Case: EEOC v. CEDAR SUPPLY COMPANY d/b/a "Rocky Mountain Forest Products"

1:00-cv-01809 | U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Filed Date: Sept. 14, 2000

Closed Date: 2001

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The EEOC Denver office filed this suit on September 14, 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Denver Division. The suit alleged violation of the ADA by defendant Cedar Supply Company doing business as Rocky Mountain Forest Products, Inc. After filing, the EEOC amended its complaint to a claim of sexual harassment, a violation of Title VII.

The defendant moved to dismiss, and the court granted the motion in April 2001, on the grounds that it was too late for the EEOC to depart so far from its initial pleadings.

Summary Authors

Jason Chester (7/30/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:00-cv-01809

Docket (PACER)

EEOC v. Cedar Supply Company

June 5, 2002

June 5, 2002

Docket

Resources

Docket

Last updated Jan. 18, 2024, 3:11 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT (Summons(es) not issued); jury demand (former empl) (Entered: 09/15/2000)

Sept. 14, 2000

Sept. 14, 2000

2

MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham re: service & initial procedure (former empl) (Entered: 09/18/2000)

Sept. 15, 2000

Sept. 15, 2000

3

AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1]; jury demand (former empl) (Entered: 09/18/2000)

Sept. 15, 2000

Sept. 15, 2000

4

ORDER R16 stat stlmt pt pto referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe & General Case Mgmt Order by Judge Edward W. Nottingham; dispo motion ddl 5/14/01 (cc: to counsel) (former empl) (Entered: 09/28/2000)

Sept. 26, 2000

Sept. 26, 2000

5

Minute ORDER FOR RULE 16 CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe ; Rule 16 conference set for 8:30 11/14/00 (cc: all counsel) (former empl) (Entered: 09/29/2000)

Sept. 28, 2000

Sept. 28, 2000

6

WAIVER OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint by defendant Cedar Supply Company (request sent on 10/11/00) (former empl) (Entered: 11/02/2000)

Nov. 1, 2000

Nov. 1, 2000

7

Unopposed MOTION by plaintiff to vacate sched conf (former empl) (Entered: 11/08/2000)

Nov. 7, 2000

Nov. 7, 2000

8

MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe the motion to vacate sched conf [7-1] (former empl) (Entered: 11/14/2000)

Nov. 13, 2000

Nov. 13, 2000

9

COURTROOM MINUTES OF SCHED CONF by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe DENYING motion to vacate sched conf [7-1]; sched order entered 11/14/00; rule 16 conf held on 11/14/00; discovery ddl set 4/30/01; dispo motions ddl 5/14/01 as set by Judge Nottingham; settlement conf set for 10:30 3/15/01; prelim pretrial (status) conf set for 9:00 5/3/01 ; counsel to submit sched order w/in 10 days; entry date : 11/16/00 Court Reporter: Tape 2000-104 (former empl) (Entered: 11/16/2000)

Nov. 14, 2000

Nov. 14, 2000

10

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: stlmt conf set 10:30 3/15/01; prelim pretrial conf set 9:00 5/3/01 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 11/20/00 (former empl) (Entered: 11/20/2000)

Nov. 17, 2000

Nov. 17, 2000

11

SCHEDULING / Planning & Discovery ORDER Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: disc ddl 4/30/01; dispo motions ddl 5/14/01; settlement conference 9:00 3/15/01; parties anticipate 4-5 day jury trial; final pretrial conf 9:00 5/3/01 (cc: all counsel) (former empl) (Entered: 11/28/2000)

Nov. 27, 2000

Nov. 27, 2000

12

MOTION by defendant to dismiss (former empl) (Entered: 12/12/2000)

Dec. 11, 2000

Dec. 11, 2000

13

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Edward W. Nottingham regarding [12-1] motion to dismiss, response due 12/26/00, reply due w/in 11 days of service of response (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 12/15/00 (former empl) (Entered: 12/15/2000)

Dec. 14, 2000

Dec. 14, 2000

14

MOTION by defendant to stay discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss (former empl) (Entered: 12/26/2000)

Dec. 21, 2000

Dec. 21, 2000

17

MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss [14-1] (former empl) (Entered: 12/28/2000)

Dec. 22, 2000

Dec. 22, 2000

16

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe regarding [14-1] motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss, response due 1/8/01 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 12/28/00 (former empl) (Entered: 12/28/2000)

Dec. 27, 2000

Dec. 27, 2000

18

MOTION by defendant to extend time to respond to plf's disc requests (former empl) (Entered: 12/28/2000)

Dec. 27, 2000

Dec. 27, 2000

19

Memorandum (BRIEF) by plaintiff in opposition to motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss [14-1] (former empl) (Entered: 12/29/2000)

Dec. 28, 2000

Dec. 28, 2000

20

MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe the motion to extend time to respond to plf's disc requests [18-1] (former empl) (Entered: 12/29/2000)

Dec. 28, 2000

Dec. 28, 2000

21

MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe Pla has to 1/16/01 to respond to dft's [14-1] motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss & [18-1] motion to extend time to respond to plf's disc requests (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 1/4/01 (gms) (Entered: 01/04/2001)

Jan. 3, 2001

Jan. 3, 2001

22

REPLY by defendant to memo in opposition to motion to dismiss [12-1] (gms) (Entered: 01/05/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

23

Memorandum in Opposition (RESPONSE) by plaintiff EEOC to dft's motion to extend time to respond to plf's disc requests [18-1] (former empl) (Entered: 01/10/2001)

Jan. 9, 2001

Jan. 9, 2001

24

MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe granting dft's motion to extend time to respond to plf's disc requests [18-1] to 2/5/01, denying dft's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion to dismiss [14-1] ; Preliminary ptc/ status conf reset for 8:30 3/30/01 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 1/25/01 (gms) (Entered: 01/25/2001)

Jan. 24, 2001

Jan. 24, 2001

25

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to vacate date of preliminary pretrial conference (former empl) (Entered: 02/06/2001)

Feb. 5, 2001

Feb. 5, 2001

26

MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe the motion to vacate date of preliminary pretrial conference [25-1] (former empl) (Entered: 02/12/2001)

Feb. 8, 2001

Feb. 8, 2001

27

MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe granting pla's motion to vacate date of preliminary pretrial conference [25-1] ; pretrial conf reset for 8:30 4/9/01 parties to submit their proposed preliminary pretrial order 5 days prior to the preliminary pretrial conf date (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 2/13/01 (former empl) (Entered: 02/13/2001)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

29

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to amend the scheduling order to extend the discovery cut-off to 6/4/01 and the date to propound written discovery to 4/30/01 (former empl) (Entered: 03/26/2001)

March 22, 2001

March 22, 2001

32

MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe the motion to amend the scheduling order to extend the discovery cut-off to 6/4/01 and the date to propound written discovery to 4/30/01 [29-1] (former empl) (Entered: 03/27/2001)

March 22, 2001

March 22, 2001

30

Brief Opposing (RESPONSE) by defendant Cedar Supply Company to pla's motion to amend the scheduling order to extend the discovery cut-off to 6/4/01 and the date to propound written discovery to 4/30/01 [29-1] (former empl) (Entered: 03/27/2001)

March 26, 2001

March 26, 2001

31

MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe regarding [29-1] motion to amend the scheduling order to extend the discovery cut-off to 6/4/01 and the date to propound written discovery to 4/30/01; any response to be filed by 4/4/01 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 3/27/01 (former empl) (Entered: 03/27/2001)

March 26, 2001

March 26, 2001

33

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for protective order and to quash Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to it's former employee George Allen (former empl) (Entered: 03/28/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

34

AFFIDAVIT of Francisco J. Flores, Jr. in support of EEOC's motion for protective order and to quash Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to it's former employee George Allen [33-1] (former empl) (Entered: 03/28/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

35

AFFIDAVIT of George Allen in support of EEOC's motion for protective order and to quash Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to it's former employee George Allen [33-1] (former empl) (Entered: 03/28/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

36

Memorandum in Support (BRIEF) by plaintiff EEOC of motion for protective order and to quash Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to it's former employee George Allen [33-1] (former empl) (Entered: 03/28/2001)

March 27, 2001

March 27, 2001

37

MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe denying pla EEOC's motion to amend the scheduling order to extend the discovery cut-off to 6/4/01 and the date to propound written discovery to 4/30/01 [29-1], the pla has had over 2 mos from this Court's ruling dated 1/24/01, denying dft Rocky Mountain Forest Products, Inc.'s motion to stay discovery and the ddl to propound written discovery requests on 3/27/01, to schedule depositions. Moreover, the dft would be prejudiced by an extension because it has proceded in good faith with discovery based upon the existing ddls set by this Court and Judge Nottingham. It was pla who argued to this Court on the dft's Motion to Stay the need for expedited discovery (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/4/01 (former empl) (Entered: 04/04/2001)

April 2, 2001

April 2, 2001

38

MEMORANDUM by Judge Edward W. Nottingham referring to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe the motion for protective order and to quash Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to it's former employee George Allen [33-1] (former empl) (Entered: 04/06/2001)

April 5, 2001

April 5, 2001

39

MINUTE ORDER : by Judge Edward W. Nottingham setting hearing on dft's motion to dismiss [12-1] 11:00 4/20/01 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/6/01 (former empl) (Entered: 04/06/2001)

April 6, 2001

April 6, 2001

40

Brief in RESPONSE by defendant Cedar Supply Company to pla EEOC's motion for protective order and to quash Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to it's former employee George Allen [33-1] (former empl) (Entered: 04/09/2001)

April 6, 2001

April 6, 2001

41

COURTROOM MINUTES by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe ; preliminary pretrial conf held 4/9/01, the Preliminary Pretrial Order was approved as amended and filed ; entry date : 4/10/01 Court Reporter: MJW Civil Tape No. 2001-35 (former empl) (Entered: 04/10/2001)

April 9, 2001

April 9, 2001

42

PRE-TRIAL ORDER by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe estimated 2 to 2 1/2 day trial to jury (cc: all counsel) (former empl) (Entered: 04/10/2001)

April 9, 2001

April 9, 2001

43

OBJECTION and appeal to the District Judge, Magistrate Judge's order denying EEOC's motion to amend the scheduling order by plaintiff EEOC concerning minute order [37-1] (former empl) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

April 12, 2001

April 12, 2001

44

AFFIDAVIT of Nelson G. Alston re: objection motion OBJECTION and appeal to the District Judge, Magistrate Judge's order denying EEOC's motion to amend the scheduling order [43-1] (former empl) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

April 12, 2001

April 12, 2001

45

MEMORANDUM in Support by plaintiff EEOC regarding [43-1] EEOC's objection motion OBJECTION and appeal to the District Judge, Magistrate Judge's order denying EEOC's motion to amend the scheduling order (former empl) (Entered: 04/16/2001)

April 12, 2001

April 12, 2001

46

MINUTE ORDER : by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe denying pla EEOC's motion for protective order and to quash Subpoena Duces Tecum issued to it's former employee George Allen [33-1], Dft shall be permitted to depose Mr. Allen concerning the facts of his investigation, factual information pertinent to the claims and defenses of this case, and the documents Mr. Allen generated as part of his investigation. As the dft correctly notes, in this case, the EEOC is a party in this litigation, Mr. Allen was identified by the plaintiff in it's 26(a) disclosures as someone who possesses knowledge about this case, and the pla has submitted an affidavit by Mr. Allen in it's opposition to the dft's dispositive motion. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to issue a blanket protective order concerning Mr. Allen's deposition. During Mr. Allen's deposition, the pla may, of course, make objections to specific questions it feels are protected by the work-product doctrine, the attorney-client privilege, or any other relevant privilege. (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/17/01 (former empl) (Entered: 04/17/2001)

April 13, 2001

April 13, 2001

47

COURTROOM MINUTES by Judge Edward W. Nottingham granting dft's motion to dismiss [12-1], Plaintiff's EEOC's complaint and action are hereby Dismissed with prejudice, Court finds as to the following: The amended charge of sexual harassment discrimination does not relate back to the timely filed charge of disability discrimination, because the amendment advances a new theory of recovery facts are significantly different; There is an insufficient nexus between the allegations of sexual harassment and the allegations of disability discrimination to support the EEOC's contention that it's sexual harrassment investigation could be deemed lik or related to the substance of the original charge of disability discrimination; The separate charge of discrimination failed the administrative procedure of providing a ten-day notice of a filing of a charge of discrimination, pursuant to 42 USC 2000(e)(50)(B). ; entry date : 4/20/01 Court Reporter: Paul Zuckerman (former empl) Modified on 04/20/2001 (Entered: 04/20/2001)

