u.OJllGINAL

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY CARMEN FLORES SR., TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 220-6920

Z005 AUG I 9 AM 8: 11

F:£C'O___.-> :LEO:-:=_

CAI-1Ei<CH S. BURKE.

CLERK

IDAHO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE BURRITO SHOPPE LLC, dba

)

SQUEEZERS GIANT BURGERS

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

-------------------------)

CIVIL ACTION NO. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND
elva 5- 329 - S- LMB

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate reliefto Audrey Powers ("Ms. Powers"). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that defendant subjected Ms. Powers and a class of similarly situated

COMPLAINT - Page 1

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 Rrsl Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104·1061 Telephone: (206) 220-M63
FacsilTiIe: (206) 220-6911 TOO: (206) 220..s882

females to discrimination when it subjected them to harassment on the basis of their sex. The sexual harassment resulted in Ms. Power's constructive discharge. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief on behalfof Ms. Powers and a class of similarly situated females.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§45l, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. sections 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the District ofIdaho.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1). 4. At all relevant times, defendant The Burrito Shoppe LLC, dba Squeezers Giant Burgers ("Squeezers") has been a corporation continuously doing business in the State of Idaho and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

COMPLAINT - Page 2

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle District OffIce 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104·1061 Telephone: (206) 22~3
Facsimile: (206) 220-8911 TOO: (206) 22()"6882

5. At all relevant times, defendant Squeezers has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Ms. Powers filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by defendant Squeezers. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Beginning on or about August 2003, defendant Squeezers engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Nampa, Idaho facility in violation of §§ 703(a) of Title VII, 42 u.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a). The practices include sexual harassment and constructive discharge. 8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Ms. Powers and a class of similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities. 9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional. 10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to Ms. Powers' and the class of similarly situated females' federally protected rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

COMPLAINT - Page 3

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, &.lite 400 Seatue, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TOO: (206) 220-6882

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, agents, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate.
B. Order defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Powers and the class of similarly situated females by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
D. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Powers and the class of similarly situated females by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-ofpocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Powers and a the class of similarly situated females by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.

COMPLAINT - Page 4

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 Rrsl Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 22Q..6883 Facsirrile: (206) 22().8911 TOO: (206) 220-6882

F. Order defendant to pay Ms. Powers and the class of similarly situated females

punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in

amounts to be determined at trial.

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest.

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

DATED this 11th day of August, 2005.

Respectfully submitted,

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. Regional Attorney

C. GREGORY STEWART
General Counsel

KATHRYN OLSON Supervisory Trial Attorney

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

CARMEN FLORES

T OPPORTUNITY Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 220-6920
COMPLAINT - Page 5

Office ofthe General Counsel 1801 "L" StreetNW Washington, D.C. 20507
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SaaWe District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104·1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TOO: (206) 22O-6B82

 
 Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 29 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 1 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 3-2 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 1 of 6

LAWRENCE G. WASDEN ATTORNEY GENERAL
TERRY E. COFFIN Chief, Contracts and Administrative Law Division
JO-ANN L. BOWEN, ISB No. 5297 jbowen@ihrc.state.id.us
Deputy Attorney General Idaho Human Rights Commission P.O. Box 83720 Boise, Idaho 83720-0040 Phone: (208) 334-2873 FAX: (209) 334-2664 Attorney for Plaintiff by Intervention Idaho Human Rights Commission

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff, v.
THE BURRITO SHOPPE LLC dba SQUEEZERS GIANT BURGERS
Defendant.

)

)

Case No. 1:05-cv-00329-LMB

)

)

)

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF

)

BY INTERVENTION AND

)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff by intervention, the State of Idaho, by the Idaho Human Rights Commission, and on behalf of Audrey Powers, complains as follows:
JURISDICTION AND PARTIES

Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 29 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 2 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 3-2 Filed 0812412005 Page 2 of 6
I. This is a civil action in which the Idaho Human Rights Commission, an agency of the State of Idaho, claims a violation of the Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA), Idaho Code §§ 675901-5910.
2. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 3. Venue is proper in the District ofidaho under 28 U.S.c. § 1391(b) because the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the District of Idaho. 4. Plaintiff by Intervention, Idaho Human Rights Commission ("Commission"), is a duly created and acting governmental agency of the State ofidaho, created by Idaho Code § 67-5903, with an office in the City of Boise, County of Ada, having certain powers and duties as specified in Idaho Code §§ 67-5902 to 67-5912, and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. 5. Audrey Powers is an individual with a residence in Nampa, Idaho. 6. Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC, is an Idaho company doing business as Squeezers Giant Burgers in the City of Nampa, County of Canyon, State ofidaho. 7. Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers, has employed at least five (5) employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year whose services are partially or wholly performed in the State ofidaho. S. On or about August 25, 2004, Audrey Powers filed an administrative complaint with the Commission, alleging that Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers, had discriminated against her based on her sex. That matter became known as Idaho Human Rights Commission Complaint No. E-OS04-0SS. Audrey Powers also requested that her charge of discrimination be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
COMPLAINT - page 2

Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 29 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 3 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 3-2 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 3 of 6
("EEOC") which was accomplished and which became known as EEOC Charge No. 38CA500084.
9. On or about February 18,2005, the Commission issued a determination of probable cause to believe that illegal discrimination based on sex and constructive discharge had been established in Audrey Powers's case.
10. The Commission has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit as required by Idaho Code § 67-5907.
FACTS II. Audrey Powers worked at Squeezers Giant Burgers as a cook, cashier and food server from August 2003 until late July 2004. Audrey Powers was 17 years of age from the beginning of her employment with Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers, until July 15,2004. 12. While working for Defendant, Audrey Powers was subjected to a work environment permeated with unwelcome sexual conduct. That sexual conduct included but was not limited to the following. Audrey Powers was called names of a sexual nature (e.g. "prude" and a "great titty fuck"). She heard talk of a sexual nature. She was touched on her breasts and buttocks. She was pressured to expose herself to others in the workplace. She saw other employees expose themselves as part of games in the workplace. She saw James Dorsey, who washer supervisor and who is a principal of Defendant, expose his penis, in the workplace. 13. Audrey Powers was subjected to unwelcome, offensive and intimidating sexual conduct at Defendant's place of business while she was employed by Defendant. That unwelcome, offensive and intimidating sexual conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive work environment.
COMPLAINT - page 3

Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 29 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 4 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 3-2 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 4 of 6
14. Audrey Powers quit her job at Squeezers Giant Burgers in late July 2004. The unwelcome, offensive and intimidating sexual conduct had rendered her work environment intolerable, and she felt forced to quit.
COUNT ONE SEX DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AUDREY POWERS IN VIOLATION OF
THE IDAHO HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 15. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 14, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. 16. At the time of the sexual harassment, Audrey Powers was an employee of Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers, entitled to the protections of the Idaho Human Rights Act, Idaho Code § 67-5901 et seq. 17. Defendant, The Burrito S hoppe L LC d ba Squeezers Giant B urgers, discriminated against Audrey Powers in the terms and conditions of her employment based on sex and violated the Idaho Human Rights Act in that she was sexually harassed and the sexual harassment created an intolerable and discriminatory work environment from which she was forced to resign. 18. As a result of the discrimination, Audrey Powers suffered lost wages and benefits, emotional distress, humiliation, stress, anxiety and other damages to be proven at trial. Furthermore, Plaintiff has incurred additional costs and expenses due to the discrimination including, but not limited to, t he a ttomey fees and costs required to b ring and prosecute this action. 19. The discriminatory acts were intentional and were committed with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of Audrey Powers.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff by Intervention, the Idaho Human Rights Commission on behalf of Audrey Powers, prays for damages and equitable relief as follows: COMPLAINT - page 4

Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 29 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 5 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 3-2 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 5 of 6
A. An order of this Court directing The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers to develop and utilize a written policy prohibiting discrimination in employment consistent with the Idaho Human Rights Act, Idaho Code § 67-5901 et seq.;
B. An order of this Court directing The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers to participate, with all of its employees, officers and directors, in training on the prevention and correction of discrimination in employment;
C. An order of this Court making Audrey Powers whole by awarding her all damages that she has suffered (such amount including punitive damages satisfies the jurisdictional amount of this Court), as shall be proven at trial;
D. An order of this Court awarding punitive damages because of the willful nature of the discriminatory conduct, as allowed by Idaho Code § 67-5908(3).
E. An award of all costs and attorney fees reasonably incurred in the prosecution of this action and in all related preliminary and administrative proceedings; and
F. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. DATED this _th day of _ _ _, 2005.
IDAHO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION on behalf ofAUDREY POWERS
JO-ANN L. BOWEN Deputy Attorney General
COMPLAINT - page 5

Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 29 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 6 of 6 Case 1:05-cv-00329-LMB Document 3-2 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 24th day of August, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing unsigned COMPLAINT, as an attachment to a MOTION TO INTERVENE, with the Clerk of the Court using the CMlECF system which sent a Notice of Electronic Filing to: Kathryn Olson (kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov) I hereby certify also that I mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing unsigned COMPLAINT, as an attachment to a MOTION TO INTERVENE, by first class mail, postage prepaid, to: The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers clo James Dorsey, Registered Agent 7823 E. Springfield Dr. Nampa, ID 83687 The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers clo James Dorsey, Registered Agent 16462 Franklin Rd. Nampa, ID 83687
lsi Jo-Ann L. Bowen JO-ANN L. BOWEN
COMPLAINT - page 6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

IDAHO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, )

)

Intervenor Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE BURRITO SHOPPE LLC, d/b/a

)

SQUEEZERS GIANT BURGERS,

)

)

Defendant and Intervenor Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

Case No. CV 05-329-S-LMB ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary

Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Docket No. 37) and Defendant’s

Motion for Enlargement of Time (Docket No. 38).1 In the interest of avoiding delay and

because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be

significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will address and resolve these motions

without a hearing. Therefore, having carefully reviewed the record and otherwise being

fully advised, the Court enters the following order.

1 Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaints and Join Second Defendant (Docket No. 43), which will be addressed at a later date.
ORDER -1-

I. BACKGROUND This is an action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Idaho Human Rights Commission (“IHRC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against The Burrito Shoppe LLC, dba Squeezers Giant Burgers (“Defendant”). The EEOC filed its Complaint (Docket No. 1) on August 19, 2005. The EEOC alleges that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against female employees on the basis of sex. Complaint of EEOC, pp. 1–2 (Docket No. 1). According to the EEOC, Audrey Powers, a female employee of Defendant, was sexually harassed at work in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a). Id. at ¶ 7. The EEOC alleges that this harassment “deprive[d] Ms. Powers and a class of similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities.” Id. at ¶ 8. On February 1, 2006, the Court granted the IHRC’s Motion to Intervene as a plaintiff in this action. Order Granting Motion to Intervene, p. 1 (Docket No. 28). The IHRC alleges that Defendant violated the Idaho Human Rights Act, Idaho Code § 67-5901 et seq., by maintaining a workplace “permeated with unwelcome sexual conduct.” Complaint of IHRC, ¶ 12 (Docket No. 29). Specific allegations against Defendant include the following: that Ms. Powers was touched on her breasts and buttocks, that she was subjected to sexually charged conversations and called sexually suggestive names, and that James Dorsey (“Dorsey”), the sole member of the defendant limited liability company, exposed his penis in the workplace. Id. On March 6, 2006, Dorsey filed articles of dissolution with the Idaho Secretary of State, dissolving his limited liability company, The Burrito Shoppe, LLC. Ex. A to Affidavit of David Hammons, p. 5 (Docket No. 40). That same day, Dorsey cancelled the assumed business name “Squeezers Giant Burgers.” Ex. B to Affidavit of David Hammons, p. 7 (Docket No. 40). Also
ORDER -2-

on March 6, 2006, Dorsey filed articles of incorporation for Allied Food Services, Inc., Ex. D to Affidavit of David Hammons, p. 11 (Docket No. 40), and filed a certificate of an assumed business name for the new corporation, continuing to use the word “Squeezers.” Ex. E to Affidavit of David Hammons, p. 13 (Docket No. 40). Allied Food Services, Inc., dba Squeezers, continues to operate in the same location as did The Burrito Shoppe, LLC, dba Squeezers Giant Burgers. Exs. B, D, E, and F to Affidavit of David Hammons (Docket No. 40).
II. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “all well-pleaded allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). However, a court does not necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations in a plaintiff’s complaint. Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) cannot be granted 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.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957). Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Defendant moves to dismiss this action, asserting that Idaho law does not allow a plaintiff to maintain against a dissolved limited liability company an action pending at the time of dissolution. Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment, pp. 8–14 (Docket No. 39). Defendant argues that there is no Idaho statute “allow[ing]
ORDER -3-

a legal action to survive” against a dissolved limited liability company and that, therefore, Defendant cannot be sued. Id. at p. 13.
The cases cited by Defendant, all involving corporations, stand for the proposition that, in order for an action against a corporation to survive after the corporation has dissolved, a state statute must provide for such survival. See Gossman v. Greatland Directional Drilling, Inc., 973 P.2d 93, 95 (Alaska 1999); Pac. Scene, Inc. v. Penasquitos, Inc., 46 Cal. 3d 407, 410 (Cal. 1988); Bishop v. Schield Bantam Co., 293 F. Supp. 94, 95–96 (N.D. Iowa 1968); Chadwick v. Air Reduction Co., 239 F. Supp. 247, 250–51 (N.D. Ohio 1965). The Court agrees that this is the general rule applied to corporations. See Okla. Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 273 U.S. 257, 260 (1927) (“It is well settled that at common law . . . a corporation which has been dissolved is as if it did not exist . . . .”); Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 282 F.2d 439, 443 (9th Cir. 1960) (“[W]e start with the basic premise that in the absence of statute an action by or against a corporation abates when the corporation goes out of existence.”).
The Court concludes that this same rule should apply to limited liability companies. Limited liability companies, like corporations, are creatures of state law, owing their existence entirely to the framework provided by the state legislature. Consequently, whether a limited liability company survives, post-dissolution, for the purpose of retaining liability for illegal, predissolution actions is a question of state statutory law. If the Idaho Code provides for the enforcement of pre-dissolution claims against a dissolved limited liability company, then Defendant remains an entity against which legal action on such claims may be maintained.
The Idaho Limited Liability Company Act was enacted as Chapter 6 of Title 53 of the Idaho Code. Once a limited liability company is dissolved, “its affairs shall be wound up.” Idaho Code § 53-642 (emphasis added). As is evident from this language, the process of
ORDER -4-

winding up a dissolved limited liability company is mandatory. The dissolved limited liability
company continues to exist for the purpose of winding up, and section 53-644 specifically sets
forth the different actions that the company has the power to undertake, even after dissolution:
The persons winding up the business or affairs of the limited liability company may, in the name of, and for and on behalf of, the limited liability company:
(a) Prosecute and defend suits; (b) Settle and close the business of the limited liability company; (c) Dispose of and transfer the property of the limited liability
company; (d) Discharge the liabilities of the limited liability company; and (e) Distribute to the members any remaining assets of the limited
liability company.
Idaho Code § 53-644(2) (emphasis added). Therefore, the limited liability company continues to
exist, after dissolution, for the purpose of prosecuting or defending legal actions. While this
language grants the company the power to defend a lawsuit, it does not indicate whether the
company necessarily remains potentially liable for its pre-dissolution actions.2 The answer to
that question must be found in other statutes.
Two sections relating to claims against a dissolved limited liability company apply to the
Court’s analysis. First, section 53-648 deals with claims that are known to a dissolved limited
liability company. This section provides a procedure by which the dissolved limited liability
company may dispose of such claims. If the company notifies known claimants of the
2 Pointing to the word “may” in section 53-644, Defendant contends that, although a dissolved limited liability company can choose to defend a pending action, it is not required to continue as a defendant. Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, p. 3 (Docket No. 48). It is true that one connotation of the word “may” is that the actors have discretion to do the action. However, the word “may” in section 53-644 cannot mean this, because other actions listed in section 53-644(2) are mandatory.
For example, section 53-644 states that the company “may” discharge its liabilities to creditors. However, section 53-646 states that the company “shall” distribute its assets to creditors to satisfy its debts before making any other distribution. Idaho Code § 53-646(1). The use of the word “shall” indicates that a dissolved limited liability company does not enjoy the discretion to choose not to distribute its assets to satisfy its liabilities. Because the company must satisfy its debts after dissolution, section 53-644 cannot mean that all the listed actions in that statute are discretionary. The statute grants the company the ability to do such actions, but it says nothing about whether such actions are discretionary or mandatory.
ORDER -5-

dissolution and provides a deadline for mailing such claims to the company, and if a claimant does not either deliver a claim or file suit after a claim is rejected, that claim is barred and cannot be asserted against the company. Idaho Code § 53-648(1)-(3). Section 53-648's definition of “claim” does not include “a contingent liability or claim based on an event occurring after the effective date of dissolution.” Idaho Code § 53-648(4).
Section 53-649 allows the enforcement of any claim “not barred under section 53648(3).” A non-barred claim “may be enforced” by the claimant against the dissolved limited liability company “to the extent of any undistributed assets.” Idaho Code § 53-649(1). In addition, if the assets “have been distributed in liquidation,” the claimant may, to a certain extent, enforce the claim against a member of the company. Idaho Code § 53-649(2). Because section 53-649 provides for the enforcement of all non-barred claims against a dissolved limited liability company and because the Plaintiffs may prove that their claims are not barred, this action survives Defendant’s dissolution.
Defendant attempts to cast Plaintiffs’ claims as unenforceable by calling the current lawsuit a “contingent liability” and an “unknown liability which is extinguished upon dissolution,” without citing any legal authority. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 13 (Docket No. 39). However, the Court cannot determine, from the face of the Complaint, whether Plaintiffs’ claims are known, unknown, contingent, or something else; therefore, the Court cannot grant the motion to dismiss on this basis. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine how Defendant could characterize Plaintiffs’ claims for damages as anything but known claims: Defendant was served with notice of the suit and even engaged in defending the case prior to dissolution. The fact that the amounts of Plaintiffs’ claims, if any, have not yet been established does not transform them into unknown claims.
ORDER -6-

Section 53-648 speaks of “known claims,” not “claims of which the amount has already been determined.”
Even if Plaintiffs’ claims could be appropriately classified as unknown, there is little support for Defendant’s contention that unknown or contingent liabilities are extinguished upon dissolution. Section 53-648(3) bars known claims as long as the requirements of section 53648(3) are met. Contingent liabilities and claims based on post-dissolution events are excluded only from section 53-648's definition of “claim,” not the definition of “claim” as found in any other section. Idaho Code § 53-648(4). Therefore, such claims are not subject to being barred under section 53-648(3), but they continue to be “claims” that may be enforced under section 53649. Compare Idaho Code § 53-648(4), with Idaho Code § 53-649.
For purposes of the pending motion, all Plaintiffs need to prove in order to support their claims and preclude dismissal is that those claims are not barred under section 53-648(3). If Plaintiffs can meet that burden, they may maintain this legal action against Defendant or, subject to the limitations set forth in section 53-649, its sole member, Dorsey. Therefore, Plaintiffs have stated claims upon which relief can be granted, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 37) is denied.
III. DEFENDANT’S ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Motions for summary judgment are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which provides, in pertinent part, that judgment “shall be rendered forthwith 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).
ORDER -7-

The initial burden is on the moving party to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must “produce ‘specific facts showing that there remains a genuine factual issue for trial’ and evidence ‘significantly probative’ as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Steckl, 703 F.2d at 393 (quoting Ruffin v. County of L.A., 607 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir. 1979)).
In reviewing the record, Defendant has not met its initial burden to show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As explained above, Defendant remains a proper defendant in this action because the Idaho Code allows a claimant to enforce non-barred claims against the company or its members, even after a defendant limited liability company’s dissolution. In addition, there has not been sufficient discovery or evidence placed in the record for the Court to find or conclude that there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, Defendant’s Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment is denied without prejudice.
IV. MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME On April 3, 2006, the day Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 37), Defendant filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time (Docket No. 38), essentially seeking to stay discovery and “all other matters in the case” until the Court ruled on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 37). Having denied the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 37), Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time (Docket No. 83) is moot and thus denied.
ORDER -8-

V. ORDER In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, F.R.C.P., Rule 12(b)(6) or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment, F.R.C.P. Rule 56 (Docket No. 37) is DENIED. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time (Docket No. 38) is DENIED.
DATED: August 8, 2006. Honorable Larry M. Boyle Chief U. S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER -9-

 
 LAWRENCE G. WASDEN ATTORNEY GENERAL
KAY CHRISTENSEN Chief, Contracts and Administrative Law Division
JO-ANN L. BOWEN, ISB No. 5297 jbowen@ihrc.state.id.us
Deputy Attorney General Idaho Human Rights Commission P.O. Box 83720 Boise, Idaho 83720-0040 Phone: (208) 334-2873 FAX: (209) 334-2664 Attorney for Plaintiff by Intervention Idaho Human Rights Commission

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION and

)

IDAHO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

)

on behalf of AUDREY POWERS

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

THE BURRITO SHOPPE LLC dba

)

SQUEEZERS GIANT BURGERS and

)

ALLIED FOODSERVICE INC. dba SQUEEZERS )

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________)

Case No. 1:05-cv-00329-LMB
AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF BY INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff by intervention, the State of Idaho, by the Idaho Hum an Rights Com mission, and on behalf of Audrey Powers, complains as follows:

JURISDICTION AND PARTIES 1. This is a civil action in which the Id aho Human Rights Commission, an agency of the State of Idaho, claim s a violation of the Idaho Hum an Rights Act (IHRA), Idaho Code §§ 675901-5910. 2. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 3. Venue is proper in the District of Id aho under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the District of Idaho. 4. Plaintiff by Intervention, Idaho Human Rights Commission (“Commission”), is a duly created and acting governmental agency of the State of Idaho, created by Idaho Code § 67-5903, with an office in the City of Boise, County of Ada, having certain powers and duties as specified in Idaho Code §§ 67-5902 to 67-5912, and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. 5. Audrey Powers is an individual with a residence in Nampa, Idaho. 6. Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC, is an Idaho com pany doing business as Squeezers Giant Burgers in the City of Nampa, County of Canyon, State of Idaho. 7. Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers, has em ployed at least five (5) employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or m ore calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year whose servi ces are partially or wholly perform ed in the State of Idaho. 8. On or about August 25, 2004, Audrey Powers filed an adm inistrative complaint with the Commission, alleging that Defendant, Th e Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers, had discriminated against her based on her sex. That m atter became known as Idaho Human Rights Commission Complaint No. E-0804-088. Audrey Powers also requested that her charge of discrim ination be filed with the Equal Em ployment Opportunity Com mission
AMENDED COMPLAINT - page 2

("EEOC") which was accom plished and wh ich became known as EEOC Charge No. 38CA500084.
9. On or about February 18, 2005, the Com mission issued a determ ination of probable cause to believe that illegal discrim ination based on sex and constructive discharge had been established in Audrey Powers's case.
10. The Com mission has fulfilled all conditi ons precedent to the institution of this lawsuit as required by Idaho Code § 67-5907.
11. The second nam ed Defendant is Allie d Foodservice Inc., an Idaho com pany doing business as Squeezers in the City of Nampa, County of Canyon, State of Idaho.
FACTS AS TO THE FIRST DEFENDANT The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers 12. Audrey Powers worked at Squeezers Giant Burgers as a cook, cashier and food server from August 2003 until late July 2004. A udrey Powers was 17 years of age from the beginning of her em ployment with Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers, until July 15, 2004. 13. While working for Defendant, Audrey Po wers was subjected to a work environm ent permeated with unwelcome sexual conduct. That sexual conduct included but was not limited to the following. Audrey Powers was called nam es of a sexual nature (e.g. "prude" and a "great titty fuck"). She heard talk of a sexual nature. She was touched on her breasts and buttocks. She was pressured to expose herself to others in the workplace. She saw other em ployees expose themselves as part of gam es in the workplace. She saw Jam es Dorsey, who was her supervisor and who is a principal of Defendant, expose his penis, in the workplace. 14. Audrey Powers was subjected to unw elcome, offensive and intim idating sexual conduct at Defendant' s place of business wh ile she was em ployed by Defendant. That AMENDED COMPLAINT - page 3

unwelcome, offensive and intim idating sexual conduc t was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive work environment.
15. Audrey Powers quit her job at Squeezers Giant Burgers in late July 2004. The unwelcome, offensive and intim idating sexual conduct had rendered her work environm ent intolerable, and she felt forced to quit.
FACTS AS TO THE SECOND DEFENDANT Allied Foodservice Inc. dba Squeezers
16. In March 2006, Jam es Dorsey, the sole member of Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC, dissolved the limited liability company, and acting as the incorporator, form ed the second Defendant, Allied Foodservice Inc. Mr. Dorsey ch anged the corporate form of the restaurant business from a limited liability company to an S corporation on the advice of an accountant.
17. In March 2006, Mr. Dorsey acting on behalf of Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC, cancelled its Certificate of Assum ed Business Name for Squeezers Giant Burgers. Mr. Dorsey acting on behalf of Defendant, Allied Foodservice Inc., filed a Certificat e of Assumed Business Name for Squeezers.
18. Defendant, Allied Foodservice Inc. dba Squeezers, is the continuation of the business previously operated by Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers, at the same locations, with the substantially the same employees, equipment and supervisors, performing substantially the same jobs, in same line of work, fast food restaurant.
AMENDED COMPLAINT - page 4

COUNT ONE SEX DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AUDREY POWERS IN VIOLATION OF
THE IDAHO HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 19. Plaintiff realleges each and every alle gation contained in paragraphs 1 through 15, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. 20. At the time of the sexual harassment, Audrey Powers was an employee of Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burger s, entitled to the protections of the Idaho Human Rights Act, Idaho Code § 67-5901 et seq. 21. Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers, discrim inated against Audrey Powers in the terms and conditions of her employment based on sex and violated the Idaho Human Rights Act in that she was sexually harassed and the sexual harassment created an intolerable and discriminatory work environment from which she was forced to resign. 22. As a result of the discrim ination, Audrey Powers suffered lost wages and benefits, emotional distress, hum iliation, stress, anxiety a nd other dam ages to be proven at trial. Furthermore, Plaintiff has incurred additional costs and expenses due to the discrim ination including, but not lim ited to, the attorney fees and costs required to bring and prosecute this action. 23. The discriminatory acts were intentional and were committed with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of Audrey Powers.
COUNT TWO SEX DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AUDREY POWERS IN VIOLATION OF
THE IDAHO HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
24. Plaintiff realleges each and every alle gation contained in paragraphs 1 through 23, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
AMENDED COMPLAINT - page 5

25. Defendant, Allied Foodservice Inc. dba Squeezers, is the successor em ployer and as such, is liable for the sex discrimination suffered by Audrey Powers.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff by Intervention, the Idaho Human Rights Com mission on behalf of Audrey Powers, prays for damages and equitable relief as follows:
A. An order of this Court directing The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers and/or Allied Foodservice Inc. dba Squeezers to develop and utilize a written policy prohibiting discrimination in em ployment consistent with the Idaho Hum an Rights Act, Idaho Code § 67-5901 et seq.;
B. An order of this Court directi ng The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant Burgers and/or Allied Foodservice Inc. dba Squeezer s to participate, with all of its em ployees, officers and directors, in training on the pr evention and correction of discrim ination in employment;
C. An order of this Court m aking Audrey Powers whole by awarding her all dam ages that she has suffered (such amount including punitive damages satisfies the jurisdictional amount of this Court), as shall be proven at trial;
D. An order of this Court awarding punitive damages because of the willful nature of the discriminatory conduct, as allowed by Idaho Code § 67-5908(3).
E. An award of all costs a nd attorney fees reasonably incurred in the prosecution of this action and in all related preliminary and administrative proceedings; and
AMENDED COMPLAINT - page 6

F. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. DATED this 11th day of September, 2006.

IDAHO on
JO-ANN Deputy

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION behalf of AUDREY POWERS
/s/ Jo-Ann L. Bowen L. BOWEN
Attorney General

AMENDED COMPLAINT - page 7

 
 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY 1 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 2 SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT OFFICE
350 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 500 3 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-1260

4 KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY CARMEN FLORES, SENIOR.TRIAL ATTORNEY
5 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 6 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98104 7 TEL: (206) 220-6920

8 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
9

10

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

12

13
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

14 COMMISSION,

CIVIL ACTION NO. CV05-329-S-LMB

and

15 IDAHO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

on behalf of 16 AUDREY POWERS,

AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

17

Plaintiffs

18

v.

19

20 THE BURRITO SHOPPE LLC, dba SQUEEZERS GIANT BURGERS and
21 ALLIED FOODSERVICE INC. dba SQUEEZERS,
22
Defendants.
23

24
NATURE OF THE ACTION
25

AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 1 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil
1
2 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide 3 appropriate relief to Audrey Powers (“Ms. Powers”). The Equal Employment Opportunity

4 Commission and the Idaho Human Rights Commission allege that defendants subjected Ms.
5 Powers and a class of similarly situated females to discrimination when they subjected them to
6
harassment on the basis of their sex. The sexual harassment resulted in Ms. Powers’ constructive
7
discharge. Plaintiffs seek monetary relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary compensatory
8
and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, on behalf of Ms. Powers and a class of similarly
9
10 situated females.

11

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337,

13 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of

14
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3)
15
("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
16

17

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

18 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.

19

PARTIES

20

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is

21
the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and
22
enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) of
23
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1).
24

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 2 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

4. Defendant the Burrito Shoppe LLC, dba Squeezers Giant Burgers (“Squeezers
1
2 Giant Burgers”) has been a corporation continuously doing business in the State of Idaho and has 3 continuously had at least 15 employees.

4

5. Defendant Squeezers Giant Burgers has continuously been an employer engaged

5 in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title
6
VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
7
6. Defendant, Allied Food service, Inc., dba Squee zers (“Squeezers”) has been a
8
corporation continuously doing business in the State of Id aho since March 2006 and has
9
10 continuously had 15 employees.

11

7. In March 2006, Jam es Dorsey, the sole member of Defendant, T he Burrito

12 Shoppe LLC, dissolved the lim ited liability company, and acting as the incorporator, form ed the

13 second Defendant, Allied Foodservice Inc. Mr. Dorsey changed the corporate for m of the

14
restaurant business f rom a lim ited liability comp any to an S corporation on the advice of an
15
accountant.
16

17

8. In March 2006, Mr. Dorsey acting on behalf of Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe

18 LLC, cancelled its Certificate of Assum ed Business Name for Squeezers Giant Burgers. Mr.

19 Dorsey acting on behalf of De fendant, Allied F oodservice Inc., filed a Certificate of Assum ed

20 Business Name for Squeezers.
21
9. Defendant, Allied Foodservice Inc. dba Squeezers, is the continuation of the
22
business previously operated by Defendant, The Burrito Shoppe LLC dba Squeezers Giant
23
Burgers, at the same locations, with the substantially the same employees, equipment and
24
25 supervisors, performing substantially the same jobs, in same line of work, fast food restaurant.

AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 3 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

10. Defendant Squeezers has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry
1
2 affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b),(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 3 §§2000e-(b),(g) and (h).

4

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

5

11. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Powers filed a

6
charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by defendant Squeezers Giant
7
Burgers. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
8
12. Beginning on or about August 2003, defendant Squeezers Giant Burgers engaged
9

10 in unlawful employment practices at its Nampa, Idaho facility in violation of §§ 703(a) of Title

11 VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a). The practices include sexual harassment and constructive

12 discharge.

13

13. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 12 above has been to

14
deprive Ms. Powers and a class of similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities.
15
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 12 above were
16

17 intentional.

18

15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 12 above were

19 done with malice or with reckless indifference to Ms. Powers’ and the class of similarly situated

20 females’ federally protected rights.
21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
22
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
23

24

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 4 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, their officers, successors,
1
2 agents, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any 3 employment practices which discriminate.

4

B. Order defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs

5 which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the
6
effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices.
7
C. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Powers and the class of similarly situated
8
females by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be
9
10 determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their

11 unlawful employment practices.

12

D. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Powers and the class of similarly situated

13 females by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the

14
unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 12 above, including past and future out-
15
of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
16

17

E. Order defendants to make whole Ms. Powers and a class of similarly situated

18 females by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the

19 unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 12 above, including without limitation emotional

20 pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
21
F. Order defendants to pay Ms. Powers and the class of similarly situated females
22
punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 12 above, in
23
amounts to be determined at trial.
24

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 5 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
1
2 interest.

3

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

4

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

5

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

6
DATED this 12th day of September, 2006.
7

8 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO

RONALD

9 Regional Attorney

General

San Francisco District Office

10 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

San Francisco, CA 94105-1260
11

S. COOPER Counsel

12 KATHRYN OLSON Supervisory Trial Attorney

JAMES Deputy

L. LEE General Counsel

13

CARMEN FLORES

GW

14 Senior Trial Attorney

ENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel

15

16 BY: /s/ William R. Tamayo____________ EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
17 COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
18 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104
19 Telephone (206) 220-6920

Office of the General Counsel 1801 “L” Street NW Washington, D.C. 20507

20
Attorneys for Plaintiff
21

22

23

24

25

AMENDED COMPLAINT- Page 6 of 6

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

IDAHO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,

)

)

Intervenor Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE BURRITO SHOPPE LLC, d/b/a

)

SQUEEZERS GIANT BURGERS,

)

and ALLIED FOOD SERVICE, INC.,

)

d/b/a SQUEEZERS,

)

)

Defendant and Intervenor Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

Case No. CV 05-329-S-LMB ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are the City of Nampa Police Department’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and Protective Order (Docket No. 77) and Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 84).1 In the interest of avoiding delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process on the pending motions would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will address and resolve the motions without a hearing. Having carefully reviewed the record and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Order.

1 Also pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Docket No. 86), which is not yet ripe for decision.
ORDER -1-

I. BACKGROUND This is an action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Idaho Human Rights Commission (“IHRC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against The Burrito Shoppe LLC, dba Squeezers Giant Burgers (“The Burrito Shoppe”) and Allied Food Service, Inc. dba Squeezers (collectively, “Defendants”). The EEOC filed its Complaint against The Burrito Shoppe on August 19, 2005 alleging sex discrimination in employment in violation of federal law. (Docket No. 1). The IHRC intervened to assert state law claims based on the same set of facts. (Docket No. 3). On April 27, 2006, the EEOC and IHRC filed a joint Motion to Amend Complaints and Add Second Defendant (Docket No. 43). The Court granted the motion (Docket No. 58) and each Plaintiff added a second defendant, Allied Food Service, Inc. dba Squeezers, to its Complaint. (Docket Nos. 59, 60). The EEOC and IHRC allege that The Burrito Shoppe subjected Audrey Powers “and a class of similarly situated females to discrimination when they subjected them to harassment on the basis of their sex.” EEOC Amended Complaint and Jury Trial Demand (Docket No. 60). Specifically, it is alleged that while working for The Burrito Shoppe, Ms. Powers was called names of a sexual nature, heard talk of a sexual nature, was touched on breasts and buttocks at the workplace, was pressured to expose herself to others at the workplace, and saw other employees expose themselves as part of games in the workplace. IHRC Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Docket No. 59). In addition, it is alleged that Ms. Powers saw James Dorsey, her supervisor and a principal of The Burrito Shoppe, expose his penis in the workplace. Id. at ¶ 13.
ORDER -2-

On March 10, 2007, Plaintiff IHRC served a subpoena on the City of Nampa Police Department (“NPD”) seeking documents relating to: (1) Audrey Powers; (2) Audrey Powers’ complaint against James Dorsey; (3) a complaint filed by or on behalf of Danielle Andres2; and (4) “[a]ll police reports, recordings (video and/or audio), and notes relating to James Dorsey” (“Subpoena Document Requests”). See Affidavit of Counsel in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order, Ex. 1 (Docket No. 77-3). On March 21, 2007, the NPD filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 77). The NPD seeks an order quashing the Subpoena Document Requests to the extent that they include information not relevant to the instant lawsuit and seeks a protective order to treat as confidential the information produced pursuant to the subpoena. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash, pp. 3-4 (Docket No. 77-2).
II. MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The NPD asks the Court to quash Subpoena Document Request Nos. 3 and 4 pursuant to Rule 45(c) to the extent they include documents not related to Audrey Powers or Danielle Andres and for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) to treat as confidential all documents produced pursuant to the subpoena. Id. The NPD alleges that a protective order is necessary, because the materials subject to the Subpoena relate to sexual misconduct allegations and some of the individuals involved were minors at the time the NPD conducted its investigations. Id.
2 The IHRC alleges that Audrey Powers saw James Dorsey expose his penis in the workplace when she walked in on him and Danielle Andres. See Affidavit of Counsel, Jo-Ann L. Bowen, ¶ 4 (Docket No. 81-2). Defendants argue that this statement should be stricken from the record as it is unsupported by any exhibits or supporting documentation. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike, p. 3 (Docket No. 85)
ORDER -3-

The NPD, a non-party in the instant lawsuit, is a Defendant in a lawsuit filed by The Burrito Shoppe, Allied Foodservice, dba Squeezers, and James Slade Dorsey in Idaho State Court, Third Judicial District, Canyon County, Case. No. CV06-135C. Affidavit of Counsel in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order, Ex. 4 (Docket No. 77-3). In the course of the state court litigation, Mr. Dorsey and The Burrito Shoppe served the NPD with discovery requests seeking certain records, including, in part, NPD investigations into Mr. Dorsey’s alleged sexual misconduct with minor girls. Id. at ¶ 4. Because of the privacy rights and concerns of individuals mentioned in the requested documents, the NPD asked the state court for a protective order, which was entered on November 29, 2006. Id. at ¶ 6, Ex. 2. The NPD asks this Court to adopt a similar protective order in the instant federal court proceedings requiring that the records it produces be held confidential. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash, p. 3 (Docket No. 77-2).
Defendants advise the Court that they have obtained through the state court lawsuit some of the NPD information requested by Plaintiffs. See Memorandum in Response to the City of Nampa Police Department’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order, p. 2 (Docket No. 80). Defendants argue that the protective order entered in the state court proceeding is too broad, because it does not require “a privilege log relating to the documents that were to be subject to the Protective Order.” Id. at 2. In addition, Defendants argue that they have seen the documents responsive to the subpoena and “[t]he CDs and DVDs of Audrey Powers, Juan Quintana, Torn Korn [sic] and James S. Dorsey, may relate to this case.” Id. at 3. “However, the CDs and DVDs of Danielle Andres and Debra Hronis as well as documents and other information unrelated to the alleged sexual harassment of Audrey Powers . . . should not be released.” Id.
ORDER -4-

The IHRC opposes the NPD’s Motion to Quash Subpoena but states no opposition to entry of a protective order. See Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena and Statement of No Opposition to Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 81). The IHRC argues that the NPD, a non-party to the instant proceeding, is in no position to determine what records might be relevant to this lawsuit. Id. at 3. A. Motion to Quash
In support of its Motion to Quash, the NPD relies upon a provision of Rule 45(c) that provides, in relevant part, that, on timely motion, the Court shall quash or modify a subpoena if it “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii). The NPD seeks to quash the Subpoena to the extent it seeks documents that the NPD believes are not relevant to the instant lawsuit. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash, p. 3 (Docket No. 77-2). The NPD states that it “has accumulated a great number of documents and other items which relate to Mr. Dorsey and his Nampa restaurants. Many of these are unrelated to Audrey Powers and Danielle Andres, and are irrelevant to the federal litigation.” Id.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), “parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. . . . The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The definition of relevancy, for purposes of discovery, “has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350 (1978).
ORDER -5-

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants subjected Ms. Powers and “other similarly situated females to discrimination when they subjected them to harassment on the basis of their sex.” EEOC Amended Complaint and Jury Trial Demand (Docket No. 60). Through the subpoena, the IHRC seeks information in the NPD’s custody or possession relating to (1) Audrey Powers; (2) Audrey Powers’ complaint against James Dorsey; (3) a complaint made on or behalf of Danielle Andres against James Dorsey; and (4) “[a]ll police reports, recordings (video and/or audio), and notes relating to James Dorsey.” See Affidavit of Counsel in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order, Ex. 1 (Docket No. 77-3). None of the parties dispute the relevancy of the first two categories of information. The disputes center on Subpoena Document Request Nos. 3 and 4.
After careful review of the various motions and submissions, the Motion to Quash will be granted in this limited manner: the NPD will be ordered to produce any documents or other information subject to Subpoena Document Request Nos. 3 and 4, provided that such information involves Mr. Dorsey’s employment or position with Defendants, including any information relevant to Mr. Dorsey’s sexual conduct with any other person employed by Defendants or any other reports or other documents relating to sexual conduct that may have occurred at Defendants’ facilities. B. Protective Order
“Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought,” the Court is authorized to make “any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “The Supreme Court has interpreted this language as conferring ‘broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is
ORDER -6-

required.’” Phillips ex. rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984)).
A protective order may issue, however, only “for good cause shown.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “[I]f good cause is not shown, the discovery materials in question should not receive judicial protection.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210.
The NPD has demonstrated the requisite good cause for issuance of a protective order, and has appropriately and sufficiently demonstrated that certain information responsive to the Subpoena includes allegations of sexual misconduct and involves minors. In light of the sensitive nature of such information, the Court will issue a separate protective order generally requiring the parties to treat all such information provided by the NPD as strictly confidential and protected.
III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE On May 1, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike (Docket No. 84) portions of the Affidavit of Counsel, Jo-Ann L. Bowen, submitted in support of the IHRC’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena and Statement of No Opposition to Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 81-2). In general, Defendants take issue with certain statements made in Ms. Bowen’s Affidavit, on the basis that they lack foundation or support. These statements include counsel’s assertion that “Defendants know, from the Commission’s initial disclosures, the further specifics of that allegation: Audrey Powers saw James Dorsey expose his penis in the workplace when she walked in on him and Danielle Andres.” Affidavit of Counsel, Jo-Ann L. Bowen at ¶ 4 (Docket No. 81-2). Because the Court did not rely on these statements,
ORDER -7-

or any other statements contained in the Affidavit of Counsel, in ruling to limit the scope of the Subpoena and to grant the Protective Order, the Motion to Strike is moot.
IV. ORDER In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The City of Nampa Police Department’s Motion to Quash Subpoena (Docket No. 77) is GRANTED to the extent that Subpoena Document Request Nos. 3 and 4 are limited to information involving Mr. Dorsey’s employment or position with Defendants, including any information relevant to Mr. Dorsey’s alleged sexual conduct with any other person employed by Defendants or any other sexual conduct that allegedly occurred at Defendants’ facilities. 2. The City of Nampa Police Department’s Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 77) is GRANTED. 3. Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Docket No. 84) is deemed MOOT.
DATED: May 17, 2007.
Honorable Larry M. Boyle U. S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER -8-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

IDAHO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,

)

)

Intervenor Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE BURRITO SHOPPE LLC, d/b/a

)

SQUEEZERS GIANT BURGERS,

)

and ALLIED FOOD SERVICE, INC.,

)

d/b/a SQUEEZERS,

)

)

Defendant and Intervenor Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

Case No. CV 05-329-S-LMB PROTECTIVE ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms of the Protective Order shall be as follows: RECITALS
1. WHEREAS the Nampa Police Department has been served with a subpoena requesting the production of various records and other documents in its possession;
2. WHEREAS some requested materials and information have been or may be asserted to be confidential and privileged;
3. WHEREAS the Nampa Police Department may be willing to produce said materials and information under the terms of an appropriate Protective Order; and
ORDER -1-

4. WHEREAS, the following Protective Order shall govern the production of confidential and privileged information by the Nampa Police Department in the above-captioned litigation:
PROTECTIVE ORDER 1. It is acknowledged that documents to be produced may or may not be marked with identification that they are protected by a Protective Order, but it is understood and agreed that this Order shall apply to such documents. 2. The documents shall not be filed with the Clerk of the Court, except such portions thereof as may be necessary for the disposition of any motions or for use at trial. If any of the information is filed with the Clerk of the Court, as herein provided, it shall be filed in a sealed envelope which may only be opened with court approval. 3. The information provided hereunder can be used for the purpose of this litigation and for no other purpose now or in the future without court approval. 4. All protected documents and the information contained therein shall be treated as confidential by the parties and their attorneys who shall not permit disclosure of any such document, its contents or any portion thereof; provided, however, nothing herein shall prevent counsel from exhibiting such documents or disclosing the information contained therein to persons assisting counsel in the preparation of the case for trial, such as experts, consultants, clerical and accounting personnel; to persons who have prepared or assisted in the preparation of such documents; to persons to whom the documents or copies thereof were addressed or delivered; to parties in this case and to employees and former employees of a party who are assisting counsel in the preparation for trial of these actions. Prior to any such disclosures or
ORDER -2-

exhibition, counsel shall first present a copy of the Protective Order to any such person. All such persons shall assent to and be bound by the terms of this Protective Order, shall not permit disclosure of the documents or the information contained therein other than pursuant to the terms of the Order, and shall return all documents supplied to them as provided in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Protective Order. Any attorney who provides such documents or information contained therein to anyone, including the named parties, shall first require the person to acknowledge that he/she has read this Protective Order and assents to the terms hereof on the Acknowledgment of Assent (attached hereto as Exhibit 1).
5. This Protective Order shall not affect any party’s right to assert such other privileges or objections as it may have to other requested discovery. Nor does this Protective Order govern the admissibility or use of such documents or information in evidentiary proceedings. Furthermore, this Protective Order shall not preclude or prohibit the use and disclosure of summary information, statistics and biographical data obtained from the protected documents.
6. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents and information furnished previously or henceforth by the City of Nampa Police Department by interrogatory, request for production, request for admission, or notice of taking deposition by any party for which a claim of confidentiality is raised and shall be treated the same as documents provided under the terms of the Protective Order except that upon final disposition, counsel may retain copies of the transcripts. The transcripts, after final disposition, shall remain subject to the terms of the Protective Order.
ORDER -3-

7. Any party disputing a claim or legal privilege or confidentiality invoked by any other party, as herein provided, retains the right to challenge such claim and request appropriate authorities and instructions upon a proper motion to the Court.
8. Upon final disposition of this case, all copies of protected documents in the possession of the parties hereto or any persons provided access to said documents shall be returned to the counsel who provided the same.
9. Upon final disposition of this case, all copies of protected documents introduced into evidence in the subject action may be withdrawn from evidence and returned to the counsel who provided the same. For purposes of paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 hereof, “final disposition” shall mean settlement or at any time after expiration of the time for appeal, the determination of an appeal, or the determination of a proceeding following an appeal and the expiration of the time for any subsequent appeal, whichever is later.
10. No copies shall be made of protected documents except for use in the present action, subject to the provisions hereof.
DATED: May 22, 2007.
Honorable Larry M. Boyle U. S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER -4-

EXHIBIT 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND ASSENT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER I, _____________________________, am either employed by or have been retained by _________________________ and acknowledge that I have read and reviewed the Protective Order entered in EEOC et al v. The Burrito Shoppe, LLC, et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-00329-LMB and assent to be bound by the terms thereof. I understand that if I violate the terms of the Protective Order, I may be held in contempt of court. Dated this ____ day of ____________________, 200__.
______________________________________
ORDER -5-

 
 Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 1 of 16
CONMAG,PROTO,RFSETL,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 6.1 (Boise − Southern)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05−cv−00329−LMB

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Assigned to: Judge Larry M. Boyle Referred to: Judge Mikel H. Williams (Settlement) Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Date Terminated: 08/11/2008 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Carmen Flores US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104−1061 (206) 220−6883 Fax: 1−206−220−6911 Email: carmen.flores@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Olson EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104−1061 (206) 220−6895 Fax: (206) 220−6911 Email: kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 05/24/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Freeman Stanley US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104−1061 (206) 220−6883 Email: john.stanley@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Plaintiff
Idaho Human Rights Commission on behalf of Audrey Powers

represented by Jo−Ann Leigh Bowen AFFILIATE ATTY. incorrect email address tem. PO Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720−0040 (208) 334−2873 Fax: 1−208−334−2664 Email: lgoddard@ihrc.idaho.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
Steven Lamar Olsen OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POB 83720 Boise, ID 83720−0010

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 2 of 16
(208) 334−2400 Fax: (208) 854−8073 Email: steven.olsen@ag.idaho.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
Carmen Flores (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Michael Adelson OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL PO Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720−0050 208−334−4901 Fax: 208−334−5548 Email: rob.adelson@ag.idaho.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Burrito Shoppe LLC, The doing business as Squeezers Giant Burgers
Defendant Allied Foodservice Inc doing business as Squeezers Giant Burgers

represented by D Blair Clark Law Offices of D. Blair Clark PLLC 1513 Tyrell Lane, Suite 130 Boise, ID 83706 208−475−2050 Fax: 208−475−2055 Email: dbc@dbclarklaw.com TERMINATED: 11/02/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shane O Bengoechea BENGOECHEA LAW OFFICE 671 E Riverpark Ln #130 Boise, ID 83706 (208) 424−8332 Email: Shane@soblawyers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by D Blair Clark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/02/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant Burrito Shoppe LLC, The

represented by Shane O Bengoechea (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/19/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Summons Issued, Jury trial demand, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet)(ja, ) (Entered: 08/22/2005)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 3 of 16

08/22/2005
08/24/2005 08/24/2005 08/25/2005
09/20/2005 09/20/2005 09/21/2005
09/21/2005 10/07/2005 10/11/2005 10/11/2005 10/11/2005 10/13/2005 10/18/2005
10/21/2005
10/26/2005
10/26/2005

2 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 1 Complaint (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
3 MOTION to Intervene by Idaho Human Rights Commission. Responses due by 9/19/2005 (Attachments: # 1 pleading setting forth claim for which intervention is sought# 2 Memorandum in Support)(Bowen, Jo−Ann)
29 Intervenor COMPLAINT , filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission.(ja) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
4 ORDER re: scheduling conference. The parties shall confer and discuss the items contained in the Litigation Plan within 60 days of the date of this Order . Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
5 MOTION TO STRIKE 12(f) AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings 12(b)(2), (4) and (5) by The Burrito Shoppe LLC. Responses due by 10/14/2005 (Christian, Ronald) Modified on 9/21/2005 to edit text (ja, ).
6 First MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Memorandum in Support by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 10/14/2005 (Christian, Ronald)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 6 First MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Memorandum in Support filed by The Burrito Shoppe LLC, was filed using the incorrect docket event. It is a Memorandum in support and not a motion. The filing party shall re−submit their correct filing using "Memorandum in support" located under Responses and Replies. (ja, )
7 MEMORANDUM in Support re 5 First MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings and to Strike filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Christian, Ronald)
8 MOTION to strike 12(f) and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 12(b)(2),(4) and (5) by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 10/31/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Affidavit of Shane O. Bengoechea)(ja, )
9 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 5 First MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. (Bowen, Jo−Ann)
10 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE− as to Burrito Shoppe LLC. Corporate service served on def 9/21/2005, answer due 10/11/2005. (ja, ) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
11 DECLARATION OF Attempted Service of Summons in a civil Action; Complaint− Summons Returned Unexecuted as to Burrito Shoppe LLC. (ja, ) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
12 CONSENT filed. (ja, ) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
13 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Idaho Human Rights Commission, The Burrito Shoppe LLC (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
14 RESPONSIVE MEMORANDUM to Idaho Human Rights Commission's Memorandum in opposition to def's Motion to Strike and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 12(b)(2), (4) and (5) re 5 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Shane O. Bengoechea)(ja, ) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
15 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 5 First MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (second memorandum) filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Leslie R. Goddard# 2 Exhibit attachment to the Affidavit of Leslie R. Goddard (sealed due to personal identifiers) # 3 Exhibit attachment to the Affidavit of Leslie R. Goddard)(Bowen, Jo−Ann) Modified on 10/31/2005 to seal exhibit attachment (ja, ).
16 NOTICE TO WITHDRAW Motion to Strike 12(f) and Motion for judgment on the pleadings 12(b)(2), (4) and (5) re: 8 filed by defendant (ja, ) (Entered: 10/27/2005)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 4 of 16

10/26/2005 10/31/2005
11/03/2005 11/03/2005 11/07/2005 11/09/2005 12/15/2005
12/21/2005 01/03/2006 01/06/2006
01/09/2006 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 02/02/2006 02/06/2006
02/10/2006

17 CONSENT filed. (ja, ) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 15 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission, was filed with personal identifiers in one of the exhibits, which has been sealed. In the future please seal or redact any document with personal identifiers such as social security numbers or dates of birth. (ja, )
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Carmen Flores on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Flores, Carmen)
19 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FORM − LITIGATION PLAN by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Flores, Carmen)
20 ANSWER to Complaint by The Burrito Shoppe LLC.(ja, )
21 NOTICE of unavailable dates by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (dkh, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
22 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Idaho Human Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Burrito Shoppe LLC, The re 1 Complaint (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jlg, )
23 CONSENT filed. (dkh, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
24 ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED TO PROCEED BEFORE A US MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (ja) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
25 DOCKET TEXT NOTICE of Hearing (no attachment): A Telephone Scheduling Conference is set for 2/2/2006 10:45 AM (Mountain Time) in Boise, ID before Honorable Larry M. Boyle. Ms. Flores shall initiate the Conference Call with all parties on the line to Judge Boyle's Chambers at(208)334−1495.Note: Parties shall review Doc.19 (stipulated Litigation Plan to determine if dates need adjusted; as it was filed in November). Should the parties file a more up−dated Lit Plan, they shall use the form provided in Doc. 4 and this shall be filed by 1/26/06. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by lc, )
26 NOTICE of Hearing on Motions 5 First MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, 3 MOTION to Intervene: Motion Hearing set for 2/14/2006 01:30 PM (Mtn. Time) in Boise, ID before Honorable Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by lc, )
27 STIPULATION Regarding Pending Motions (docket numbers 3 and 5) by Idaho Human Rights Commission. (Bowen, Jo−Ann)
28 ORDER granting 3 Motion to Intervene, denying 5 Motion to Strike and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings . Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
30 ERRATA by Intervenor Plaintiff Idaho Human Rights Commission Signed Complaint filed to replace unsigned attachment to Motion to Intervene. (Bowen, Jo−Ann)
31 DOCKET TEXT ENTRY NOTICE of Hearing: This Hearing shall be a Telephone Scheduling Conference set for 2/14/2006 01:30 PM ( Mountain Time) in Boise, ID before Honorable Larry M. Boyle. Ms. Flores shall initiate the Conference Call with all parties on the line to Judge Boyle's Chambers at (208) 334−1495. Parties shall review the previously entered Litigation Plan (Doc. 19) and may amend should those proposed dates be out−dated. Counsel shall submit a new one no later than Feburary 10, 2006, if necessary and use the correct Form− Refer to Doc. 4.(caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by lc, )
32 STIPULATION Litigation Plan by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Flores, Carmen)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 5 of 16

02/14/2006 02/15/2006
03/01/2006 03/16/2006 04/03/2006 04/03/2006 04/03/2006 04/03/2006 04/27/2006
04/27/2006 04/27/2006
05/05/2006
05/11/2006
05/11/2006
05/11/2006

33 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Larry M. Boyle : Scheduling Conference held on 2/14/2006. Order forthcoming. (Court Reporter P. Fulwyler.) (al, ) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
34 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER REFERRING to Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams for Settlement Amended Pleadings due by 5/13/2006. Discovery due by 6/30/2006. Motions due by 8/30/2006.. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dkh, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
35 Defendant's ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Plaintiff by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Attachments: # 1)(Bengoechea, Shane)
36 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. Burrito Shoppe LLC, The waiver sent on 2/2/2006, answer due 4/3/2006. (jg, )
37 First MOTION to Dismiss Or In The Alternative Motion For Summary Judgment by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 4/27/2006 (Bengoechea, Shane)
38 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests of Documents by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 4/27/2006 (Bengoechea, Shane)
39 MEMORANDUM/BRIEF filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Memorandum In Support To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative Motion For Summary Judgment. (Bengoechea, Shane)
40 AFFIDAVIT filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Affidavit of David W. Hammons. (Bengoechea, Shane)
41 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 38 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests of Documents filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 5/11/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Flores, Carmen)
42 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 37 First MOTION to Dismiss Or In The Alternative Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 5/11/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Flores, Carmen)
43 First MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINTS AND JOIN SECOND DEFENDANT by Idaho Human Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/22/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 EEOC'S AMENDED COMPLAINT# 3 IDAHO HUMAN RIGHTS' AMENDED COMPLAINT# 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Flores, Carmen)
44 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE VACATING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Take notice the settlement conference is hereby vacated. Counsel to contact the court for a new conference date following the decision on the motion to amend (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by al, ) Modified on 5/5/2006 to add docket text (al, ).
45 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 38 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests of Documents Affidavit of Shane O. Bengoechea In Support Of Response To Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Enlargement Of Time filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Bengoechea, Shane)
46 AFFIDAVIT in Support by James Dorsey re 38 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests of Documents Affidavit of James Dorsey In Support Of Response To Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Enlargement Of Time filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Bengoechea, Shane)
47 REPLY to Response to Motion re 38 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests of Documents Response To Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Enlargement Of Time filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Bengoechea, Shane)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 6 of 16

05/11/2006
05/11/2006 05/12/2006 05/12/2006 05/12/2006
05/12/2006
05/12/2006
05/12/2006 05/15/2006 05/17/2006 05/17/2006 05/18/2006 06/01/2006 08/08/2006

48 REPLY to Response to Motion re 37 First MOTION to Dismiss Or In The Alternative Motion For Summary Judgment, 43 First MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINTS AND JOIN SECOND DEFENDANT Defendant's Response To Plaintiffs' Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, F.R.C.P, Rule 12(b)(6) Or In The Alternative Motion For Summary Judgment, F.R.C.P. Rule 56 And Objection To Plaintiffs' Motion For F.R.C.P. 56(f) Continuance filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Bengoechea, Shane)
49 AFFIDAVIT of James Dorsey re 41 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Bengoechea, Shane)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 49 Affidavit filed by The Burrito Shoppe LLC is a duplicate entry. Please disregard it. (ja)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket numbers 45 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 47 Reply to Response to Motion, 46 Affidavit in Support of Motion filed by The Burrito Shoppe LLC were filed with the incorrect PDF image attached. The filing party shall re−submit their filings with the correct PDF images. (ja)
50 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 38 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests of Documents Affidavit of James Dorsey In Support Of Response To Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Enlargement Of Time filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Replies due by 5/26/2006. (Bengoechea, Shane) Modified on 5/15/2006 to edit(ja, ).
51 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Shane O. Bengoechea re 38 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests of Documents Affidavit of Shane O. Bengoechea In Support Of Response To Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Enlargement Of Time filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Replies due by 5/26/2006. (Bengoechea, Shane)
52 RESPONSE to Motion re 38 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests of Documents Response To Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Enlargement Of Time filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Replies due by 5/26/2006. (Bengoechea, Shane)
53 REPLY to Response to Motion re 38 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests of Documents Response To Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Bengoechea, Shane)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 52 Response to Motion filed by The Burrito Shoppe LLC was filed in error. Please disregard it. (ja)
54 REPLY to Response to Motion re 43 First MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINTS AND JOIN SECOND DEFENDANT Defendant's Objection To Plaintiffs Motion To Amend Complaints And Join Second Defendant filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Bengoechea, Shane)
55 RESPONSE to Motion re 43 First MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINTS AND JOIN SECOND DEFENDANT Defendant's Objection To Plaintiffs Motion To Amend Complaints And Join Second Defendant filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Replies due by 6/1/2006. (Bengoechea, Shane)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 54 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by The Burrito Shoppe LLC, was filed in error. Please disregard it. (ja)
56 REPLY to Response to Motion re 43 First MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINTS AND JOIN SECOND DEFENDANT filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Bowen, Jo−Ann)
57 ORDER denying 37 Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, denying 38 Motion for Enlargement of Time to Answer . Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 7 of 16

08/29/2006
09/11/2006 09/12/2006 09/13/2006 10/25/2006 10/26/2006 10/31/2006 10/31/2006 11/03/2006
11/03/2006
11/28/2006 01/10/2007
01/10/2007 01/31/2007
01/31/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007

58 ORDER granting 43 Motion to Amend Complaints and Join Second Defendant. Plaintiffs shall serve and file their amended complaints by 9/15/06. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
59 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Allied Foodservice Inc. dba Squeezers, filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission.(Bowen, Jo−Ann)
60 AMENDED COMPLAINT Jury Trial Demand against all defendants, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Amended Summons in a Civil Action)(Flores, Carmen)
Summons Issued as to Allied Foodservice Inc. (ja, )
61 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FORM − LITIGATION PLAN by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Flores, Carmen)
62 Amended SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Allied Foodservice Inc, Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (ja, ) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
63 ANSWER to Amended Complaint Jury Trial Demand by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The.(Bengoechea, Shane)
64 Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint Of Plaintiff By Intervention And Demand For Jury Trial by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The.(Bengoechea, Shane)
65 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Conference set for 11/28/2006 09:30 AM in Boise, ID before Honorable Mikel H. Williams. Settlement Conference Order forthcoming. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by al, )
66 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER re 65 Notice of Hearing, Shall take place on Tuesday 11/28/06 @9:30am. Signed by Judge Mikel H. Williams. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jg, ) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mikel H. Williams : Settlement Conference held on 11/28/2006. This case did not settle however parties continue negotiations and will notify the Court. (al, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
68 NOTICE of TELEPHONE Hearing: Status Conference set for 2/12/2007 11:00 AM (Mtn. Time)in Boise, ID before Honorable Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by lc, )
69 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/31/2007 01:00 PM in Boise, ID before Honorable Larry M. Boyle. (Bowen, Jo−Ann)
70 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re 61 Telephone status conference held 1/31/07. Amended Pleadings due by 3/12/2007. Discovery due by 5/15/2007. Joinder of Parties due by 3/12/2007. Dispositive Motions due by 6/30/2007. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
71 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Larry M. Boyle : Status Conference held on 1/31/2007. Pltff.'s Oral Motion to Extend Dead−lines: GRANTED. (Court Reporter Vicki Jones.) (lc, )
72 MOTION to require depositions to be taken in Boise, Idaho by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 3/19/2007 (Bengoechea, Shane) Modified on 2/26/2007 to edit text (ja).
73 MOTION by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 3/19/2007 (Bengoechea, Shane)
74 MOTION re 72 MOTION by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 3/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(Bengoechea, Shane)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 8 of 16

02/26/2007
02/27/2007 02/27/2007
03/21/2007 03/30/2007 04/02/2007
04/03/2007 04/12/2007 04/16/2007
04/24/2007 04/26/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 05/14/2007
05/17/2007
05/22/2007 05/24/2007

CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 74 MOTION re 72 MOTION filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The, and 73 MOTION filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, were filed using the incorrect docket event as they are not motions. The filing party shall re−submit their filings using "Affidavit" located under Other Documents and use the text box to describe the document. (ja)
75 AFFIDAVIT filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Affidavit Of James Dorsey In Support Of Motion To Require Depositions To Be Taken In Boise, Idaho. (Bengoechea, Shane)
76 AFFIDAVIT filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Affidavit Of Shane O. Bengoechea In Support Of Motion To Require Depositions To Be Taken In Boise, Idaho. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(Bengoechea, Shane)
77 MOTION to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order by Nampa Police Department. Responses due by 4/16/2007 (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Moore, Michael) Modified on 3/23/2007 to edit text (ja, ).
78 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The (Bengoechea, Shane)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 78 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The was filed incorrectly in this case. This appears to be a notice to withdraw a motion. This could be found under "Other Documents" then "Notice (Other)" then text in the motion to withdraw depositions. The filing party shall re−submit their correct filing. (dks, )
79 NOTICE by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Notice To Withdraw Defendants' Motion To Require Depositions To Be Taken In Boise, Idaho (Bengoechea, Shane)
80 MEMORANDUM in Response re 77 MOTION to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Replies due by 4/26/2007. (Bengoechea, Shane) .
81 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 77 MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. Replies due by 4/30/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Counsel, Jo−Ann L. Bowen# 2 Exhibit A to Affidavit)(Bowen, Jo−Ann)
82 REPLY to Response to Motion re 77 MOTION to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order filed by Nampa Police Department. (Moore, Michael)
83 Expert Witness Disclosure filed by Defendant Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Bengoechea, Shane)
84 MOTION to Strike 81 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, Affidavit Of Counsel Jo−Ann L. Bowen by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 5/25/2007 (Bengoechea, Shane)
85 MEMORANDUM in Support re 84 MOTION to Strike 81 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, Affidavit Of Counsel Jo−Ann L. Bowen Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Strike filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Bengoechea, Shane)
86 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (certain discovery matters) by Idaho Human Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Bowen, Jo−Ann)
87 ORDER granting 77 Motion for Protective Order; granting 77 Motion to Quash; finding as moot 84 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
88 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
89 NOTICE of Substitution − Attorney John Freeman Stanley and Carmen Flores for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission added. Attorney Kathryn Olson terminated. (Flores, Carmen)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 9 of 16

06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/25/2007
06/25/2007
07/05/2007
07/09/2007 07/09/2007

90 RESPONSE to Motion re 86 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (certain discovery matters) Defendants' ResponseTo Plaintiffs' Motion To Extend The Discovery Deadline For Certain Discovery Matters filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Replies due by 6/25/2007. (Bengoechea, Shane)
91 AFFIDAVIT of Shane O. Bengoechea re 90 Response to Motion, filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Affidavit of Shane O. Bengechea In Support Of Defendants' Response To Plaintiffs' Motion To Extend The Discovery Deadline For Certain Discovery Matters. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit)(Bengoechea, Shane)
92 MOTION for Disclosure Motion To Limit Disclosure Of Records, Documents And Things Pursuant To Protective Order And Order by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 7/5/2007 (Bengoechea, Shane)
93 AFFIDAVIT of Shane O. Bengoechea filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The In Support Of Motion To Limit Disclosure Of Records, Documents And Things Pursuant To Protective Order And Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Bengoechea, Shane)
94 MOTION for Sanctions Motion For Order Compelling Disclosure Or Discovery And Sanctions by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 7/9/2007 (Bengoechea, Shane)
95 MEMORANDUM in Support re 94 MOTION for Sanctions Motion For Order Compelling Disclosure Or Discovery And Sanctions filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(Bengoechea, Shane)
96 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 94 MOTION for Sanctions Motion For Order Compelling Disclosure Or Discovery And Sanctions Affidavit of Shane O. Bengoechea filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit)(Bengoechea, Shane)
97 REPLY to Response to Motion re 86 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (certain discovery matters) filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Counsel, Jo−Ann Bowen# 2 Exhibit A − Dorsey deposition# 3 Exhibit B − Korn deposition# 4 Exhibit C − Quintana deposition# 5 Exhibit D − Muchow deposition# 6 Exhibit E − Email correspondence# 7 Affidavit of Counsel, Michael Moore)(Bowen, Jo−Ann)
98 RESPONSE to Motion re 94 MOTION for Sanctions Motion For Order Compelling Disclosure Or Discovery And Sanctions **SAME AS DOCKET # 97** filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Counsel, Jo−Ann Bowen# 2 Exhibit A − Dorsey deposition# 3 Exhibit B − Korn deposition# 4 Exhibit C − Quintana deposition# 5 Exhibit D − Muchow deposition# 6 Exhibit E − Email correspondence# 7 Affidavit of Counsel, Michael Moore)(Bowen, Jo−Ann)
99 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 92 MOTION for Disclosure Motion To Limit Disclosure Of Records, Documents And Things Pursuant To Protective Order And Order filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 7/23/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Affidavit of Director Goddard# 2 Exhibit B, Deposition of James Dorsey# 3 Exhibit C, Deposition of Joseph Belanger# 4 Exhibit D, Deposition of Juan Quintana# 5 Exhibit E, Deposition of Pamela Parks)(Bowen, Jo−Ann)
100 RESPONSE re 97 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Response To Plaintiffs' Reoply Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Extend (Dkt. #86) and Memorandum In Opposition To Motion To Compel (Dkt., #94). (Bengoechea, Shane)
101 AFFIDAVIT of Shane O. Bengoechea re 97 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Affidavit Of Shane O. Bengoechea In Support of Response To Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Extend (Dkt. #86) and Memorandum In Opposition To Motion To Compel (Dkt. #94). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Bengoechea, Shane)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 10 of 16

07/10/2007 07/11/2007 07/23/2007 07/23/2007 07/23/2007 08/06/2007
08/07/2007
08/07/2007 08/16/2007 08/16/2007

102 DOCKET TEXT NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 92 MOTION for Disclosure Motion To Limit Disclosure Of Records, Documents And Things Pursuant To Protective Order And Order, 94 MOTION for Sanctions Motion For Order Compelling Disclosure Or Discovery And Sanctions, 86 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (certain discovery matters) : Motion Hearing set for 8/6/2007 10:30 AM (Mtn. Time) in Boise, ID before Honorable Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by lc, )
103 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL (Flores, Carmen)
104 REPLY to Response to Motion re 92 MOTION for Disclosure Motion To Limit Disclosure Of Records, Documents And Things Pursuant To Protective Order And Order Reply Memorandum To Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Response To Defendants' Motion To Limit Disclosure Of Records, Documents And Things (Docket #99) filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Bengoechea, Shane)
105 AFFIDAVIT of Shane O. Bengoechea re 104 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Affidavit Of Shane O. Bengoechea In Support Of Reply Memorandum In Response To Defendants' Motion To Limit Disclosure of Records, Documents And Things (Docket #99). (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)(Bengoechea, Shane)
106 AFFIDAVIT re 104 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Affidavit Of James Dorsey In Support Of Reply Memorandum To Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Response To Defendants' Motion To Limit Disclosure Of Records, Documents And Things (Docket #99). (Bengoechea, Shane)
107 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Larry M. Boyle : Motion Hearing held on 8/6/2007 re 92 MOTION for Disclosure Motion To Limit Disclosure Of Records, Documents And Things Pursuant To Protective Order And Order filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The, 94 MOTION for Sanctions Motion For Order Compelling Disclosure Or Discovery And Sanctions filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The, 86 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (certain discovery matters) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Idaho Human Rights Commission, Motions terminated:. COURT TO ENTER ORDER ON TODAY'S HEARING.(Court Reporter Vicki Jones.) (lc, )
108 ORDER granting 86 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery− Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendants First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by 9/10/07; granting in part and denying in part 92 Motion for Disclosure; granting in part and denying in part 94 Motion for Order Compelling Disclosures or Discovery and Sanctions. Plaintiffs must respond to written discovery and make Audrey Powers available for deposition by 9/10/07. No sanctions will be awarded. The Nampa Police Dept, a non−party to the instant lawsuit, is directed to produce to Plaintiffs by 8/10/07, all records identified by the NPD as responsive to the IHRC Subpoena and this Court's Order of 5/17/07 provided that such records are not subject to defs' objection.The NPD, is directed to produce in camera to the Court by 8/10/07, all records identified by the NPD as responsive to the IHRC Subpoena and this Court's Order of 5/17/07 that are subject to defs' objection. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
Set Deadlines/Hearings: This is a court utility event only. Case Management deadline set for 8/10/2007 for NPD to produce (ja, )
109 ORDER that NPD is to produce by 8/21/07 all of the material delivered to this Court pursuant to order 108 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Order on Motion for Disclosure, Order on Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by wm, )
110 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER. Consistent with the Court's written Order (Docket No. 109), counsel for the City of Nampa Police Department is directed to collect the original documents and discs delivered to the Court for in camera review pursuant to the Court's Order of August 6, 2007 (Docket No. 108). Signed by Judge Larry M.

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 11 of 16

10/05/2007 10/11/2007 10/12/2007
11/05/2007 11/06/2007
02/11/2008
03/03/2008 03/03/2008
03/27/2008 04/08/2008 04/08/2008 04/15/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008

Boyle. (Pfisterer, Kira)
111 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven L Olsen on behalf of Idaho Human Rights Commission (Olsen, Steven)
112 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery /Deposition of James Dorsey by Idaho Human Rights Commission. Responses due by 11/5/2007 (Olsen, Steven)
113 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER granting 112 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. For good cause shown, the parties' joint motion to extend the date of Mr. Dorsey's deposition from October 5, 2007 to November 6, 2007 is hereby granted. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by Pfisterer, Kira)
114 NOTICE by Idaho Human Rights Commission of Service of Discovery Responses (Olsen, Steven)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry docket number 114 Notice (Other) filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission was filed incorrectly in this case. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4 Non−Filing of Discovery, discovery documents must be served upon other counsel and parties but must not be filed with the Clerk of Court unless on order of the court or for use in the proceeding. (ja, )
115 DOCKET TEXT NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 3/3/2008 11:45 AM (Mountain Time) in Boise Chambers before Judge Larry M. Boyle. Ms. Flores shall initiate the Conference Call to Chambers at (208) 334−1495. Parties shall be prepared to advise the Court the Status of the case and have calendars available to set this matter for Trial.(caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by lc, )
116 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Larry M. Boyle: Scheduling Conference held on 3/3/2008, ( 7−day Jury Trial set for 7/14/2008 09:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Larry M. Boyle.). ORDER to follow. (Court Reporter Sherri O'Larey.) (lc)
117 SCHEDULING ORDER Pretrial Conference set for 7/1/2008 10:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Larry M. Boyle. Jury Trial set for 7/14/2008 09:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Larry M. Boyle. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm, )
118 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Unavailability of (Flores, Carmen)
119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil Steven L Olsen appearing for Intervenor Plaintiff Idaho Human Rights Commission. Responses due by 5/2/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Olsen, Steven)
120 MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil Steven L Olsen appearing for Intervenor Plaintiff Idaho Human Rights Commission. Responses due by 5/2/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit)(Olsen, Steven)
121 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Michael Adelson on behalf of Idaho Human Rights Commission (Adelson, Robert)
122 RESPONSE to Motion re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil Defendant's Objection To Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File Motion To Pierce The Corporate Veil filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Replies due by 5/19/2008.(Bengoechea, Shane)
123 RESPONSE to Motion re 120 MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil Defendants Objection To Plaintiffs' Motion To Pierce The Corporate Veil filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Replies due by 5/19/2008.(Bengoechea, Shane)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 12 of 16

05/06/2008
05/07/2008 05/08/2008 05/16/2008 05/19/2008 05/19/2008
05/22/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008 05/22/2008 05/27/2008
05/28/2008

124 DOCKET TEXT NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 120 MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil : Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2008 01:30 PM (MTN. TIME) at the Boise, IDAHO Federal Courthouse, 5th Floor, Courtroom #7 before Judge Larry M. Boyle. (lc)
125 ORDER granting 119 Motion for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
126 AFFIDAVIT of Audrey Powers re 120 MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. (Olsen, Steven).
127 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission OF UNAVAILABILITY (Flores, Carmen)
128 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil re 120 Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission.(Adelson, Robert) Modified on 5/20/2008 to edit text (jm).
129 AFFIDAVIT of Robert M. Adelson in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil re 120 Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission.(Adelson, Robert) Modified on 5/20/2008 to edit text and link to dkt #128 (jm).
130 AMENDED MOTION For Order Compelling Disclosure Of Discovery And Sanctions Shane O Bengoechea appearing for Defendant Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 6/16/2008 (Bengoechea, Shane) Modified on 5/23/2008 to edit text (jm).
131 AMENDED MEMORANDUM in Support filed by The Burrito Shoppe LLC, Amended Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Order Compelling Disclosure Of Discovery And Sanctions. (Bengoechea, Shane) Modified on 5/23/2008 to edit text and link to dkt #130 (jm).
132 AMENDED AFFIDAVIT of Shane O. Bengoechea filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Amended Affidavit of Shane O. Bengoechea. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − G)(Bengoechea, Shane) Modified on 5/23/2008 to edit text and link to dkt #130. Exhibit sealed due to personal identifiers (jm).
133 MOTION to Continue Trial Date Shane O Bengoechea appearing for Defendant Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 6/16/2008 (Bengoechea, Shane)
134 AFFIDAVIT of Shane O. Bengoechea filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The In Support Of Motion To Continue Trial Date. (Bengoechea, Shane) Modified on 5/23/2008 to link to dkt #133 (jm).
135 AFFIDAVIT of James Dorsey filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The Affidavit Of James Dorsey In Support Of Motion To Continue Trial Date. (Bengoechea, Shane) Modified on 5/23/2008 to link to dkt #133 (jm).
136 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER re expedited briefing schedule applicable to 133 Motion to Continue Trial Date. Because the pre−trial conference is scheduled for July 1, 2008 (Docket No. 117), the briefing schedule applicable to this motion is expedited as follows: Plaintiffs shall file a response on or before Monday, June 2, 2008 and Defendant shall file a reply (if any) on or before Wednesday, June 4, 2008. The Court further requests that the Clerk of the Court send a copy of this Docket Entry Order to Mr. Bengoechea at the following address: 671 E. Riverpark Lane, Suite 130 Boise, Idaho 83706. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by kp)
137 DOCKET TEXT NOTICE: Mailed Via U.S. Mail hard−copy of Docket Text Order to Mr. Bengoechea/Refer to DOC>136. By L. Case. (lc)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 13 of 16

05/28/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008 06/03/2008 06/03/2008 06/03/2008
06/03/2008
06/05/2008 06/05/2008 06/05/2008 06/05/2008 06/05/2008 06/10/2008

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 133 MOTION to Continue Trial Date. Responses due by 6/2/2008 Replies due by 6/4/2008. (jm)
138 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 133 MOTION to Continue Trial Date filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. Replies due by 6/16/2008.(Adelson, Robert)
139 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Robert M. Adelson re 133 MOTION to Continue Trial Date filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. Replies due by 6/16/2008.(Adelson, Robert)
140 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Robert M. Adelson re 120 MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission.(Adelson, Robert)
141 AFFIDAVIT in Support by Robert M. Adelson re 120 MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil With Correct Exhibit filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission.(Adelson, Robert)
142 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Larry M. Boyle: Motion Hearing held on 6/3/2008 re 133 MOTION to Continue Trial Date filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The, 130 MOTION to Compel filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The, 120 MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. MOTIONS DEEMED UNDER ADVISEMENT, pending breifing. (Court Reporter Sherri O'Larey.) (lc)
143 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER regarding deadlines set at hearing: (1) Simultaneous, supplemental briefing due on or before June 5, 2008 on the issue of whether a decision to pierce the corporate veil may be determined prior to a finding of liability; and (2) All outstanding and supplemental discovery due on or before June 6, 2008. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by kp)
144 MEMORANDUM in Support re 120 MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil Supplemental filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission.(Adelson, Robert)
145 MEMORANDUM in Support re 120 MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Pierce the Corporate Veil Memorandum In Support Of Bifurcation Of claims Re: Motion To Pierce The Corporate Veil filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The.(Bengoechea, Shane)
146 REPLY to Response to Motion re 133 MOTION to Continue Trial Date Defendant's Memorandum In Response To Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Opposition To Continuing Trial Date filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The.(Bengoechea, Shane)
147 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 133 MOTION to Continue Trial Date Supplemental Affidavit Of Shane O. Bengoechea In Support Of Motion To Continue Trial Date And In Response To Plaintiffs' Opposition To Continuing Trial Date filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bengoechea, Shane)
148 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 133 MOTION to Continue Trial Date Affidavit Of Erika Birch In Support Of Motion To Continue Trial Date And In Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition To Continue Trial Date filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Replies due by 6/23/2008.(Bengoechea, Shane)
149 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER re: GRANTED 133 MOTION to Continue Trial Date filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part 120 MOTION Piercing of Corporate Veil re 119 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission, ( Jury Trial set for 8/25/2008 09:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Larry M. Boyle., Pretrial Conference set for 8/15/2008 10:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Larry M. Boyle.) No further continuances of the

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 14 of 16

06/10/2008
06/11/2008
06/11/2008 06/12/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 07/25/2008
07/25/2008
08/04/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/20/2008 10/22/2008

trial will be allowed.. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jg)
150 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 133 MOTION to Continue Trial Date Supplemental Affidavit Of Shane O. Bengoechea In Support Of Amended Motion For Order Compelling Disclosure Of Discovery And Sanctions And Supplemental Affidavit Of Shane O. Bengoechea In Support Of Motion To Continue Trial Date filed by Burrito Shoppe LLC, The.(Bengoechea, Shane)
151 Sealed Document Re: 150 Affidavit in Support of Motion, Supplemental Affidavit Of Shane O. Bengoechea In Support Of Amended Motion For Order Compelling Disclosure Of Discovery And Sanctions And Supplemental Affidavit Of Shane O. Bengoechea In Support Of Motion To Continue Trial Date. (Bengoechea, Shane)
152 Sealed Document Re: 150 Affidavit in Support of Motion,. (Bengoechea, Shane)
153 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Christine Wilson re 130 MOTION to Compel filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. Replies due by 6/30/2008.(Adelson, Robert)
154 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 130 MOTION to Compel filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. Replies due by 7/3/2008.(Adelson, Robert)
155 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition by Robert M. Adelson re 130 MOTION to Compel filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. Replies due by 7/3/2008.(Adelson, Robert) Modified on 6/17/2008 to link to dkt 154 (jm).
156 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER re 130 Defendants' Amended Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure of Discovery and Sanctions. It appears from Plaintiffs' Response (Docket No. 154) and Defendants' choice not to reply that all outstanding discovery issues have been resolved by the parties. Nonetheless, the parties are hereby required to file on or before Monday, August 4, 2008 a joint, status report regarding any outstanding issues relevant to Defendants' Amended Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure of Discovery and Sanctions (Docket No. 130). Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by kp)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report deadline set for 8/4/2008. The parties are required to file by 8/4/08 a joint, status report regarding any outstanding issues relevant to Defendants' Amended Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure of Discovery and Sanctions 130 .(jm) Modified on 7/29/2008 to edit text (jm). (Entered: 07/28/2008)
157 NOTICE of Settlement by Idaho Human Rights Commission (Adelson, Robert)
158 DOCKET TEXT NOTICE: Pursuant to the Notice of Settlement(DOC.157), Counsel shall file their Final dismissal papers & Proposed Order, on or before AUGUST 20, 2008. (lc)
159 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree and Proposed Order by Idaho Human Rights Commission. (Adelson, Robert)
160 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
161 APPLICATION for Writ of Execution Robert Michael Adelson appearing for Intervenor Plaintiff Idaho Human Rights Commission. Responses due by 11/10/2008 (Adelson, Robert)
162 AFFIDAVIT of Robert M. Adelson re 161 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Application for Writ of Execution filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. (Adelson, Robert)
163 RESPONSE to Motion re 161 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Application for Writ of Execution filed by Allied Foodservice Inc. Replies due by 11/6/2008.(Clark, D)
164 NOTICE of Appearance by D Blair Clark on behalf of Allied Foodservice Inc (Clark, D)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 15 of 16

10/23/2008 10/30/2008 11/03/2008
11/10/2008 11/25/2008
11/25/2008
11/25/2008 03/03/2009 03/03/2009 03/03/2009 04/09/2009 04/27/2009
04/27/2009 05/19/2009 05/20/2009 06/11/2009 06/13/2009

165 JOINDER by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission joining 161 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Application for Writ of Execution. (Flores, Carmen)
166 DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 161 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Application for Writ of Execution : Motion Hearing set for 11/24/2008 10:30 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Larry M. Boyle. (loh)
167 AMENDED DOCKET ENTRY NOTICE of Hearing: Please take notice that the Motion Hearing on Motion 161 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Application for Writ of Execution previously scheduled on 11/24/2008 has been VACATED and reset for 11/25/2008 at 10:00 AM in Boise, ID before Judge Larry M. Boyle. (loh)
168 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 11/14−21/2008 (Flores, Carmen) Modified on 11/12/2008 to edit text (jm).
169 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Larry M. Boyle: Motion Hearing held on 11/25/2008 re 161 MOTION to Enforce Judgment Application for Writ of Execution filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. (Court Reporter ESR: Vicki Jones.) (so)
170 ORDER Plaintiffs' Application for Writ of Execution 161 is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion for Stay 163 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
171 WRIT of Execution issued (cc: USMS)(jm)
172 MOTION to Compel Responses to Post−Judgment Discovery Requests Robert Michael Adelson appearing for Intervenor Plaintiff Idaho Human Rights Commission. Responses due by 3/27/2009 (Adelson, Robert)
173 MEMORANDUM in Support re 172 MOTION to Compel Responses to Post−Judgment Discovery Requests filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission.(Adelson, Robert)
174 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 172 MOTION to Compel Responses to Post−Judgment Discovery Requests March 3, 2009 Affidavit of Robert M. Adelson filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission.(Adelson, Robert)
175 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL (Flores, Carmen)
176 ORDER granting 172 Motion to Compel. Defendants shall respond to Post−Judgment Interrogatories and Requests for Production filed on 3/3/09, on or before 5/19/09, or appear at the federal courthouse in Boise, Idaho on 5/20/09, at 1:00 p.m. (MST), to show cause why Defendants should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with this Order. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
Set/Reset Hearings: Show Cause Hearing set for 5/20/2009 01:00 PM in Boise, ID before Judge Larry M. Boyle. (jm)
177 NOTICE by Allied Foodservice Inc, Burrito Shoppe LLC, The re Set/Reset Hearings, 176 Order on Motion to Compel, (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Answers to Plaintiff's Post−Judgment Requests for Discovery)(Clark, D)
178 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Larry M. Boyle: Show Cause Hearing held on 5/20/2009. (Court Reporter/ESR Vicki Jones.) (so)
179 STIPULATION May 2009 Consent Order by Idaho Human Rights Commission. (Adelson, Robert)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY − The entry document number 179 Stipulation filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission in regards to the attached proposed order, was filed incorrectly in this case. Pursuant to the ECF Procedures, section 12B, all proposed orders are to be submitted by email to the appropriate Judges proposed order email box only and not as attachments. The filing party shall re−submit their proposed order.(jm)

Case 1:05-cv-329 Document <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 16 of 16

07/15/2009
09/10/2010 11/02/2010 03/07/2012 03/15/2012 03/15/2012

180 ORDER re 179 Stipulation Consent Order filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. The May 2009 Consent Order is approved as the final agreement in full settlement of this action. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice, eachparty to bear its own fees and/or costs; the Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the August 11, 2008 Consent Decree and the foregoing May 2009 Consent Order. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm) (Entered: 07/16/2009)
181 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney D Blair Clark appearing for Defendants Allied Foodservice Inc, Burrito Shoppe LLC, The. Responses due by 10/4/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of Motion to Withdraw)(Clark, D)
182 ORDER granting 181 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney D Blair Clark terminated. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by krb) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
183 APPLICATION for Writ of of Execution (Second) by Idaho Human Rights Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Robert M. Adelson)(Adelson, Robert)
184 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF IHRC'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION re 183 Application for Writ filed by Idaho Human Rights Commission. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)
185 WRIT of Execution issued(cjm)