07/19/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/28/2007 15:36:11

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

nniles 7:03-cv-00502-RRA 0.56

12 of 12

3/28/2007 3:34 PM