April 20, 2001

April 20, 2001

48

TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motion to Dismiss on 4/20/01 before Judge Edward W. Nottingham ( pages: 1-14) Prepared By: Pat Roney (certified copy) (former empl) (Entered: 04/23/2001)

April 23, 2001

April 23, 2001

49

ORDER by Judge Edward W. Nottingham granting dft's motion to dismiss [12-1] dismissing case with prejudice (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/25/01 (former empl) (Entered: 04/25/2001)

April 23, 2001

April 23, 2001

50

MOTION by defendant Cedar Supply Company for attorney fees and costs (former empl) (Entered: 04/26/2001)

April 25, 2001

April 25, 2001

51

MINUTE ORDER : by Judge Edward W. Nottingham regarding [43-1] objection motion OBJECTION and appeal to the District Judge, Magistrate Judge's order denying EEOC's motion to amend the scheduling order, Dft may respond by 5/9/01 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date 4/26/01 (former empl) (Entered: 04/26/2001)

April 25, 2001

April 25, 2001

52

MINUTE ORDER : by Judge Edward W. Nottingham vacating minute order [51-1], case has been dismissed (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/27/01 (former empl) (Entered: 04/27/2001)

April 26, 2001

April 26, 2001

53

RESPONSE by plaintiff to dft's motion for attorney fees and costs [50-1] (pap) (Entered: 05/22/2001)

May 18, 2001

May 18, 2001

54

REPLY by defendant to pla's response to dft's motion for attorney fees and costs [50-1] (pap) (Entered: 06/05/2001)

June 4, 2001

June 4, 2001

55

NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff of 4/23/01 order [49-2] (Notice of Appeal States "from the final judgment entered in this action on 4/23/01"); Notice of transcript order form due 7/2/01 ; Notice mailed to all counsel on 6/26/01 Fee Status: USA Appellant (former empl) (Entered: 06/26/2001)

June 22, 2001

June 22, 2001

56

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of assignment of Case No. [55-1] 01-1305 (former empl) (Entered: 06/29/2001)

June 29, 2001

June 29, 2001

57

NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM filed by plaintiff; Necessary Trans already on file in USDC RE: appeal [55-1] (former empl) (Entered: 07/11/2001)

July 9, 2001

July 9, 2001

58

LETTER to USCA and cnsl advising that the record on appeal is complete (Re: [55-1] ) (former empl) (Entered: 07/11/2001)

July 11, 2001

July 11, 2001

59

MANDATE from the Court of Appeals; CA # 01-1305; Dt issued 8/27/01 of 8/24/01 Order; dismissing the appeal [55-1] by granting Appellant's Motion to Dismiss (former empl) (Entered: 08/27/2001)

Aug. 27, 2001

Aug. 27, 2001

60

ORDER by Judge Edward W. Nottingham granting dft's motion for attorney fees and costs [50-1]; the parties shall comply with FRCvP 54(d) w/respect to the amt of the fee; dft shall file its papers supporting the amt by 4/15/02, pla may respond by 4/25/02; the parties shall thereafter attempt to resolve all issues; dft shall notify the court, in writing, no later than 5/5/02, concerning the status of negotiations and need for a hearing (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/1/02 (lam) (Entered: 04/01/2002)

March 29, 2002

March 29, 2002

61

Dft's support for attorneys' fees and costs ; AFFIDAVIT of Mary Hurley Stuart in accordance with: order [60-1] (pap) (Entered: 04/16/2002)

April 15, 2002

April 15, 2002

62

Opposition (RESPONSE) by plaintiff to Dft's support for attorney's fees and costs (affidavit) [61-1] (pap) (Entered: 04/26/2002)

April 25, 2002

April 25, 2002

63

STATUS REPORT by defendant to the court re: attorneys' fees negotiations (pap) (Entered: 05/07/2002)

May 6, 2002

May 6, 2002

64

STATEMENT concerning attorneys' fees and costs by defendant re: order [60-1] (pap) (Entered: 05/14/2002)

May 13, 2002

May 13, 2002

65

Agreement (RESPONSE) by plaintiff and defendant to motion for attorney fees and costs [50-1] (pap) (Entered: 06/06/2002)

June 5, 2002

June 5, 2002

Case Details

State / Territory: Colorado

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 14, 2000

Closing Date: 2001

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Cedar Supply Company, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Sex discrimination

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits