Case: EEOC v. HELCRIS, INC., dba VOGUE CLEANERS

2:97-cv-00290 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

Filed Date: Aug. 15, 1997

Closed Date: Sept. 14, 1999

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In August 1997, the Indianapolis District Office of the EEOC brought suit against Helcris Inc., dba Vogue Cleaners, in United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The complaint is unavailable; on the docket, the case is categorized as an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The defendant did not appear, and in September of 1998 a default judgment was entered in the amount of $549.46 for lost wages and compensatory damages.

Summary Authors

Jason Chester (5/21/2008)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:97-cv-00290

Docket [PACER]

EEOC v. Helcris, Inc., dba Vogue Cleaners

Oct. 7, 1999

Oct. 7, 1999

Docket

Resources

Docket

Last updated Jan. 27, 2024, 3:08 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT ( Number of Summon(es) issued: 1 ) Jury demand by: plaintiff (efc) (Entered: 08/19/1997)

Aug. 15, 1997

Aug. 15, 1997

2

RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Helcris, Inc. on 8/22/97 (efc) (Entered: 09/15/1997)

Sept. 15, 1997

Sept. 15, 1997

4

REQUEST by plaintiff EEOC for clerk to enter default as to Helcris, Inc. (efc) (Entered: 10/09/1997)

Oct. 9, 1997

Oct. 9, 1997

5

AFFIDAVIT of Lectric L. Chandler to request for clerk to enter default as to Helcris, Inc. [4−1] (efc) (Entered: 10/09/1997)

Oct. 9, 1997

Oct. 9, 1997

6

CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to defendant Helcris, Inc. (cc: all counsel) (efc) (Entered: 10/09/1997)

Oct. 9, 1997

Oct. 9, 1997

7

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for default judgment against Helcris, Inc. (efc) (Entered: 12/16/1997)

Dec. 15, 1997

Dec. 15, 1997

8

AFFIDAVIT of Yvonne Petrak to motion for default judgment against Helcris, Inc. [7−1] (efc) (Entered: 12/16/1997)

Dec. 15, 1997

Dec. 15, 1997

9

AFFIDAVIT of Mary Anne Huesman to motion for default judgment against Helcris, Inc. [7−1] (efc) (Entered: 12/16/1997)

Dec. 15, 1997

Dec. 15, 1997

10

AFFIDAVIT of Thomas P. Hadfield to motion for default judgment against Helcris, Inc. [7−1] (efc) (Entered: 12/16/1997)

Dec. 15, 1997

Dec. 15, 1997

11

ORDER by Judge Rudy Lozano hearing on damages and judgment set for 2:00 p.m. 1/30/98 (cc: all counsel) (efc) (Entered: 01/16/1998)

Jan. 15, 1998

Jan. 15, 1998

12

MINUTES: HEARING ON DAMAGES held on 1/30/98 before Judge Rudy Lozano. Plaintiff is present and by counsel Kenneth L. Bird. Court confirms that the deft Helcris, Inc. dba Vogue Cleaners is not present at hearing. Plf does not present evidence. Court orders plaintiff to submit brief regarding the creditability of the affidavits filed in this case. ;Brief ddl set for 2/13/98 . Plaintiff is also ordered to file findings of fact and conclusions of law by same date. Julie Churchill, Court Reporter (cc: all counsel) (imr) (Entered: 01/30/1998)

Jan. 30, 1998

Jan. 30, 1998

13

POST−HEARING BRIEF filed by plaintiff EEOC (efc) (Entered: 02/13/1998)

Feb. 13, 1998

Feb. 13, 1998

14

Proposed finding of fact by plaintiff EEOC (efc) (Entered: 02/13/1998)

Feb. 13, 1998

Feb. 13, 1998

14

Proposed conclusions of law by plaintiff EEOC (efc) (Entered: 02/13/1998)

Feb. 13, 1998

Feb. 13, 1998

15

AFFIDAVIT of Mary Anne Huesman (efc) (Entered: 02/13/1998)

Feb. 13, 1998

Feb. 13, 1998

16

ORDER by Judge Rudy Lozano taking under advisement the motion for default judgment [7−1] ; The plaintiff is ordered to file a brief within 15 days explaining why the affidavits admitted in this case sufficiently apprise the court of compensatory and punitive damages. (cc: all counsel) (efc) (Entered: 03/13/1998)

March 12, 1998

March 12, 1998

17

BRIEF by plaintiff EEOC to support default judgment (efc) (Entered: 03/26/1998)

March 26, 1998

March 26, 1998

18

AFFIDAVIT of Matt Petrak (efc) (Entered: 03/26/1998)

March 26, 1998

March 26, 1998

19

AFFIDAVIT of Mary Anne Huesman (efc) (Entered: 03/26/1998)

March 26, 1998

March 26, 1998

20

ORDER by Judge Rudy Lozano granting motion for default judgment against Helcris, Inc. [7−1]. The Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to $272.00 in lost wages plus prejudgment interest, and $200.00 in compensatory damages. terminating case (cc: all counsel) (efc) (Entered: 09/11/1998)

Sept. 8, 1998

Sept. 8, 1998

21

CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT in the amount of $ 272.00 in lost wages plus prejudgment interest, and $ 200.00 in compensatory damages. Equivalent Coupon Issue Rate: 5.271 % (cc: all counsel) (efc) (Entered: 09/11/1998)

Sept. 11, 1998

Sept. 11, 1998

22

MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to clarify judgment (kwk) (Entered: 09/23/1998)

Sept. 21, 1998

Sept. 21, 1998

23

ORDER by Judge Rudy Lozano granting motion to clarify judgment [22−1] to reflect $77.46 as the amount of pre−judgment interest. Therefore, the total judgment is $549.46. Post−judgment interest runs from the date of judgment, 9/11/98, as provided by statute, 28 USC Section 1961. (cc: all counsel) (efc)

Sept. 28, 1998

Sept. 28, 1998

25

PRAECIPE for writ of execution by plaintiff EEOC (efc) (Entered: 05/20/1999)

May 19, 1999

May 19, 1999

26

WRIT OF EXECUTION by Judge Rudy Lozano as to defendant Helcris, Inc. (cc: all counsel) (efc) (Entered: 09/21/1999)

Sept. 14, 1999

Sept. 14, 1999

27

RETURN OF SERVICE of writ of execution executed on 10/5/99 (efc) (Entered: 10/07/1999)

Oct. 7, 1999

Oct. 7, 1999

Case Details

State / Territory: Indiana

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 15, 1997

Closing Date: Sept. 14, 1999

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

Helcris Inc, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Damages

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: 549.46

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits