Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 1 of 44

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 93-20208-JW
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and DENNY'S, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________
Consolidated With
KRISTINA RIDGEWAY, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civ. No. 93-20202-JW
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and DENNY'S, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________.
AMENDED CONSENT DECREE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
2. PURPOSES OF THIS DECREE
3. THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Plaintiffs' Contentions
2. Defendants' Contentions
4. DEFINITIONS
5. JURISDICTION, SCOPE AND TERM OF DECREE

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 2 of 44

6. GENERAL NONDISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS 7. COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS
A. General Compliance 2. Policies 3. Notice to Employees and Agents and Training and Education Program
1. Notification to Employees and Agents 2. Training of Employees and Agents 3. Notice to and Training of Franchisees. 4. Notice to the Public and Advertising 8. TESTING 9. MONITORING, RECORD-KEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A. Civil Rights Monitor 2. Record-Keeping 1. Record-Keeping in General 2. Application of Attorney-Client Privilege And Work-Product Doctrine 3. Civil Rights Monitor 4. Denny's 5. Complaints of Discrimination Under the Original Decree 3. Reporting Provisions 1. Preliminary Meeting 2. Semi-Annual Reports 3. Reports To Testing Organizations 4. Reports Re: Complaints Of Discrimination 4. Dispute Resolution Procedure 10. CLASS MONETARY RELIEF

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 3 of 44

A. Monetary Settlement Fund 2. Definition of the Class 3. Claims Administrator 4. Notice 5. Provisions for Objections and Exclusions 6. Claims Procedure 7. Special Master 8. Class Monetary Distribution 9. Attorneys' Fees and Costs 10. Release Of Claims By Plaintiff Class 11. NOTICES 12. INCIDENTS OF DISCRIMINATION 13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY

I. INTRODUCTION
On March 26, 1993, plaintiff United States filed a complaint simultaneously with a Consent Decree ("Original Decree") against defendants TW Services, Inc. (now Flagstar Corporation) and Denny's, Inc. The Original Decree was approved by this Court on April 1, 1993.
On March 24, 1993, Plaintiff Class filed a complaint against defendants TW Services, Inc., TW Holdings, Inc. (now Flagstar Companies, Inc.) and Denny's, Inc. and Denny's Holdings, Inc. (collectively referred to as "defendants").
On July 2, 1993, the Court, on its own motion, consolidated both actions for pretrial purposes.
The complaints of both plaintiffs allege violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a, et seq. ("Public Accommodations Act"). In addition, the complaint filed by Plaintiff Class alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. and California Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq.
Defendant Flagstar Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Flagstar Corporation, through its subsidiary Denny's, conducts business across the United States, including the State of California. Defendant Flagstar Companies, Inc. wholly owns defendant Flagstar Corporation. Denny's, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Defendant Denny's Holdings is a subsidiary of Flagstar

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 4 of 44

Corporation and owns defendant Denny's, Inc.
The complaints of the United States and the Plaintiff Class allege that Denny's, a subsidiary of Flagstar Corporation, has engaged in a pattern or practice of denying to African-American persons, and their companions on the basis of race or color, the use and enjoyment of the facilities, services, and accommodations of Denny's Restaurants on the same basis as they make such available to white persons. More specifically, the United States and the Plaintiff Class allege that Denny's: (1) implemented terms and conditions for service to African-American persons and their companions that are less favorable than the terms and conditions for service to white persons; (2) treats AfricanAmerican customers and their companions less favorably than white customers; and (3) discourages African-American persons from visiting its restaurants.
Following the execution of the Original Decree on April 1, 1993, numerous complaints of racial discrimination were submitted to Plaintiff Class and the United States. The United States investigated many of these complaints and, based on those investigations, the United States has determined that an amendment of the Original Decree is necessary to expand the procedures designed to ensure that defendants are taking appropriate action to address alleged violations of the Public Accommodations Act and to prevent discrimination in the future. In addition, to further the public interest, a description of plaintiffs' contentions and the evidence on which they would rely if this case were adjudicated will be recited below in Section III.
Denny's and Flagstar Corporation continue to deny the allegations set forth in the complaints of the United States and the Plaintiff Class. However, the parties have agreed that, in order to avoid protracted and costly litigation, this controversy should be resolved through the amendment of the Original Decree. This Amended Consent Decree shall constitute a resolution of all claims asserted or which could have been asserted on the basis of race or color by African Americans and their companions with regard to discrimination in public accommodations by both the United States and Plaintiff Class through May 24, 1994. As indicated by the signature of counsel at the end of this document, the parties have consented to the entry of this Amended Consent Decree (hereinafter "Decree").
II. PURPOSES OF THIS DECREE
The parties have entered into this Decree for the following purposes:
A. To ensure, by means set forth in this Decree, that all future customers of Denny's Restaurants and franchisees are accorded equal treatment and service regardless of race and/or color.
2. To provide injunctive relief in furtherance of the public interest, and injunctive and monetary relief to all class members by means of the goals, timetables, and other procedures set forth in this Decree.
3. To avoid further protracted, expensive, and disruptive litigation.
III. THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Plaintiffs' Contentions
Plaintiffs contend that they would produce, at a minimum, testimonial evidence at trial substantially as follows, and that, if such testimony were elicited as described, it would demonstrate a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq. In

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 5 of 44

addition, Plaintiff Class contends that it would produce, at a minimum, testimonial evidence at trial substantially as follows, and that, if such testimony were elicited as described, it would demonstrate a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. and California Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq.
1. As of the date of this Amended Consent Decree, Denny's, Inc., a subsidiary of defendant Flagstar Corporation, owns, operates and franchises Denny's Restaurants across the United States, including the State of California.
2. The testimony would establish that defendants required prepayment and/or cover charges as a precondition for African- American persons to receive service or food at defendants' restaurants. In one such incident, in December, 1991, a group of approximately eighteen (18) African-American high school and college students visited a Denny's Restaurant in San Jose, California. The group was told by defendants' manager that, prior to being seated, they would have to pay for their meals in advance and/or a $2.00 "cover charge" uor "minimum." During this visit, there was a group of white students in defendants' restaurant that had not been asked to prepay and/or pay a cover charge. The African-American students, despite their offer to break up into smaller groups, were denied service by defendants.
3. The testimony would further establish that, in November, 1991, at a Denny's Restaurant in San Diego, California, a group of eleven (11) African-American persons, most of them related, were required to prepay for their meals in advance. Witnesses observed several nonAfrican-American persons pay at the cash register.
4. The testimony would further establish that on two separate occasions, in 1991, at a Denny's Restaurant in San Jose, California, two different groups of African-American persons were required to prepay prior to being served. The first group consisted of seven (7) to ten (10) African-American students. The second group, which consisted of approximately fifteen (15) to (20) African-American high school students, waited for more than an hour without having their orders taken. A waitress finally came over and told the group that they would have to pay for their meals before they could be served. Approximately half of the group left the restaurant. A few minutes later, the other half of the group was escorted out of the restaurant by police at defendants' restaurant's request.
5. The same restaurant referenced in paragraph 4 above, in 1992, was responsible for the removal from the restaurant by the police of a group of four female high school students, three African-American and one East Indian. The females, who were not allowed to finish their meals, were removed because, according to the testimony that would be provided, there were "too many of you people here."
6. The testimony would further establish that, in 1992, at one of defendants' restaurants in Santa Clara, California, an African-American person was required to prepay and treated poorly by the waiter on duty, while a white male was seated -- without prepayment -- by the same waiter.
7. The evidence and testimony would further establish that, in 1992, at a Denny's Restaurant in Sacramento, California, African-American customers were required to prepay for their meals and provide identification prior to being allowed into the restaurant.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 6 of 44

8. The evidence and testimony would further establish that, in 1991, an African-American family of five (two parents and three children) who visited one of defendant's restaurants in Vallejo, California, to celebrate the birthday of one of the children was denied a "free birthday meal." The family was made to wait an excessively long period of time for service, was treated discourteously, and required to produce burdensome proof of their child's date of birth. The family eventually left the restaurant because of the embarrassment and humiliation they had suffered.
9. The evidence and testimony would further establish that a Denny's Restaurant in San Jose also does not provide "free birthday meals" to African-American customers on the same terms and conditions as those provided to non-African-American customers.
10. The evidence and testimony would further establish that on April 1, 1993, the same day the Original Decree was entered, a group of 21 United States Secret Service officers (7 AfricanAmerican and 14 white), in uniform, drove to Annapolis, Maryland early in the morning to prepare for a trip by the President of the United States to the Naval Academy. The officers stopped for breakfast at a Denny's Restaurant in Annapolis. Six African- American officers sat together at a table, and the other officers sat elsewhere. The six African-American officers who sat together did not get served in the 55 minutes they were in the restaurant; the other officers, including an African-American officer sitting with white officers, did get served.
11. The evidence and testimony would further establish that several months after the execution of the Original Decree, at a Denny's Restaurant in Mojave, California, an African-American family was denied seating and service. Non-African-American witnesses observing the incident would testify that during the approximately fifty (50) minutes that the AfricanAmerican family waited to be seated, they and numerous other non-African- Americans who arrived after the African-American family were seated and served. The witnesses would further testify that although seating was available, the African-American family was not offered seating and eventually left the restaurant.
12. The evidence and testimony would further establish that on or about June 23, 1993, an African-American man and Caucasian woman ("military couple"), both members of the United States Armed Services, visited a Denny's Restaurant in Shreveport, Louisiana. The Restaurant was not crowded. There were perhaps ten (10) other people sitting in a section at the back of the Restaurant. A Caucasian group, comprised of a couple, a baby and an elderly man, were sitting and eating at the table diagonally to the right of the direction the couple was facing. Approximately ten (10) minutes after they were seated, a Caucasian couple was seated at a table diagonal and to the left of the direction the couple was facing. A Caucasian waitress took their order immediately. The waitress delivered their food within approximately five minutes and refilled their coffee cups. The waitress had been so close to the military couple's table when she was delivering the Caucasian couple's food that she bumped up against their table. She did not take the military couple's order at that time, although their menus were laying closed at the edge of their table. In addition to taking the second Caucasian couple's orders and serving their food, the waitress refilled the coffee cups at the tables of both the Caucasian couple and group at least twice during this period. Both of the tables were so close to the military couple's table that the waitress brushed up against their table when she went to refill the coffee cups of both the Caucasian couple and group. The military couple eventually left the restaurant without being served.
13. The evidence and testimony would further establish that Denny's managers in San Jose,

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 7 of 44

California were instructed individually and at district meetings to limit patronage by African-American customers by ignoring African-American customers, telling them that tables were not available when, in fact, tables were available, requiring customers to pay for their meals in advance and closing down the restaurant when too many African-American customers attempted to visit the restaurant.
14. The evidence and testimony would further establish that Denny's managers in Los Angeles were instructed to seat African- American customers in certain areas of the restaurant, require groups of African-American customers to pay for their meals in advance, deny separate checks for African-American groups when the same was provided to non-AfricanAmerican groups, charge a 15% gratuity to the checks of African-American customers and discourage African-American customers by denying seating and/or requiring them to wait for prolonged periods prior to being seated.
2. Defendants' Contentions
Denny's and Flagstar Corporation deny the allegations set forth in the complaints of the United States and the Plaintiff Class. Denny's has investigated many of these incidents of alleged discrimination, and although some involved problems with customer service, Denny's does not believe that the Claimants were discriminated against on the basis of race. However, Denny's and Flagstar Corporation recognize that some individual employees may act in a discriminatory manner towards customers even though such actions are contrary to Company policy. Consequently, Denny's and Flagstar Corporation are willing to adopt the procedures set forth in this Decree to prevent incidents of discrimination from arising in the future. Denny's and Flagstar Corporation believe it is in their best interest to enter into this Decree and resolve the monetary claims of Plaintiff Class in order to avoid the costs of continuing to litigate this matter. Denny's and Flagstar Corporation continue to be committed to investigating claims of discrimination, and to remedy any incidents of discrimination promptly.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
IV. DEFINITIONS
The following terms (whether or not underscored) when used in this Decree, in addition to the terms defined elsewhere in this Decree, shall have the following meanings:
A. "African-Americans" shall include all black persons.
2. "Agent" shall mean any person including, but not limited to, security personnel, involved in the treatment and service of customers at Denny's Restaurants.
3. "Claim Form" shall mean the printed form, which is Exhibit G to this Decree, in English by which claimants assert their claims, or any equivalent form or document that contains substantially all of the information sought in the printed form.
4. "Claim Period" shall be defined as the period commencing on November 14, 1988 and ending on May 24, 1994.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 8 of 44

5. "Claimant" shall mean all eligible class members who have not opted out of the lawsuit and have filed a claim form which states facts upon which the Claims Administrator and/or Class Counsel and/or a Special Master can determine that during the liability period, the claimant was subjected to differential treatment and/or services as a customer at a Denny's Restaurant in California on account of race or color of the claimant or his or her companion.
6. "Complaint" includes any oral or written, formal or informal complaint, to any administrative or official body or to any officer, employee, agent or franchisee of Denny's.
7. "Denny's" shall refer to Denny's Inc., all company-owned "Denny's Restaurants" and all officers, employees and agents of Denny's, Inc. and company-owned "Denny's Restaurants."
8. "Original Decree" shall refer to the Decree entered in Civil No. 93-20208-JW on April 1, 1993.
9. "Plaintiff Class" shall refer to all African-American customers of Denny's Restaurants and franchised Denny's Restaurants in California and their companions who at any time between November 14, 1988 and May 24, 1994 were subjected to discriminatory customer treatment and/or service practices based on race or color, including but not limited to:
1. Payment for meals prior to service or consumption ("prepayment") based on race or color;
2. Payment of a "cover charge" prior to service based on race or color;
3. Denial of or delay in seating based on race or color;
4. Denial of a complimentary "birthday meal" or other promotional items or programs based on race or color;
5. Forced or threatened removal from the restaurant based on race or color;
6. Charges for services or food items for which non African-American customers were not charged based on race or color; and
7. Other forms of differential service based on race or color.
10. "Principal" or "Principally Featured" shall refer to: (i) anyone who is seen and who speaks a line or lines of dialogue, whether directly employed for such work or after being hired as an extra performer; or (ii) anyone whose face appears silent, alone in a stationary camera shot, and is identified with the product or service; or (iii) anyone whose face appears silent and is identifiable and whose foreground performance demonstrates or illustrates a product or service or illustrates or reacts to the on or off-camera narrations or commercial message. Persons appearing in the foreground solely as atmosphere and not otherwise covered by the foregoing shall be deemed extra performers.
11. "Testing" shall refer to an investigative process in which similarly situated pairs of individuals, or groups of individuals, are sent to a Denny's Restaurant at predetermined times under controlled circumstances to determine if employees at the restaurant are discriminating against customers on the basis of race or color. Although the precise requirements of a given test will differ depending upon the type of discrimination under examination and the practical limitations of the test situation, it is expected that (1) test pairs or groups will be carefully matched so as to be similar in

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 9 of 44

all respects except in race or color; (2) test pairs or groups will visit the test site as close together in time as logistically possible; and (3) test pairs or groups will be trained to seek similar service in a similar manner from the same restaurant employee(s).
V. JURISDICTION, SCOPE AND TERM OF DECREE
A. The parties have consented to the entry of this Decree. To this end, the parties stipulate and the Court finds that: (1) Denny's Restaurants are places of public accommodation within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b)(1); (2) Denny's Restaurants' operations affect interstate commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000a(c)(1); and (3) this Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants for purposes of this action and jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-6 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1345.
2. The parties agree and the Court ORDERS that the Original Decree entered in Civil No. 93-20208JW on April 1, 1993 is hereby AMENDED. This Decree supersedes the Original Decree entered in Civil No. 93-20208-JW.
3. The provisions of this Decree shall apply as follows:
1. All provisions of this Decree, unless otherwise indicated, shall apply to Denny's, its subsidiaries, officers, employees, agents, assigns, successors in interest in the ownership and/or operation of Denny's Restaurants, and anyone acting in whole or in part under the direction of Denny's or any of Denny's subsidiaries in connection with the treatment and/or service of customers in Denny's Restaurants. The provisions of Sections II, IV, VI, VIIA., VIIC.3., VIID.2. and VIII shall apply to franchisees to the extent stated in those sections.
2. Flagstar Corporation, its subsidiaries, officers, employees, agents, assigns, and successors in interest, or anyone acting in whole or in part under the direction of Flagstar Corporation or any of Flagstar Corporation's subsidiaries shall be bound by Sections VI, IXB.1. and IXC.4. of this Decree.
4. The provisions of this Decree are effective immediately upon the entry of the Decree by the Court. The Decree shall be effective for a period of seven (7) years from May 24, 1994, unless the case is dismissed earlier as provided in the next paragraph.
5. Within sixty (60) days preceding the fifth anniversary of the entry of the Decree by the Court, or at any time thereafter, Denny's may apply to the Court for an order dismissing the case. The United States and/or Plaintiff Class may respond to Denny's application in accordance with the Local Rules of this District. The Court may determine that an early dismissal of the case is appropriate based upon Denny's satisfaction of the terms, provisions and purposes of this Decree. Absent an early dismissal of this case or extensions by the Court, defendants may move for dismissal of this case at the close of the seven (7) year period. The United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class may oppose defendants' motion on any grounds appropriate under applicable law.
VI. GENERAL NONDISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS
Flagstar Corporation and Denny's, together with their respective subsidiaries, officers, employees, agents, assigns, successors in interest in the ownership and/or operation of their respective places of public accommodation, and those persons in active concert or participation with them in connection with

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 10 of 44

the treatment and/or service of customers who receive actual notice of the Decree by personal service or otherwise, and franchisees who receive actual notice of the Decree by personal service or otherwise, are HEREBY PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from:
A. Denying to any person, on the ground of race or color, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of its restaurants;
2. Denying service, or offering less favorable terms and conditions of service, to any person on the ground of race or color;
3. Requiring prepayment, a cover charge or identification as a condition of service, on the ground of race or color;
4. Implementing different terms and conditions, on the ground of race or color, concerning Denny's promotional offers, including, but not limited to, any future offer of "free birthday meals";
5. Making statements, on the ground of race or color, that would discourage a reasonable person from visiting defendants' restaurants;
6. Instructing or encouraging employees or staff members to discourage any person, on the ground of race or color, from visiting defendants' facilities or from enjoying the full benefits of defendants' facilities;
7. Making, printing, or publishing, or causing to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the service or equal enjoyment of defendants' restaurants that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race or color, or an intention to make any such limitation or discrimination;
8. Representing to any person, because of race or color, that service or enjoyment of defendants' facilities is not available, when such is in fact so available;
9. Denying service, or offering less favorable terms or conditions of service, to any non-AfricanAmerican customers because they patronize defendants' facilities as part of a group which includes African-American customers;
10. Retaliating against any officer, employee or agent for opposing or reporting alleged discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers, in violation of applicable law and/or this Decree.
VII. COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS
Denny's shall take the following steps to insure that its restaurants are operated in a nondiscriminatory manner:
A. General Compliance
Denny's shall implement the plan described below to ensure compliance with federal law by Denny's, its subsidiaries, franchisees, agents, officers and employees. The plan includes, but is not limited to, provisions for the development and implementation of a non-discrimination training program for personnel, the retention of a Civil Rights Monitor ("Monitor"), testing of Denny's franchise and company-owned restaurants to monitor and ensure compliance with this Decree, and

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 11 of 44

notifying the public that Denny's Restaurants will operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. In order that compliance with this Decree may be monitored appropriately, Denny's shall maintain appropriate records. Denny's shall cooperate with the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class in providing complete, accurate and current information as required under this Decree regarding its restaurants and compliance with this Decree.
2. Policies
Denny's customer service policies shall be uniformly applied to all customers, regardless of their race or color. This Decree shall not restrict Denny's from revising or modifying its policies concerning the treatment and service of customers, provided the revisions or modifications do not discriminate on the basis of race or color, or conflict with any provision of this Decree.
During the period in which this Decree is in effect, Denny's shall deliver to the Monitor, the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class any proposed, new, revised or amended customer service policies prior to their implementation so that the Monitor, the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class may review such policies to ensure that they are consistent with the nondiscrimination provisions of Section VI above. If the Monitor does not object or propose any amendments and/or revisions within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Denny's policies or any proposed amendments and/or revisions to those policies, Denny's may implement such policies. If the Monitor objects, Denny's proposed revisions and/or amendments to Denny's policies may not be adopted until after Denny's and the Monitor have endeavored, in good faith, to resolve all disputed issues concerning such policies pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure.
In the event that the Monitor objects to any of Denny's existing or proposed customer service policies on the basis that they conflict with or undermine the provisions and purposes of this Decree, and Denny's does not modify such policy to the satisfaction of the Monitor, the United States may seek to address the issue through the Dispute Resolution Procedure, or, if a satisfactory resolution is not reached through that procedure, through the Court.
In the event that the Monitor objects to any of Denny's existing or proposed customer service policies on the basis that they conflict with or undermine the provisions or purposes of this Decree, and Denny's does not modify such policy to the satisfaction of the Monitor, and the United States does not address the objection to the satisfaction of the Monitor, counsel for the Plaintiff Class may seek to address the issue through the Dispute Resolution Procedure, or, if a satisfactory resolution of the issue is not reached through the procedure, through the Court.
3. Notice to Employees and Agents and Training and Education Program
1. Notification to Employees and Agents
a. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Decree, Denny's shall send each of its officers, employees and agents a letter accompanied by: (i) a Summary of the Decree as set forth in Exhibit A and (ii) a copy of the Notice set forth in Exhibit B, explaining the employee's and/or agent's duties and obligations under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and this Consent Decree. In addition, Denny's shall inform its officers, employees and agents that any breach of, or failure to comply with, the terms and conditions set forth in section VI of this Decree shall subject them to dismissal or other appropriate disciplinary action. Each person receiving the Summary and Notice shall execute a statement acknowledging that he or she has

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 12 of 44

received and read the Summary and Notice, and that he or she agrees to act in accordance therewith. Such statement shall be in the form of Exhibit C to this Decree and copies thereof shall be retained at the unit where the employee works or, in the case of district, regional or divisional employees, at the divisional office, or, in the case of corporate officers, at Denny's corporate office. During the term of this Decree, copies of such statements shall be made available, upon ten (10) days notice, to the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class.
2. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Decree, Denny's shall inform its current officers, employees and agents that if the officer, employee or agent wants a copy of the Consent Decree, one will be provided to him or her at Denny's expense. Where this Decree requires defendant to provide its officers, employees or agents a copy of a document (e.g., Exhibit B), the officers, employees or agents are entitled to keep permanently a copy of that document. Merely showing the officer, employee or agent a copy of the document does not comply with the requirements of this Decree.
3. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Decree, Denny's shall inform each current officer, employee and agent that Denny's cannot and will not reprimand, penalize, or otherwise retaliate in any way against any officer, employee or agent for opposing or reporting alleged discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers, in violation of applicable law and/or this Decree. This notice may be a separate document or incorporated as a part of Exhibit B, concerning the employee's or agent's duties and obligations under Title II.
4. With respect to new officers, employees or agents, Denny's shall comply with the provisions of subparagraphs a., b. and c. above within seven (7) days of commencement of employment of the new officer, employee or agent.
5. All Denny's officers, employees and agents shall be notified of the entry of this Decree in the first issue of the Denny's Newsletter, published subsequent to the effective date of this Decree. However, such publication shall not be later than six (6) months following the effective date of this Decree. The notice shall be printed on the cover page of the Denny's Newsletter. The notice shall be submitted to the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Decree. If the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class does not object within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the proposed notice, Denny's may publish the proposed notice. If either the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the proposed notice pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
6. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Decree, Denny's shall notify all employees that failure to comply with the obligations of this Decree shall affect the eligibility of any management employee to receive any benefits under any of Denny's incentive programs for management employees to the extent management discretion is involved in deciding such benefits. Denny's shall notify all employees that failure to comply with the obligations of this Decree shall affect the eligibility of any employee to receive a promotion to any position at Denny's.
2. Training of Employees and Agents

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 13 of 44

a. Provided the Monitor approves Denny's existing non- discrimination training program, within sixty (60) days after entry of the Decree or retention of the Monitor, whichever is later, Denny's, through the Monitor, shall submit to the United States for comment and approval and the Plaintiff Class for comment that non-discrimination training program and identify the person(s) and/or organization(s) conducting the non-discrimination training program for the instruction of all currently employed personnel including, but not limited to, all Denny's officers, division vice- presidents, regional directors of operations, regional specialists, regional training managers, regional human resource managers, district leaders, general managers, restaurant managers, managers in training, servers, hosts/hostesses, bus persons and security personnel ("All Employees"). If the Monitor does not approve of the existing nondiscrimination training program, within ninety (90) days subsequent to the entry of this Decree or retention of the Monitor, whichever is later, Denny's, through the Monitor, shall submit to the United States for approval and counsel for the Plaintiff Class for comment a proposed non-discrimination training program for instruction of All Employees.
If the United States approves the existing non-discrimination training program, within ninety (90) days of the date of approval by the United States, the existing nondiscrimination training program shall be presented live to all management personnel who have not had non-discrimination training pursuant to the Original Decree, including, but not limited to, all Denny's officers, division vice-presidents, regional directors of operations, regional specialists, regional training managers, regional human resource managers, district leaders, general managers, restaurant managers and managers in training.
If a new non-discrimination training program is approved pursuant to this Decree and the Monitor determines that the existing non-discrimination training program, though not approved by the Monitor, provided adequate training, within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the date of approval by the United States, the new nondiscrimination training program shall be presented live to all management personnel who have not had non-discrimination training pursuant to the Original Decree, including, but not limited to, all Denny's officers, division vice-presidents, regional directors of operations, regional specialists, regional training managers, regional human resource managers, district leaders, general managers, restaurant managers and managers in training.
If a new non-discrimination training program is approved pursuant to this Decree and the Monitor determines that the existing non-discrimination training program was inadequate, within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the date of approval by the United States, the new non- discrimination training program shall be presented live to all management personnel including, but not limited to, all Denny's officers, division vice-presidents, regional directors of operations, regional specialists, regional training managers, regional human resource managers, district leaders, general managers, restaurant managers and managers in training.
The non-discrimination training program may be provided via the use of videotape to non-management personnel (e.g., hosts, servers, buspersons, security personnel), provided: (i) the videotape entitled "What Color Am I" (which has been approved for purposes of this litigation by the United States) is approved by the Monitor, or if Denny's proposes to use another tape in the place of "What Color Am I," it is

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 14 of 44

developed in consultation with the Monitor and is submitted to the United States and Plaintiff Class as provided below; and (ii) the employees are provided with the opportunity to contact, via telephone or letter, a person who has been trained to respond to the employees' questions or concerns regarding the training. The Monitor shall provide such persons with the training that the Monitor deems appropriate to satisfy the question-and-answer requirement of this paragraph. Pursuant to the Original Decree, the first training session in each Region in California has been attended by the Monitor under the Original Decree to ensure compliance with the Decree. Non-management employees who were trained using "What Color Am I" under the terms of the Original Decree are not required to undergo training under this Decree, provided, however, that if the Monitor determines that "What Color Am I" is inadequate for the purposes of training non-management employees, all such nonmanagement employees will have to be retrained.
If Denny's proposes to replace "What Color Am I" with another videotape, Denny's shall submit the outline and a script of a proposed videotape to the United States for preliminary approval and counsel for the Plaintiff Class for review. If the United States does not object within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the outline and script of any videotape proposed for use in training non-management employees, Denny's may produce the proposed videotape. If the United States objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the proposed videotape pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court. After the videotape is produced from the approved outline and script, Denny's shall submit the videotape to the United States for approval and counsel for the Plaintiff Class for review. If the United States does not object within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the videotape proposed for use in training non-management employees, Denny's may utilize the proposed videotape. If the United States objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the proposed videotape pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
Defendants shall have proprietary rights in all training materials and programs developed pursuant to the Decree. All non-discrimination training programs pursuant to this Decree shall be created by or under the supervision of the Monitor or such other person(s) experienced in handling interracial problems or who have received or will receive instruction or training to handle such problems. The programs shall explain to all currently employed personnel their duties and obligations under Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and this Consent Decree. At a minimum, the nondiscrimination training programs shall include the following: (i) instruction on the requirements of all applicable federal public accommodations laws; (ii) a review of Denny's non-discrimination policies and of the specific requirements of this Consent Decree; (iii) notice that Denny's cannot and will not reprimand, penalize, or otherwise retaliate in any way against any officer, employee or agent for opposing or reporting alleged discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers, in violation of applicable law and/or this Decree; (iv) instruction in procedures designed to ensure that neither race nor color enters, either directly or indirectly, into the process of making decisions concerning the treatment and/or service of customers; (v) a discussion of the business advantages of serving all persons on a non-discriminatory basis; (vi) training in racial sensitivity; (vii) provided the non- discrimination training program is presented live, a question and answer session for the purpose of reviewing each of the foregoing areas; and (viii) training of management in dealing with

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 15 of 44

complaints.
If the United States does not object within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any proposed non-discrimination training program, to the program or to the person or organization conducting the training program, Denny's may implement the non-discrimination training program. If the United States objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the proposed non- discrimination training programs pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
In the event that counsel for the Plaintiff Class objects to any proposed nondiscrimination training program or to the person or organization conducting the training program, and the United States does not address the objection to the satisfaction of counsel for the Plaintiff Class, counsel for the Plaintiff Class may seek to address the issue through the Dispute Resolution Procedure, or, if a satisfactory resolution of the issue is not reached through the procedure, through the Court.
2. Within thirty (30) days of the approval of any videotapes other than "What Color Am I" by the United States, Denny's, with the assistance of the Monitor, shall implement the non-discrimination training program required by subparagraph a. above.
3. Each newly hired officer, employee or agent shall also receive training of the type described in subparagraph a. above. The additional training shall be provided within forty-five (45) days of the new officer, employee or agent's commencement date.
4. Each officer, employee or agent who participates and receives instruction through the non-discrimination training program set forth in subparagraphs a. - c. above shall sign a statement in the form of Exhibit D to this Consent Decree, acknowledging that they have participated in and completed the non-discrimination training program.
5. For the duration of this Decree, Denny's also shall include instruction regarding Denny's duties and obligations under Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and this Consent Decree, in all written training materials and formal training sessions dealing with treatment of the public provided in the ordinary course of business to its officers, employees or agents. Such instruction shall be developed by the Monitor and include a statement that Denny's cannot and will not reprimand, penalize, or otherwise retaliate against any officer, employee or agent for opposing or reporting alleged discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers, in violation of applicable law and/or this Decree.
6. Articles selected by the Monitor on the subjects of diversity, racial sensitivity and/or race relations shall be published a minimum of four (4) times per year in the Denny's Newsletter during the period in which this Decree is in effect.
3. Notice to and Training of Franchisees
a. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree, Denny's shall provide each of its franchisees nationwide with a copy of the Decree (and obtain a return receipt) and a letter informing them of their obligation to comply with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section VI of this Decree. The letter shall explain that Denny's has

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 16 of 44

entered into the Decree and is committed to a policy of non-discrimination. The letter shall explain the requirements of the Decree and, specifically, that appropriate employees of the franchisees will be required to attend training sessions as set forth in the Decree.
2. All new franchise agreements as to which offering circulars are distributed by Denny's on or after June 1, 1994, shall expressly provide that a failure by the franchisee to comply with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and this Consent Decree will constitute an act which reflects materially and unfavorably upon the operation and reputation of Denny's business and trademark and, if not corrected, shall subject the franchisee to sanctions by Denny's including, but not limited to, cancellation of the franchise agreement. During the term of this Decree, Denny's must inform the Monitor, the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class within fifteen (15) days of obtaining knowledge that any franchisee has failed to comply with the Public Accommodations Act and/or the applicable provisions of this Decree and the action, if any, taken by Denny's. If the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class objects to the action (or inaction) taken by Denny's, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the franchisee's violation of this Decree pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
3. No later than thirty (30) days following the effective date of this Decree, Denny's shall amend its Franchise Operations Manual pursuant to the applicable section of Denny's franchise agreements to expressly require all franchisees to comply with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the provisions of this Decree that are applicable to franchisees. Pursuant to the applicable sections of Denny's franchise agreements, a franchisee's failure to comply with this amendment to the Franchise Operations Manual shall subject the franchisee to sanctions by Denny's including, but not limited to, cancellation of the franchise agreement. During the term of this Decree, Denny's must inform the Monitor, the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class within fifteen (15) days of obtaining knowledge of any franchisee who has failed to comply with this amendment to the Franchise Operations Manual and the action, if any, taken by Denny's. If the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class objects to the action (or inaction) taken by Denny's, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the franchisee's compliance with this amendment to the Franchise Operations Manual pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
4. In addition to the provisions of subparagraphs a. through c. above, pursuant to the applicable sections of Denny's franchise agreements, Denny's shall consider any failure of a franchisee to comply with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as determined by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, to be conduct which reflects materially and unfavorably upon the operation and reputation of Denny's business and trademark, and Denny's shall therefore consider any such violation of the law by a franchisee to be sufficient grounds for immediate termination of the franchise agreement in accordance with the terms of the franchise agreement; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require Denny's to terminate the franchise agreement where Denny's and the Monitor are satisfied that the franchisee has taken appropriate steps to avoid future violations of the Public Accommodations Act. If the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class objects to the action (or inaction) taken by Denny's, the parties shall endeavor, in

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 17 of 44

good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the franchisee pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
5. Pursuant to the appropriate section of the Denny's franchise agreement, Denny's shall apply the non- discrimination training program requirements set forth in subsections 2.a. - d. above to its franchisees. Accordingly, within thirty (30) days of the implementation of the non-discrimination training program outlined in subsections 2.a. - d. above, Denny's shall give each franchisee written notice, pursuant to the appropriate section of the franchise agreement, of the commencement of such nondiscrimination training program. Denny's shall require all existing and newly hired General Managers, Restaurant Managers, Managers in Training, Servers, Hosts/Hostesses, buspersons and security personnel employed by Denny's franchisees to attend the non-discrimination training program as set forth in subsections 2.a. - d. With respect to live training of management personnel, Denny's shall satisfy this provision by providing timely notice to franchisees of the dates and locations of live training sessions in their division and informing them that management personnel are required to attend the live training. However, the Monitor may excuse a franchisee from the requirement that management personnel receive live training, and may instead require such management personnel to undergo training in a different manner, such as video and/or tele-conference training. In determining whether a franchisee's manager may be excused from receiving live training, the Monitor shall consider the burden and cost to the franchisee as well as the purposes of the Decree and the franchisee's restaurant's past record of complaint activity and testing results. Denny's shall impose no charge on the franchisees for conducting such non- discrimination training program. All management personnel of Denny's franchisees whose restaurant location is 100 miles or less from a site where live training is provided must attend live training.
6. The United States and the Plaintiff Class shall not seek to hold Denny's in violation of the Consent Decree for the refusal of a franchisee to participate in the nondiscrimination training program set forth above, provided that Denny's has made best efforts to secure compliance on the part of the franchisee. However, Denny's shall provide the Monitor, the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class with the name and location of any Denny's franchisee which refuses or fails to participate in the training sessions within fifteen (15) days of when Denny's first receives knowledge of such refusal or failure.
4. Notice to the Public and Advertising
Denny's shall inform the public generally and all potential customers specifically of their nondiscrimination policies as follows:
1. Pursuant to the Original Decree, Denny's has posted at each public entrance to its restaurants, and in a location clearly visible to patrons, a sign indicating that the facilities are open and that service will be provided to all persons without regard to race or color. The sign has dark letters at least one inch (1") high on a contrasting background. Denny's and any successor in interest shall maintain these signs at all times that this Decree is in effect. Denny's or any successor-in- interest shall cause to be posted in any new company-owned restaurants such signs when any such restaurants open.
2. Pursuant to the appropriate provision of the franchise agreement, Denny's shall require each

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 18 of 44

of its franchise restaurants to display the sign in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 1. The United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class shall not seek to hold Denny's in violation of the Consent Decree for the refusal of a franchisee to display the sign, provided that Denny's has made best efforts to secure compliance on the part of the franchisee. However, Denny's shall provide the Monitor, the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class with the name and location of any Denny's franchisee which refuses or fails to display the sign within fifteen (15) days of Denny's knowledge of such refusal or failure.
3. With the exception of highway billboards, Department of Transportation highway signs, and advertisements or promotional materials that appear in individual Denny's restaurants, the non- discrimination statement described above in paragraph 1 shall be readily legible in all written media (newspapers, magazines, posters, brochures, fliers, etc.). The statement shall appear in a type size that conforms to the following requirements:
a. Where other parts of the advertisement or promotional statement appear in only one type size, the nondis- crimination statement must also appear in the same type size;
2. Where other parts of the advertisement or promotional statement appear in two sizes, the nondiscrimination statement may appear in either type size; and
3. Where other parts of the advertisement or promotional statement appear in three or more type sizes, the nondiscrimination statement shall appear in the next to smallest type size.
4. All menus and nationally distributed brochures (e.g., Denny's Travel Guide) shall contain the nondiscrimination statement described in paragraph 1 above. The statement shall appear in a type size that conforms to the requirements set forth in subparagraphs 3.a. - c. above.
5. Pursuant to the Original Decree, Denny's has developed and placed newspaper advertisements in the San Jose Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Oakland Tribune, San Diego Union, and Los Angeles Times that comply with Paragraph 3 above, and such advertisements have run for four (4) days at least twice during the period of April 1, 1993 through March 31, 1994. To help ensure that non-white persons are notified that they are welcome as customers of Denny's Restaurants, Denny's, for the period that this Decree is in effect, shall, in consultation with the Civil Rights Monitor, continue to place newspaper advertisements for Denny's Restaurants in the San Jose Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Oakland Tribune, San Diego Union, and Los Angeles Times, that comply with paragraph 3 above. The first set of advertisements shall be developed no later than sixty (60) days following the retention of the Monitor. The placement of such advertisements shall begin no later than thirty (30) days following the development of the advertisements, and shall be run for four (4) days at least two (2) times per year. The size of the advertisement shall equal or exceed a quarter of a page. The advertisements containing the nondiscrimination statement may be of the type and nature customarily used by Denny's to advertise its products and/or services.
6. Beginning with the effective date of this Decree, a minimum of thirty (30%) of the aggregate total of persons appearing annually in all newspaper advertisements and all other promotional materials including, but not limited to, brochures, flyers, coupons, or any other materials (collectively "advertisements") that depict persons shall be identifiably non-white.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 19 of 44

At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the aggregate total shall be identifiably AfricanAmerican. With the exception of advertisements that feature a sole spokesperson, advertisements that solely feature non-white persons shall not be utilized in the computation of the above percentages. The computation of the percentage shall specifically exclude advertisements in which the "Corlick Sisters" are the only persons that are featured.
a. With respect to television commercials, African- American persons shall be principally featured as employees or customers a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the time during which any employees or customers of Denny's are depicted. This percentage shall be computed by dividing the number of seconds each AfricanAmerican person is depicted as a customer or employee in a television commercial by the number of seconds any person is depicted as a customer or employee in a television commercial. The computation of this percentage shall specifically exclude television commercials in which the "Corlick Sisters" are the only persons that are featured.
2. During each one-year period in which this Decree is in effect, any principals depicted as employees or customers in television commercials shall be identifiably non-white persons, other than African-Americans, a minimum of five percent (5%) of the time during which any employees or customers of Denny's are depicted during each oneyear period; or, in the alternative, a minimum of five percent (5%) of the total number of principals depicted as employees or customers during each one-year period shall be identifiably non-white persons, other than African- Americans. The five percent (5%) of the time measure shall be calculated by the same method used to calculate the time during which African-Americans are depicted as customers or employees, except that the measure shall be applied to all commercials aired during each one-year period, not to each commercial aired. The five percent (5%) of the principals measure shall be calculated based upon all commercials aired during each one-year period, not as to each commercial aired. The computation of this percentage shall specifically exclude television commercials in which the "Corlick Sisters" are the only persons that are featured.
7. All advertisements called for in this section shall be distributed in a nondiscriminatory manner to convey the message that non-white persons are welcome as customers at all Denny's Restaurants.
VIII. TESTING
A. Testing of Denny's Restaurants and its franchisees nationwide shall be conducted to monitor Denny's practices at its restaurants and franchises. The costs and expense of all tests shall be paid by Denny's.
2. No fewer than 450 tests per year, excluding California, shall be conducted during the first two (2) years of this Consent Decree. The tests shall be conducted by an independent civil rights organization experienced in testing selected by the Monitor, with the approval of the United States. Within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree or retention of the Monitor, whichever is later, the Monitor shall notify the United States of the names of independent civil rights organizations it proposes to use to satisfy the requirements of this section. If the United States does not object within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this information, Denny's may select the organizations proposed. If the United States objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the appropriateness of the civil rights testing organizations pursuant

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 20 of 44

to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
3. No fewer than 175 tests during the first year and no less than 150 tests during the second year must be conducted during the term of this Decree in California. The tests shall be conducted by independent civil rights organizations experienced in testing selected by Denny's, with the approval of the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class as provided in section VIIIB.
4. If, at any time after tests have been conducted for two years, the Monitor determines that a smaller number of tests per year are adequate to accomplish the purpose of the testing provided for in this Decree, the Monitor may reduce the numbers of tests conducted to 300 tests per year outside of California and 100 tests per year in California for the remaining term of this Decree with the written approval of the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class (approval of Plaintiff Class limited to California tests only). Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class withhold such approval, and Denny's objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning approval of a reduction in the number of tests per year pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
5. Nothing in this Decree shall prevent the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class from utilizing their own testers to monitor Denny's practices during the term of this Decree at their own expense. However, nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent the United States or counsel for the Plaintiff Class from recovering attorneys' fees and costs in connection with a successful motion to enforce the Decree. Such costs may include the cost of testing conducted at the direction of the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class in connection with the successful motion to enforce the Decree. The United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class also shall not be prevented from conducting non- testing investigations that include, but are not limited to, onsite observation of Denny's Restaurants and the treatment and service provided to customers, provided such investigations do not interfere with the normal business operations of the unit.
6. The testing organizations may, at their discretion, consult with the Monitor, the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class regarding the timing, location and manner in which the tests will be conducted. However, the testing organizations, the Monitor, the United States or counsel for the Plaintiff Class may not, under any circumstances, disclose to Denny's the timing and/or location of a test conducted pursuant to this Section before the test has been completed.
7. The results of all tests conducted pursuant to this section and supporting documentation, if requested, shall be reported to the Monitor, Denny's, the United States, and counsel for the Plaintiff Class. Where such results indicate a possible violation of this Consent Decree (i.e., disparate treatment on the basis of race or color), the Monitor shall conduct an investigation of the facts and circumstances underlying such tests. Within fifteen (15) days of the completion of his or her investigation, the Monitor shall provide Denny's, the United States and counsel for Plaintiff Class with a report containing his or her conclusions and recommendations, if any, made to Denny's. Denny's shall respond or implement the Monitor's recommendations within fifteen (15) days of their receipt. If Denny's disagrees with or refuses to implement the Monitor's recommendations, the Monitor and the other parties shall attempt, in good faith, to resolve such potential breaches of this Decree pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, prior to bringing the matters before the Court.
IX. MONITORING, RECORD-KEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 21 of 44

A. Civil Rights Monitor
1. In order to ensure equal access to Denny's franchised and company-owned restaurants for all persons on a nondiscriminatory basis, a Civil Rights Monitor shall be selected within seventy-five (75) days from the effective date of the Decree's injunctive provisions. The selection shall be made pursuant to the provisions set forth below.
The purpose of the Monitor is to ensure that this Decree is implemented effectively and to assist the United States and Plaintiff Class in monitoring defendants' compliance with this Decree. Although Denny's must pay the costs and expenses associated with the Monitor's position and his or her duties, the Monitor is responsible to the Court, the United States and Plaintiff Class. The Monitor may at any time consult with the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class regarding Denny's compliance with this Decree. The Monitor shall consult with Denny's primarily through Denny's designated officer, but may also consult with other Denny's employees as required by this Decree or as the Monitor deems necessary or appropriate.
The Monitor shall provide Denny's with information concerning Denny's compliance with the Decree within a reasonable time after a request for such information is made by Denny's. The Monitor, however, may withhold any information from Denny's he or she reasonably determines is necessary, provided he or she informs Denny's of the nature of the information and the reason(s) it is being withheld within ten (10) days of Denny's request. If Denny's objects within ten (10) days of being informed of the withheld information, Denny's shall endeavor to resolve all issues concerning the withheld information, pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
In the event the Monitor determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that an act of discrimination has occurred in violation of the Public Accommodations Act and/or this Decree, he or she shall notify Denny's, the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class within fifteen (15) days of such determination and provide all relevant documents upon request.
A copy of all communications (e.g., letters, memoranda, etc.) between Denny's and the Monitor shall be provided to both the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class, except where the Monitor determines that providing copies of certain documents would be an unwarranted burden and so informs the parties. The Monitor shall direct all questions concerning interpretation of this Decree to the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class. The Monitor shall implement the Decree as directed by both the United States and Plaintiff Class. Within three (3) business days of being advised of the United States' and Plaintiff Class' interpretation of the Decree, the Monitor shall send a letter to Denny's, with a copy to the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class, informing Denny's of Plaintiffs' interpretation of the Decree and of his or her intent to implement the Decree as directed within fifteen (15) days of the date of the letter. If Denny's does not object within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the letter, the Monitor shall implement the Decree as directed by the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class. If Denny's objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the interpretation of the Decree pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
2. As of the date of the filing of this Decree, the parties have been working cooperatively toward selection of a person to serve as the Monitor and, to the extent possible, that

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 22 of 44

selection shall be made through a consensus of all of the parties. In the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement as to the selection of the Monitor, the selection of the Monitor shall be made by Denny's subject to the approval of the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class may, at their discretion, interview the person proposed by Denny's. If the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class has any objection to Denny's proposed appointment, the objecting party shall notify Denny's within ten (10) days of receipt of the name and resume. If any disputes arise concerning the selection of the Monitor, the parties shall attempt to resolve them pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court. Except upon approval by both the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class, Denny's may not offer or guarantee the Monitor employment, in any form, including a position as a consultant or independent contractor, for a period of five (5) years following the expiration of this Decree.
3. The Monitor's qualifications shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) familiarity with and experience in the monitoring and enforcement of civil rights, specifically in the areas of race and ethnicity; and (2) familiarity with and experience in the education and training of employees in (a) civil rights laws, specifically in the areas of race and ethnicity and (b) the requirements of compliance with consent decrees or court orders. Preference shall be given to an individual who (1) is familiar with and experienced in testing procedures used to determine compliance with civil rights laws, specifically in the areas of race and ethnicity; and (2) is an attorney with experience in civil rights and the monitoring and enforcement of consent decrees or court orders. If Denny's is unable to locate a person who satisfies the above qualifications, Denny's shall certify that it has made a diligent effort to locate someone suitably qualified. The certification shall set forth in detail the steps Denny's took in attempting to locate someone for the Monitor's position. After such certification has been filed with the Court, the parties shall meet within fourteen (14) days of the filing of such certification to discuss revision of the qualifications and/or other candidates who may be suitable for the Monitor's position. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement as to the qualifications and/or hiring of the Monitor, the parties shall attempt to resolve the matter pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
4. The Monitor's job duties shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) preparation of all reports called for under the terms of this Consent Decree; (2) in-house monitoring and supervision of progress towards compliance with this Decree; (3) monitoring of the testing program; (4) investigating complaints regarding the treatment or service of customers who believe they have been discriminated against, or subjected to unequal treatment due to their race or color, or witnessed others being discriminated against due to the race or color of those persons; (5) investigating complaints by Denny's employees who believe they have witnessed discriminatory actions regarding customer service or treatment by other Denny's employees and/or managers or believe they have themselves been pressured to discriminate against customers by other Denny's employees and/or managers; (6) providing the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class any relevant information known to or available to the Monitor under any provision of this Decree upon reasonable request; (7) preparing a written semi-annual report for submission to the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class on or before June 30 and December 31 of each year beginning December 31, 1994, which shall describe at a minimum: (i) the activities and/or investigations of complaints, if any, undertaken by the Monitor in the preceding six months; (ii) the compliance and progress of the non-discrimination training programs; (iii) the results of tests conducted by the independent civil rights organization(s) during the preceding six months; and (iv) setting

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 23 of 44

objectives for the next six months to eliminate any concerns of discrimination which the Monitor has identified; (8) meeting and conferring with counsel for the parties to consider suggestions for implementing the spirit and letter of this Decree and to clarify any information contained in the Monitor's reports; and (9) to provide reasonable cooperation to all parties in implementing the provisions and purposes of this Decree.
5. Denny's shall provide the Monitor with appropriate support staff and resources to carry out his or her duties effectively. In carrying out his or her duties and making recommendations, the Monitor shall take into consideration the cost-effectiveness of methods for implementing the purposes and provisions of this Decree. Nothing shall require or preclude the Monitor from selecting the most economical method for implementing the provisions of the Decree. The United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class may at any time evaluate the Monitor's support staff and resources. If the Monitor and/or the United States and/or Plaintiff Class believes that the Monitor's support staff and resources are inadequate to carry out the provisions and purposes of this Decree, that party shall attempt to resolve those issues with Denny's pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court.
6. Upon agreement of all parties to this Decree, the Monitor may be removed upon thirty (30) days notice. Any party may seek the removal of the Monitor on the ground that the Monitor has repeatedly failed to perform adequately any duties established by this Decree in such a manner as to undermine substantially the achievement of the purposes and provisions of this Decree. To the extent practicable, the objecting party shall give the Monitor an opportunity to cure any deficiency prior to seeking his or her removal. Also, prior to seeking the Monitor's removal by the Court, the objecting party shall meet and confer with all other parties, pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, to seek their concurrence in the Monitor's removal. If a new Monitor must be selected, the parties shall follow the procedures set forth below.
7. If, for any reason, it becomes necessary to replace the Monitor, the parties shall attempt to select a new Monitor through a process involving Denny's, the United States, counsel for the Plaintiff Class and Class Counsel in the case of Dyson, et al. v. Denny's, Inc., et al., United States District Court Case No. DKC-93-1503 (D. Md.), and attempt to reach a consensus on the most qualified person available. If this process does not result in an agreement as to the selection of the new Monitor, the selection of the new Monitor shall be made by Denny's subject to the approval of the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class may, at their discretion, interview the person proposed by Denny's. If the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class have any objection to Denny's proposed appointment, the objecting party shall notify Denny's within ten (10) days of receipt of the name and resume. If any disputes arise concerning the appointment of the Monitor, the parties shall attempt to resolve them voluntarily, pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matters before the Court. Except upon approval by both the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class, Denny's may not offer or guarantee the Monitor employment, in any form, including a position as a consultant or independent contractor, for a period of five (5) years following the expiration of this Decree.
8. The Monitor shall be responsible for investigating all complaints of discrimination against customers on the basis of race or color in Denny's restaurants and franchisees after May 24, 1994. All complaints received by Denny's after May 24, 1994, concerning discrimination in

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 24 of 44

the service of customers shall be directed to the Monitor for investigation.
Any obligation of Denny's to investigate claims of discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers on the basis of race or color shall be satisfied by Denny's referral of such claims to the Monitor. However, nothing contained in this Decree shall prohibit Denny's from conducting its own investigation of allegations of discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers on the basis of race or color, provided such investigation does not interfere with the Monitor's investigation. In the event that Denny's, after receiving notice of a complaint from the Monitor (see Section IXC.4. below) or otherwise, desires to investigate a complaint of discrimination, Denny's shall notify the Monitor of its intention to investigate the complaint. The Monitor shall have ten (10) days from the date of receipt of Denny's notice of intention to investigate in which to object to the undertaking and timing of an investigation of a particular complaint by Denny's. If the Monitor objects, and Denny's and the Monitor are unable to resolve whether and/or when Denny's should investigate a particular complaint, then Denny's shall attempt to resolve the matter with the Monitor pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure, before bringing such matter before the Court. A contemporaneous on-site inquiry by a restaurant level manager or restaurant level supervisor into a complaint of discrimination shall not be deemed an investigation for purposes of this subsection.
9. As part of the Monitor's preparation to perform his or her duties under this Decree, the Monitor shall spend two (2) weeks within the first three (3) months of his or her employment working and observing in one or more Denny's Restaurants. During the two week period, the Monitor shall be exposed to all restaurant operations and shifts, including, without limitation, weekend and "late-night" or "graveyard" shifts.
2. Record-Keeping
1. Record-Keeping in General
The parties acknowledge that certain information provided pursuant to this Decree is required for the sole purpose of investigating, monitoring and enforcing Denny's compliance with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and this Decree. All records, reports and other documents maintained or produced pursuant to the terms of this Decree shall be kept confidential and used and/or disclosed solely for the purposes of this Decree. The Monitor, Denny's, the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class shall not disclose such information to any person not a party to this Decree, except as is reasonably necessary to enforce, monitor or administer the provisions of this Decree or to comply with otherwise applicable laws. Any inadvertent disclosure of such confidential information to a person not a party to this Decree shall not constitute contempt unless such disclosure was willful.
If the Monitor, the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class desire to disclose information made confidential by this section for any purpose other than to enforce or monitor the purposes and provisions of this Decree or to comply with otherwise applicable laws, that party shall notify the other parties to this Decree of the information it seeks to disclose and the reasons for disclosing it. The United States is required to notify the other parties of its intention to disclose information only to the extent required by applicable law and regulation. Thereafter, the parties shall attempt to resolve all issues concerning the disclosure of such information pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 25 of 44

2. Application of Attorney-Client Privilege And Work-Product Doctrine
Nothing in this Decree shall be construed as a waiver of attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product doctrine by defendants, nor shall defendants be obligated to report on or disclose information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney workproduct doctrine, provided, however, that if the Monitor uses the services of an attorney, or of an employee or agent of an attorney, to assist in the investigation of a complaint of discrimination pursuant to this Decree, no statements, reports, summaries, recommendations, documents and/or other information and materials created and/or collected as a result of the investigation shall be subject to any privilege, including but not limited to, the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, even if the attorney is employed by defendants; accordingly, no such documents, information or materials created and/or collected in the course of complaint investigation directed by the Monitor shall be withheld from the United States, counsel for the Plaintiff Class or the Monitor on the basis of privilege. The parties stipulate that all attorneys and employees and agents of attorneys who are retained by the Monitor to assist in the investigation of complaints of discrimination shall be deemed to be retained for purposes other than the provision of legal advice. The parties further stipulate that all statements, reports, summaries, recommendations, documents, and/or other information and materials created and/or collected in the course of such an investigation shall be deemed to be made, prepared or compiled for purposes other than the anticipation of litigation.
3. Civil Rights Monitor
For the duration of this Decree, the Civil Rights Monitor shall maintain the following records (or other computerized counterparts):
a. Records of all oral and written, formal and informal complaints of discrimination on the basis of race or color concerning Denny's service and treatment of customers filed or submitted by any customer, potential customer, or employee. This paragraph shall apply to all complaints, letters, or notices filed or submitted to any of Denny's or Flagstar Corporation's officers, employees or agents, including, but not limited to, all complaints submitted to Denny's franchisees, Flagstar Corporation's corporate headquarters and divisional offices.
2. All records relating to written, video or oral training materials, including but not limited to, non- discrimination training program materials, instructions, directives, guidelines, policy statements, and formal training sessions provided to all Denny's personnel.
3. Representative copies of all advertisements and promotional materials in all media and all records relating to the dates and/or times and media where such advertisements or promotional material appeared and where and how such materials were disseminated and distributed.
4. All records and results derived from and relating to any and all tests conducted pursuant to Section VIII of this Decree.
5. All records relating to implementation of any provision of this Consent Decree.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 26 of 44

No later than three (3) months following the expiration of the Decree, the Monitor shall provide Denny's with all the documents and records collected during the term of the Decree. Upon request, the Monitor shall provide the United States and/or counsel for the Plaintiff Class with a copy of all the documents and records collected during the term of the Decree.
4. Denny's
Denny's shall not destroy or dispose of any documents or records it creates or generates, or receives from the Monitor, that pertain to the Decree for the period set forth below. Denny's shall maintain all documents and records provided by the Monitor as well as all documents and records maintained and/or generated by Denny's that pertain to the Decree for a period of five (5) years following the date the Monitor provides Denny's with all the documents and records.
For a period not to exceed six (6) months beyond the expiration of this Decree, the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class shall, upon ten (10) days notice, be permitted to inspect and copy any of the records described in the Record- Keeping provisions of this Consent Decree.
5. Complaints of Discrimination Under the Original Decree
With respect to complaints alleging discrimination in the service or treatment of customers that arise from incidents at Denny's franchised and company-owned restaurants on or before May 24, 1994, the Monitor will not be required to investigate such complaints because this Decree is intended to settle any legitimate claims asserted in such complaints. However, to the extent such information is available to Denny's, Denny's shall provide the Monitor with a report indicating the name of any individual who has complained of discrimination in the service or treatment of customers, the date of the alleged incident of discrimination, and the location of the alleged incident. To aid Denny's in its effort to assure that there is no discrimination in its franchised and company-owned restaurants, the Monitor shall review the report for the purpose of determining if the alleged incidents of discrimination suggest a pattern or practice of discrimination in the service or treatment of customers in any particular division, region, district, restaurant or franchisee of Denny's. If the Monitor determines that the complaints suggest such a pattern or practice or otherwise concludes that a complaint warrants further investigation, the Monitor shall investigate such complaints to the extent necessary to ensure that no discrimination in the service or treatment of customers exists or that appropriate remedial action can be taken to correct any such pattern or practice the Monitor may find.
3. Reporting Provisions
1. Preliminary Meeting
No later than ninety (90) days following the commencement of employment by the Monitor, the Monitor and counsel for all parties shall attend a preliminary meeting at a location designated by the Monitor. The purpose of the meeting is, among other things, for the Monitor to describe the activities that have been and will be taken with respect to the implementation of the Decree and for the parties' counsel to discuss any relevant issues concerning the implementation of the Decree.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 27 of 44

In addition to the preliminary meeting, the Monitor, as he or she deems appropriate, may schedule meetings and/or conference calls with the parties' counsel to discuss any relevant issues concerning the implementation and enforcement of the Decree.
2. Semi-Annual Reports
No later than December 31, 1994, and every six months thereafter for the duration of the Decree, the Monitor shall serve on the United States, counsel for the Plaintiff Class and Denny's a report containing the following information:
a. A list of all advertisements and promotional materials which were published, printed, disseminated or aired during the reporting period, together with a statement indicating the dates and media where it appeared and where and how promotional materials were disseminated or distributed. With respect to television commercials, Denny's shall verify the depiction of human persons by providing the Monitor, counsel for the United States and Plaintiff Class with the following information:
i. A videotape and list of all commercials produced during the preceding six months;
2. The total number of employees and customers depicted as principals in each commercial, broken down by race, and the amount of time each person appears as a principal;
3. The number and location of market(s) in which each of the commercials aired;
2. The first report shall include a certification that the non-discrimination training program required in section VIIC2.a. - e. above has been or is scheduled for completion, and the whereabouts of copies of all employee acknowledgments required by this Decree.
3. Each report thereafter shall contain a description of all training activity conducted pursuant to section VIIC.2. above which has occurred during the reporting period along with copies of all written materials distributed or any videotapes produced.
4. Each report shall contain the results of all testing conducted pursuant to section VIII of the Decree.
3. Reports To Testing Organizations
No later than December 31, 1994, and every six months thereafter for the duration of the Decree, the Monitor shall serve on the appropriate testing organization(s), a report which contains the dates, restaurant locations and a description of complaints of alleged discrimination at Denny's restaurants or franchisees received by the Monitor during the preceding six (6) months.
4. Reports Re: Complaints Of Discrimination
No later than sixty (60) days following the retention of the Monitor, and every sixty (60) days thereafter, the Monitor shall serve on Denny's, the United States and counsel for the

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 28 of 44

Plaintiff Class a report of all complaints of discrimination received within the sixty (60) days. Each report shall contain details of any complaint received by the Monitor during the preceding sixty (60) days, charging or alleging discrimination, on the ground of race or color, with respect to service or treatment of customers at any Denny's restaurant or franchises, including a description of any action taken in response to such complaint.
4. Dispute Resolution Procedure
1. If differences arise between any of the parties and/or the Monitor with respect to Denny's compliance with, interpretation of, or implementation of the terms of this Decree, an earnest effort shall be made by the parties to resolve such differences promptly in accordance with the following Dispute Resolution Procedure:
2. If one party believes an issue must be resolved, it shall promptly notify the other party in writing of the issue and the facts and circumstances relied upon in asserting its position. The party notified of the issue shall be given a reasonable period of time (not to exceed fifteen (15) days) to review the facts and circumstances and to provide the party raising the issue with its written position including the facts and circumstances upon which it relies in asserting its position. Within a reasonable period of time thereafter (not to exceed fifteen (15) days), the parties shall meet, by telephone or in person, and attempt to resolve the issue informally. If a party believes that resolution cannot be achieved following a meeting to discuss the dispute, the party shall promptly notify the other party in writing that it is terminating discussions, and shall specify its final position with regard to resolving the dispute.
3. Nothing in this Section shall prevent any party from promptly bringing an issue before the Court when, in the moving party's view, the facts and circumstances require immediate court action. The moving party's papers shall explain the facts and circumstances that necessitate immediate court action. If any party brings a matter before the Court requiring immediate court action, the opposing party(ies) shall be provided with appropriate notice under the Local Rules of this District and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
X. CLASS MONETARY RELIEF
A. Monetary Settlement Fund
1. Establishment of Monetary Settlement Fund: Defendants shall pay the sum of $28,000,000.00 (twenty-eight million dollars) ("Settlement Payment") to establish a fund to be used for resolving monetary claims of the named plaintiffs and class members in accordance with the procedures of this section. Within ten (10) business days after preliminary approval of this Consent Decree, Defendants shall deposit the Monetary Settlement into a trustee account at a financial institution selected by Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein under the control of Defendants and Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein. Defendants may elect to extend the date by which the monetary settlement must be deposited into such account. Such extension, however, shall not exceed beyond twenty (20) business days after preliminary approval by the Court. For each day beyond ten (10) business days after preliminary approval that the monetary settlement is not deposited in the above-referenced account, defendants shall pay interest at the rate of five percent (5%) annually. In the event that this Decree is not finally approved by the Court, within 10 (ten) days of issuance of an order denying Final Approval, the Settlement Payment plus all interests and proceeds

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 29 of 44

therefrom shall be returned to Denny's.
2. Allocation of Monetary Settlement Fund:The fund shall be allocated in the following manner: $1,000,000.00 shall be allocated as a "Class Representative Fund" and used to pay equal shares of $25,000.00 each to the named plaintiffs as identified in the Second Amended Complaint, filed concurrently herewith; $50,000.00 shall be allocated as a "Reserve Fund" to be used to pay any otherwise valid claims which are excluded from the Class Monetary Distribution through error or omission of the Class Administrator, Class Counsel, defendants or their counsel; and the balance, less any reduction for opt-outs in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 3 below, shall be allocated as the "Class Fund" to pay claims of qualified class members who file claims in accordance with the provisions of this Decree.
3. Reduction of Opt-Outs: The Class Fund shall be reduced by the sum of $3,000.00 (three thousand dollars) for each class member who submits a timely opt-out statement to the Claims Administrator pursuant to the procedures described in section X.E.2. However, the Class Fund shall not be reduced for any opt- out statement filed by any potential class member who has retained counsel other than Class Counsel and initiated a lawsuit or other legal proceeding against Denny's prior to May 24, 1994. Nor shall the Class Fund be reduced by the filing of an opt-out statement by any potential class member who affirmatively states in his or her opt-out statement that he or she does not intend to initiate a lawsuit or other legal proceedings against Denny's.
2. Definition of the Class
1. Plaintiff Class and Defendants hereby agree and stipulate that the class shall consist of all African-American customers of Denny's franchised and company-owned restaurants in California and their companions who at any time commencing on November 14, 1988 and ending on May 24, 1994 were subjected to discriminatory customer treatment and/or service practices on the basis of race or color, including but not limited to:
a. Payment for meals prior to consumption ("prepayment");
2. Payment of a "cover charge" prior to service;
3. Denial of or delay in seating until after later- arriving non African-American customers were seated or served;
4. Denial of a complimentary "birthday meal" or other promotional items or programs;
5. Forced removal from the restaurant;
6. Charges for services or food items for which non African-American customers were not charged; and
7. Other forms of differential service based on race or color.
2. Certification: The Plaintiff Class and Defendants agree and stipulate that for purposes of settlement of monetary relief claims, this case shall be certified under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2)

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 30 of 44

for the purposes of settlement of injunctive relief claims.
3. Class Counsel: The following law firms are designated as Class Counsel through Final Approval:
Saperstein Mayeda & Goldstein 1300 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612
Public Interest Law Firm 111 West St. John, Suite 315 San Jose, CA 95113
The law firm of Saperstein Mayeda & Goldstein shall serve as Class Counsel following Final Approval.
3. Claims Administrator
1. Selection of Third Party Claims Administrator: The parties have jointly selected an organization to serve as the Denny's California Class Action Claims Administrator ("Claims Administrator"). The Claims Administrator shall be an organization or entity experienced and qualified in the administration of class action monetary settlement distribution and/or claims proceedings.
2. Duties and Responsibilities:Instructions setting forth the duties and responsibilities of the Claims Administrator shall be filed with the Court and may be amended by agreement of the Plaintiff Class and Defendants. The duties and responsibilities of the Claims Administrator shall include: (1) all class notice, claim form and monetary distribution mailings; (2) tracking the return of claims forms; (3) arranging for tracing of class members whose notices and/or checks are returned as undeliverable; (4) verifying the identity of class members; (5) initial review of all claims, including obtaining supplemental information from claimants; (6) notifying claimants whose claims are disputed or rejected of their right to appeal to the Special Master; (7) receiving and forwarding to the parties and the Court all written objections and opt-out statements; (8) reporting to the Plaintiff Class and Defendants and the Court on the distribution process; (9) verifying fund balances; (10) preparing and submitting for review by the Special Master the final Class Monetary Distribution List; (11) filing any tax returns required to be filed on behalf of the Class Fund; and (12) such other duties as agreed by the parties which are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Consent Decree.
3. Maintenance of Toll Free "800" Line: Beginning on May 24, 1994 and continuing until June 30, 1994, and between July 29, 1994 and August 15, 1994, the Claims Administrator shall maintain and staff with live persons a toll free "800" line (1-800-836- 0055) to receive calls from potential class members between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time), Mondays through Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time), Saturday and Sunday. Between July 1, 1994 and July 28, 1994, and from August 15, 1994 until the Claims Administrator is relieved of its duties under this Decree, the Claims Administrator shall maintain and staff with a live person or persons a toll free "800" line to receive calls from potential claimants between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time), Mondays through Fridays. At all other times until the Claims

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 31 of 44

Administrator is relieved of his duties under the Decree, the line should be answered by a voicemail message recording device. These hours of telephone coverage shall be subject to revision and modification upon agreement of the parties based on the recommendation of the Claims Administrator.
4. Reports from the Administrator:The Claims Administrator shall submit on a periodic basis as shall be agreed by the Plaintiff Class and Defendants, reports of such activities as shall be identified by the Plaintiff Class and Defendants. At any time Class Counsel or Defendants may request from the Administrator and the Administrator shall provide copies of Claim Forms, rejected claim data, requests for Special Master review of claim determination, decisions by the Special Master and any and all other documents or information related to this claims procedure.
5. Payment of the Administrator:
All fees and expenses of the Administrator to implement and carry out the duties and responsibilities identified in Paragraph C.2., above, shall be paid by defendants on a monthly basis.
4. Notice
1. Mailed Notice:Within ten (10) days after preliminary approval of the Consent Decree by the District Court, Class Counsel shall prepare and deliver to Defendants and the Claims Administrator a computer disk containing the names and last known addresses or last known telephone numbers of all potential class members who contacted Class Counsel prior to or during the pendency of litigation ("Class Intake List").
Within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of the Class Intake List from Class Counsel, the Claims Administrator shall cause to be mailed, via first class mail, a notice, in the form of Exhibit E hereto, and a Claim Form, and instructions, in the form of Exhibit F hereto, to each person on the Class Intake List.
2. Tracing of Mailed Notice: For each notice and claim form mailed to persons on the Class Intake List and returned as undeliverable, the Claims Administrator shall, within twenty (20) days after receipt of the undeliverable notice and claim form, arrange through IRSC or a comparable service, for a computer database trace for such potential class member and remail the notice and Claim Form to any additional address obtained for such potential class member. The costs of the IRSC or other comparable search shall not exceed an average of $15.00 per trace, and shall be billed by the Claims Administrator to and paid monthly by defendants.
3. Published Notice:
a. Preliminary Approval: Within thirty (30) days of preliminary approval of the proposed Consent Decree by the Court, Saperstein Mayeda & Goldstein shall cause to be published the notice of settlement attached hereto as Exhibit G, in accordance with and in the publications identified in the notification plan attached hereto as Exhibit H. Defendants shall pay the costs for such publication of notice.
2. Final Approval: Within thirty (30) days of final approval of the proposed Consent

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 32 of 44

Decree by the Court, Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein shall cause to be published notice of settlement and claims process attached hereto as Exhibit I, in accordance with and in the publications identified in the notification plan attached hereto as Exhibit H. Defendants shall pay the costs for such publication of notice. The combined cost of published notice for Preliminary and Final Approval shall not exceed $550,000.00 (Five hundred and fifty thousand dollars).
5. Provisions for Objections and Exclusions
1. Objections:Potential class members who wish to present objections to the proposed settlement must do so in writing. Written objections must be received by the Claims Administrator on or before July 18, 1994. Within three (3) days of receipt of a written objection, the Claims Administrator shall file the objection with the Clerk of the Court and serve copies of the objection on Class Counsel and defendants. The Claims Administrator shall retain copies of all written objections in its files until such time as the Claims Administrator is relieved of all duties and responsibilities under this Decree.
2. Exclusions:Potential class members who wish to exclude themselves from participation in the lawsuit and settlement must do so in writing, by mailing to the Claims Administrator a signed and dated written "Opt-Out" statement. The opt-out statement must be received by the Claims Administrator on or before July 18, 1994. Within three (3) days of receipt of a written opt-out statement, the Claims Administrator shall file the opt-out statement with the Clerk of the Court and shall serve copies of the statement on Class Counsel and defendants. The Claims Administrator shall retain copies of all opt-out statements in its files until it is relieved of all duties and responsibilities under this Decree.
6. Claims Procedure
1. Eligible Class Members:
To be eligible for a monetary payment from the Class Fund, a class member must (i) file a timely and valid claim in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, and (ii) must not have opted out of the lawsuit.
To be a valid claim under this Decree, a claim must be filed by an eligible class member and must state facts on which the Claims Administrator and/or upon review, counsel for the Plaintiff Class and/or the Special Master can determine that during the liability period, the claimant was subjected to differential treatment and/or services as a customer at a Denny's Restaurant in California on account of the race or color of the claimant or his or her companion.
2. Distribution of Claim Forms:
Commencing on June 1, 1994, and continuing through September 1, 1994, within seven (7) days after receiving a written or telephone request for a Claim Form from a potential class member, the Claims Administrator shall mail a Claim Form to the class member. Thereafter, and until the deadline, the Claims Administrator shall mail a Claim Form within twenty-four hours after receiving a written or telephone request for a Claim Form from a potential class member. Any written request for Claim Forms received by Class Counsel, defendants or their counsel, shall be forwarded to the Claims Administrator by facsimile

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 33 of 44

within forty-eight hours (excluding weekends) of its receipt by the party, and commencing on June 1, 1994 and continuing through September 1, 1994, within seven days and thereafter, until the deadline for submission of Claim Forms, within twenty-four hours of receipt by the Administrator, the Administrator shall mail a Claim Form to the potential claimant. Any claimant who telephones Class Counsel, Defendants or their counsel and requests a Claim Form, shall immediately be referred to the Claims Administrator.
3. Filing of Completed Claim Forms:
All claims for monetary payment from the Class Fund shall be made in writing using the Denny's California Class Action Claim Form attached as Exhibit F. All Claim Forms must be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury. Each potential class member, including minors, must submit his/her own Claim Form. A parent, legal guardian or next friend may complete and sign a Claim Form on behalf of a minor. Each class member is limited to filing and obtaining monetary payment for only one (1) Claim. If a class member experienced more than one discriminatory incident, all such incidents may be detailed on one (1) Claim Form. Each valid claimant, however, shall receive the same pro rata share of the Class Fund regardless of the number of discriminatory incidents he/she claims.
All Claim Forms must be mailed to the Claims Administrator and postmarked by September 30, 1994.
4. Initial Review of Claim Forms: The Claims Administrator shall initially review all Claim Forms to determine if the form is completely filled out and is properly signed. If the Claim Form is incomplete or is not properly signed, the Claims Administrator shall return the Claim Form to the claimant and the claimant shall be given thirty (30) days from the date of mailing within which to return to the Administrator the Claim Form completed and/or properly signed. The failure of a claimant to complete, sign or return their Claim Form within thirty (30) days shall result in a denial of their claim.
5. Approval of Claims The Claims Administrator also shall conduct an initial review of all Claim Forms to determine whether they present valid claims in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Decree. All claimants whose claims are determined to be valid by the Claims Administrator shall be eligible for a monetary payment from the Class Fund.
6. Disputed Claims If, upon initial review of the Claim Form, the Claims Administrator is unable to determine the validity of the claim, the Claims Administrator shall so notify the claimant in writing and state the reasons why the information contained on the Claim Form is insufficient to determine the validity of the claim. The claimant shall be given thirty (30) days from the date of mailing of the notification in which to supplement or amend the Claim Form or provide such other information he or she wishes to assist the Claims Administrator in determining the validity of the claim. Upon further review of the Claim Form, including such additional information as may be submitted by the claimant, the Administrator shall (i) approve the claim, in which case, the claimant is eligible for payment from the Class Fund; (ii) reject the claim; or (iii) refer the claim as "unresolved" to Class Counsel for resolution.
7. Unresolved Claims All claims that the Claims Administrator is unable to resolve (i.e., either approve or reject) initially or after review of additional information submitted by the claimant, shall be referred for resolution to Class Counsel. Claimants whose claims are unable to be resolved by the Claims Administrator shall be so notified in writing of the

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 34 of 44

reasons, including why the information contained on the Claim Form is insufficient to determine the validity of the claim and shall be further advised that their claims will be referred to Class Counsel for review and resolution. Class Counsel shall review and determine the validity of all claims unable to be resolved by the Claims Administrator.
Class Counsel shall review and resolve all claims in accordance with the class definition and claim validity provisions of this Decree, see Sec. X.B. and X.F. Class Counsel may request additional information from the claimant to assess the validity of the claim. The failure of a claimant to respond to a request for additional information from Class Counsel within thirty (30) days shall result in the denial of the claim.
Class Counsel shall complete its review and resolution of all claims referred within thirty (30) days of receipt of the referral of an unresolved claim from the Administrator. Within twenty-four hours of resolution of an unresolved claim, Class Counsel shall cause to be issued to the Administrator by first class mail a copy of it's resolution of the claim in the form of a Disputed Claim Resolution Form. Within 200 days of Final Approval, Class Counsel shall resolve all unresolved claims referred by the Administrator. All fees and costs of Class Counsel incurred in the review and resolution of unresolved claims as detailed in this Consent Decree shall be paid by Defendants on a monthly basis.
8. Rejected ClaimsIf the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel reject a claim as not meeting the terms or provisions of this Decree, the Administrator shall so notify the claimant in writing, including the reasons for the rejection and further notify the claimant that she or he has fourteen (14) days from the date of mailing of the notification of rejection within which to request in writing review by the Special Master.
9. Deadline for Administrator Review of All Claims The Claims Administrator shall complete its review and issue a determination on all Claim Forms within eight (8) months of final approval of the Consent Decree.
7. Special Master
1. Selection and Appointment:Within sixty (60) days after preliminary approval of the Consent Decree by the District Court, Class Counsel and Denny's shall select a Special Master who shall be responsible for review and resolution of rejected claims. The Special Master may be an attorney with civil rights litigation experience.
2. Review of Appeals by the Special Master:The Special Master shall review and resolve all claims in accordance with the class definition and claim validity provisions of this decree, see Sec. X.B. and X.F. The Special Master may contact the claimant by telephone for additional information to assess the validity of the claim.
The Special Master shall complete its review and resolution of all claims referred within twenty (20) days of receipt of the referral of a rejected claim from the Administrator whether or not the Special Master has received additional information.
The Special Master shall issue a written decision on all rejected claims. Copies of the decisions shall be mailed to the claimant, Claims Administrator, and counsel for the parties. All determinations by the Special Master are final, binding and non- appealable.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 35 of 44

3. Payment:All fees and costs of the Special Master incurred in carrying out the specific responsibilities detailed in this Consent Decree shall be paid by defendants.
8. Class Monetary Distribution
1. Named Plaintiffs Monetary Distribution:Within ninety (90) days of final approval of the Consent Decree, each named plaintiff shall be paid $25,000 from the Monetary Settlement Fund.
2. Class Monetary Distribution List: Within twenty (20) days after all claims have been resolved and no further appeals are pending, the Claims Administrator shall submit to the parties a final Class Monetary Distribution List. The Class Monetary Distribution List shall list the name of each qualified claimant as determined by the Claims Administrator, Class Counsel and the Special Master and the pro rata share amount (in dollars) for each valid claim.
3. Payment of Class Shares: Each claimant who files a valid and timely claim shall be entitled to one (1) share of the Class Fund regardless of the number of discriminatory incidents claimed. Determination of the value of each class member share shall be based upon a pro rata division of the Class Fund (less applicable deductions for valid opt-outs, if any). The distribution formula itself shall not be subject to arbitration or review by the Claims Administrator and is conclusively binding on all class members.
Upon final approval of this Decree and submission of the Class Monetary Distribution List, Denny's and Class Counsel shall relinquish control of the trustee account to the Claims Administrator who shall within twenty (20) days thereafter process and mail via certified mail to all valid class members checks in the amount set forth in the Class Monetary Distribution List and a cover letter transmitting same. All checks shall be negotiable for up to sixty (60) days from the date of mailing, and the check and accompanying cover letter shall so indicate.
4. Undeliverable Claim Checks: For each check which is returned to the Administrator as undeliverable, the Claims Administrator shall within twenty (20) days conduct an IRSC or comparable search and remail via certified mail, return receipt requested, a check to such additional address as may be obtained through the tracing process. Such reissued checks shall be negotiable for up to sixty (60) days from the date of remailing. All returned checks to claimants for whom no additional address is obtained through the tracing process shall be held by the Claims Administrator for up to sixty (60) days. If no claim is made for the checks by the claimants during this period of time, the funds shall become part of and allocated to the "Reserve Fund" and distributed in accordance with the provisions of this Decree.
5. Class Fund Balance
a. Determination of Fund Balance: The Class Fund (less deductions for opt outs and the reserve fund, as set forth above) shall be distributed to eligible class members who return valid Claim Forms.
No sooner than 120 days and no later than 180 days after the initial mailing of checks to claimants by the Claims Administrator, the Administrator shall determine and

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 36 of 44

report to Plaintiff Class and Defendants, the amount, if any, of any balance (including accrued interest) remaining in the Class Fund and/or Reserve Fund and shall distribute the remaining funds to the United Negro College Fund designated for scholarships for California residents.
9. Attorneys' Fees and Costs
1. Stage One Fees and Costs:Within ten (10) days of Final Approval of the Consent Decree by the District Court, Defendants shall pay to Class Counsel $6.8 million in settlement of fees and costs for work on the liability phase of the litigation up through Final Approval of the Consent Decree by the Court. The amount is to be paid in full, as set forth herein, regardless of whether any appeal or collateral attack is filed.
2. Stage Two Fees and Costs: Class Counsel shall be paid their attorneys' fees, at their current hourly rates, and costs for all work reasonably performed on the distribution of class monetary funds, any appeal and all work on monitoring the Injunctive Decree subsequent to final approval of this Decree on a monthly basis; payment shall be due within thirty (30) days from submission to defendants.
3. Costs: All costs, including without limitation costs and fees for and incurred by the Claims Administrator and Special Master, including but not limited to costs associated with publication and mailing of the Notice, mailing and processing of claims, reviews by the Claims Administrator and distribution of monies, tracing by IRSC or other comparable service, and bank fees, shall be paid by Defendants.
10. Release Of Claims By Plaintiff Class
The negotiation and entry of this Decree have been undertaken by the parties for the purpose of settling the claims of the Plaintiff Class. Upon entry of the Decree, the defendants, Denny's franchisees and their respective parents, subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents and employees shall be, and hereby are, fully released and forever discharged from any and all claims, demands, charges, complaints, rights and causes of action of any kind, known or unknown, by the Plaintiff Class, and each of its members who do not timely request exclusion from the Class, that arise out of or are related to the incidents of discrimination alleged in the Second Amended Complaint within the Class Period. The entry of this Decree fully settles the allegations that have been, could have been, or in the future might be claimed or asserted against the defendants or Denny's franchisees in this case by the Plaintiff Class and/or members of the Plaintiff Class based on, arising out of, relating to, or in connection with any of the allegations, facts, or circumstances asserted in Second Amended Complaint within the Class Period. This release shall survive the termination of the Decree.
XI. NOTICES
All notices and other communications required under this Decree shall be in writing and delivered either personally or by depositing the same postage prepaid, in the United States mail, addressed to the party hereto, to whom the same is directed at the following addresses:
TO: Plaintiff United States of America Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section U.S. Department of Justice

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 37 of 44

P.O. Box 65998 Washington, D.C. 20035-5998
TO: Plaintiff Kristina Ridgeway, et al. Mari Mayeda Teresa Demchak Antonio Lawson Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein 1300 Clay Street, 11th Floor Oakland, CA 94612
With a copy to: Patricia G. Price Public Interest Law Firm 111 West St. John St., Suite 315 San Jose, CA 95113
TO: Flagstar Corporation and Denny's, Inc. Robert L. Wynn III, General Counsel Robert M. Barrett, Counsel Flagstar Corporation 203 East Main Street MS P-12-4 Spartanburg, S.C. 29319
With a copy to: Thomas L. Pfister Joseph B. Farrell Latham & Watkins 633 West Fifth St., Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071
The parties may from time to time change their address for the purposes of this section by providing written notice, return receipt requested, of such change to the other parties.
XII. INCIDENTS OF DISCRIMINATION
The United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class agree that they will not seek to hold Denny's in contempt for a single isolated incident of discrimination by a Denny's non-supervisory employee unless Denny's management learns of the incident and Denny's fails to take timely remedial action acceptable to the Monitor, the United States and counsel for the Plaintiff Class. Nothing in this provision shall preclude the United States or counsel for the Plaintiff Class (1) from asserting an incident of discrimination was not isolated and/or that it reflected a pattern or practice of discrimination in whole or in part; and/or (2) from seeking to hold persons other than defendants in contempt of this Decree for such an incident.
XIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY
This Decree constitutes the entire agreement among the parties and supersedes all prior agreements, written or oral, among the parties. The only obligations that shall be imposed on the defendants pursuant

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 38 of 44

to the Decree are those expressly set forth herein and those required by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; no additional obligations are to be imposed or implied.
Each provision and term of this Decree shall be interpreted in such manner as to be valid and enforceable. In the event any provision or term of the Decree is determined to be or is rendered invalid or unenforceable, all other provisions and terms of the Decree shall remain unaffected to the extent permitted by law. If any application of any provision or term of this Decree to any person or circumstance is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the application of such provision or term to other persons and circumstances shall remain unaffected to the extent permitted by law.
The parties and the Monitor shall have the right to seek relevant modifications of the Decree to ensure that its purposes are fully satisfied, provided that any request for modification has been preceded by good faith negotiations between the parties pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Procedure.
It is so ORDERED this ________ day of ________________, 1994.
_________________________________ United States District Judge.
The parties consent to the entry of this Decree as indicated by the signatures of counsel below:
For Plaintiff United States:
Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Deval L. Patrick
Paul F. Hancock Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
Brian F. Heffernan Deputy Chief, Housing & Civil Enforcement Section
Fernando M. Olguin Attorney Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Civil Rights Division Department of Justice P.O. Box 65998 Washington, D.C. 20035-5998
Michael J. Yamaguchi United States Attorney
For Plaintiffs Kristina Ridgeway, et al., Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated:
Mari Mayeda Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein
Teresa Demchak

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 39 of 44

Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein
Antonio Lawson Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein 1300 Clay Street, 11th Fl. Oakland, CA 94612
Patricia G. Price Public Interest Law Firm 111 W. St. John St., Suite 315 San Jose, CA 95113
For Defendants:
Flagstar Corporation, a Delaware corporation By: __________________________ Its:__________________________ By: __________________________ Its:__________________________
Denny's, Inc., a California corporation By: __________________________ Its:__________________________ By: __________________________ Its:__________________________
Thomas L. Pfister Joseph B. Farrell Latham & Watkins 633 West Fifth St., Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Summary of Amended Consent Decree
Exhibit B: Notice of Non-Discrimination Policies and Procedures
exhibit C: Acknowledgement and Agreement to Abide by Amended Consent Decree and NonDiscrimination Policies
Exhibit D: Completion of Training Program
Exhibit E: Mailed Notice
Exhibit F: Claim Form and Instructions
Exhibit G: Notice of Settlement

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 40 of 44

Exhibit H: Notification Plan Exhibit I: Notice of Settlement and Claims Process

EXHIBIT A
United States v. Denny's, Inc. and Flagstar Corporation Civil No. 93-20208-JW
Kristina Ridgeway, Individually And On Behalf Of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Denny's, Inc. And Flagstar Corporation
Civil No. 93-20202-JW
SUMMARY OF AMENDED CONSENT DECREE
On March 24 and March 26, 1993, respectively, the United States and a class of plaintiffs comprised of African-Americans ("Plaintiff Class") filed separate lawsuits in Federal Court in California, alleging that Denny's has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race or color in the treatment and/or service of customers in Denny's franchised and company-owned restaurants, in violation of state and federal civil rights laws. Specifically, the complaints of the United States and the Plaintiff Class contend that Denny's treats African-American customers less favorably than white customers. Denny's denies the allegations but, in the interest of resolving this matter without the necessity of expensive and prolonged litigation, has elected to enter into a settlement, which included the filing of an Amended Consent Decree ("Decree"). This document is intended to be a summary of that Decree. If you desire to have a complete copy of the Decree, you may secure one by writing to: Denny's Human Resources Department, 203 East Main Street, P-5-4 Spartanburg, S.C. 29319.
The Decree, which has been signed by a Federal Judge, requires Denny's to advise you and our customers that Denny's does not discriminate on the basis of race or color. The Decree provides that officers, employee and agents of Denny's, and franchisees of Denny's who receive notice of the Decree must not: (1) deny to any person, based on their race or color, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of our restaurants; (2) deny service or offer less favorable terms and conditions of service to any person based on their race or color; (3) require pre- payment, a cover charge or presentment of identification as a condition of service, based on race or color; (4) implement different terms and conditions, on the basis of race or color, concerning Denny's promotional offers; (5) make statements, on the basis of race or color, that would discourage anyone from visiting Denny's Restaurants; (6) instruct or encourage employees or staff members to discourage any person, based on their race or color, from visiting a Denny's Restaurant or from enjoying the full benefits of Denny's Restaurants; and (7) retaliate against any officer, employee or agent for opposing or reporting alleged discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers, in violation of applicable law and/or this Decree.
In order to meet our obligations under the law and to ensure that our diverse customer base is being treated appropriately and fairly, we will be: (1) retaining a Civil Rights Monitor who will be responsible for monitoring Denny's compliance with the Decree; (2) advising all officers, employees, agents and franchisees of the contents of the Decree and the fact that Denny's cannot and will not retaliate against any officer, employee or agent for opposing or reporting alleged discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers, in violation of applicable law and/or this Decree; (3) training all officers,

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 41 of 44

employees, agents and franchisees of their duties and obligations under federal and state law and the Decree; (4) notifying our customers through appropriate advertisements of Denny's non-discrimination policy; and (5) implementing a testing program to monitor service provided to customers in our restaurants.

EXHIBIT B
United States v. Denny's, Inc. and Flagstar Corporation Civil No. 93-20208-JW
Kristina Ridgeway, Individually And On Behalf Of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Denny's, Inc. And Flagstar Corporation
Civil No. 93-20202-JW
NOTICE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
As part of our effort to ensure compliance with state and federal anti-discrimination laws, particularly public accommodations laws, I take this opportunity to remind all of our officers, employees, agents and everyone associated with Denny's, Inc. of our policies concerning non-discrimination. It is important for each officer, employee, and agent to review his or her actions in light of these requirements and for everyone to keep in mind the importance of treating all persons equally. If we intend to be the best food service company in the world by the year 2000, we have to treat our customers and each other with dignity and respect.
We have always had a policy of not engaging in any type of discrimination against customers. In reaffirming that policy, I want to remind you that under the applicable state and federal public accommodations laws, you must at all times and in every part of your work NEVER:
1. Deny to any person, on the basis of race or color, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of Denny's Restaurants;
2. Deny service, or offer less favorable terms and conditions of service, to any customer on the basis of race or color;
3. Require prepayment, a cover charge or presentment of identification as a condition of service, on the basis of race or color;
4. Implement different terms and conditions, on the basis of race or color, concerning Denny's promotional offers;
5. Make statements, on the basis of race or color, that would discourage customers from visiting Denny's Restaurants;
6. Instruct or encourage employees or staff members to discourage any person, on the basis of race or color, from visiting Denny's Restaurants or from enjoying the full benefits of our restaurants;
7. Make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the service or equal enjoyment of our restaurants that indicates any

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 42 of 44

preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race or color, or an intention to make any such limitation or discrimination; and
8. Represent to any person, because of race or color, that service or enjoyment of our facilities is not available, when such is in fact so available.
Failure to comply with non-discrimination policies will result in appropriate disciplinary action which may include termination.
It is important to understand that any action taken by you that results in the denial of service or unequal treatment of customers may constitute a violation of state and federal public accommodations laws. We are firmly committed to fair and equal treatment and service to all the customers that we serve. You are expected to join in that effort and, as such, you are required to report to your supervisor and/or the appropriate law enforcement agency or official any instances that you have witnessed that may constitute discrimination by other Denny's personnel or any attempts by other personnel to encourage or coerce you to discriminate against customers. Our company cannot and will not retaliate against any officer, employee or agent for opposing or reporting alleged discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers, in violation of applicable law and/or this Decree.
Together we will succeed in being the best food service company in the world by the year 2000.
Sincerely,
C. Ronald Petty Senior Vice-President Chief Operating Officer
Denny's, Inc.

EXHIBIT C
United States v. Denny's, Inc. and Flagstar Corporation Civil No. 93-20208-JW
Kristina Ridgeway, Individually And On Behalf Of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Denny's, Inc. And Flagstar Corporation
Civil No. 93-20202-JW
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND AGREEMENT TO ABIDE BY AMENDED CONSENT DECREE AND NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES
I have read the "Summary of Amended Consent Decree" and the "Notice of Non-Discrimination Policies and Procedures" provided to me on ______________. I understand the requirements of the Amended Decree and the non-discrimination policies and procedures, and recognize that my failure or refusal to adhere to them could result in possible sanctions against me by a court as well as disciplinary action, including termination of employment, by my employer. Additionally, I understand that I will not be reprimanded, penalized, or otherwise retaliated against in any way for opposing or reporting alleged discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers, in violation of applicable law and/or the amended Decree.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case

Page 43 of 44

Dated this ____ day of _____________, 199__.
________________________________ Employee or Agent Signature
________________________________ Employee or Agent-Printed Name
________________________________ Street Address
________________________________ City, State, Zip Code
Dated this ____ day of ______________, 199__.
________________________________ Company Representative.

EXHIBIT D
United States v. Denny's, Inc. and Flagstar Corporation Civil No. 93-20208-JW
Kristina Ridgeway, Individually And On Behalf Of All Persons Similarly Situated v. Denny's, Inc. And Flagstar Corporation
Civil No. 93-20202-JW
COMPLETION OF TRAINING PROGRAM
On ____________________, 199_, I participated in and completed the diversity/sensitivity training program. I have been instructed about my duties and obligations as an employee or agent of Denny's under state and federal public accommodations laws and the Amended Consent Decree entered into by Denny's. I understand my duties and obligations and am aware that my failure or refusal to adhere to them could result in possible sanctions against me by a court as well as disciplinary action, including termination of employment, by my employer. Additionally, I understand that I will not be retaliated against in any way for opposing or reporting alleged discrimination in the service and/or treatment of customers, in violation of applicable law and/or this amended Decree.
Dated this ____ day of ______________, 199__.
________________________________ Employee or Agent Signature
________________________________ Employee or Agent-Printed Name
________________________________

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

Amended Consent Decree in the Denny's case
Street Address ________________________________
City, State, Zip Code Dated this ____ day of ______________, 199__.
________________________________ Company Representative.

Page 44 of 44

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennysettle2.htm

9/11/2006

 </s> Complaint in the Denny's case

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 93-20208
TW SERVICES, INC. and DENNY'S, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________
COMPLAINT
The United States alleges that:
1. This action is brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the United States to enforce Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Accommodations Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 200a et seq.
2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-5(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
3. Defendant TW Services, Inc., is a Delaware corporation which, through its subsidiary, Denny's Inc., operates Denny's Restaurants and conducts business in, among other places, the Northern District of California.
4. Defendant Denny's Inc. is a California corporation which operates Denny's Restaurants in, and among other places, the Northern District of California.
5. Denny's Restaurants are placed of public accommodation within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b)(2).
6. The operation of Denny's Restaurants affects commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a (c)(2).
7. Defendants, acting through their officers, employees, and agents, have implemented a policy and practice of denying to black persons, on account of race or color, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of their restaurants, on the same basis as they make such available to non-black persons. This policy and practice has been carried out, among other ways, as follows:
A. Defendants have implemented terms and conditions for service of black persons, such as the requirement of prepayment and cover charges, that are less favorable than the terms and conditions for service to white persons;
2. Defendants treat black customers less favorably than white customers and discourage black

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennycomp.htm

9/11/2006

Complaint in the Denny's case

Page 2 of 2

persons from visiting their restaurants.
8. The conduct of defendants described in Paragraph 7 constitutes a pattern or practice of resistance to the full and equal enjoyment by black persons of rights secured by 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq., and the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of such rights. Unless restrained by Order of this Court, defendants will continue to refuse to provide black persons with the full and equal enjoyment of rights secured to them by 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq.
Wherefore, the United States requests that the Court enter an Order:
A. Declaring that the discriminatory practices of the defendants violate Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq.; and
2. Enjoining defendants, their officers, employees, agents, and successors, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from engaging in any act or practice which, on the basis of race or color, denies or abridges any rights secured by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq.
The United States further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice may require, together with the costs and disbursements of this action.
Respectfully submitted,
Janet Reno Attorney General
James P. Turner Acting Assistant Attorney General
Paul F. Hancock Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
Brian F. Heffernan
Fernando M. Olguin
Christopher T. Shaheen Attorneys Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Civil Rights Division Department of Justice P.O. Box 65998 Washington, D.C. 20035-5998
John A. Mendez United States Attorney

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/documents/dennycomp.htm

9/11/2006

 </s> Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
1994 WL 669935 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Kristina RIDGEWAY, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants.
Nos. C 93–20202 JW, C 93–20208 JW. | Nov. 18, 1994.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Thomas L. Pfister, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA.
Brian F. Heffernan, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Housing and Civil Enforcement Div., Washington, D.C.
Mary Beth Utti, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, CA.
Antonio Lawson, Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein, Oakland, CA.
Amanda K. Wilson, Public Interest Law Firm, San Jose, CA.
L.W. Holt, Berkeley, CA.
Opinion
ORDER VACATING HEARING RE: MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT AND REQUIRING CREATION AND PRODUCTION OF LIST
WARE, District Judge.
*1 The initial motion of non-parties Gerald Salaam (“Salaam”) and Paul Jackson (“Jackson”) to alter or amend the judgment of September 30, 1994, was submitted on the papers without oral argument and was denied by the Court. Salaam and Jackson have now noticed a second motion to alter or amend the judgment. The Court declines to entertain such motion and hereby VACATES the hearing noticed for December 16, 1994. The Court did not, as alleged in the non-parties’ moving papers, receive any post-hearing documents from class counsel, nor did the Court enter a proposed order which had not been approved as to form by all concerned. The Court prepared and issued its own order.
In addition, in its Order issued November 3, 1994, the Court ordered Salaam and Jackson to produce a list of any and all Denny’s claimants which have contacted them and/or signed contingency fee agreements with them within three business days. Rather than produce such a list, however, Salaam and Jackson submitted affidavits to the Court stating that they have no such list.
In order to clarify the Court’s prior order, the Court hereby orders Salaam and Jackson to review each and every one of their client files, create a list of any and all Denny’s claimants that have contacted either or both Salaam and Jackson and/or have signed contingency fee agreements with Salaam and/or Jackson and product such list to Class Counsel within three business days of the date of this Order. If such list is not created and timely produced, the Court shall impose monetary sanctions against both Salaam and Jackson for failing to comply with this Court’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994) 2

 </s> Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
1994 WL 525553 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California. Kristina RIDGEWAY, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v. FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants. Nos. C 93–20202 JW, C 93–20208 JW. | Sept. 22, 1994.
Attorneys and Law Firms Jerry L. Steering, The Law Offices of Melvin M. Belli, Sr., Beverly Hills, CA. Thomas L. Pfister, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA. Brian F. Heffernan, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Housing and Civ. Enforcement Div., Washington, DC. Mary Beth Utti, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, CA. Antonio Lawson, Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein, Oakland, CA. Amanda K. Wilson, Public Interest Law Firm, San Jose, CA. Opinion
ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST
WARE, District Judge. *1 The hearing on the Order to Show Cause issued to Jerry L. Steering and the Law Offices of Melvin M. Belli, Sr. was held on September 22, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. After considering the arguments of counsel, the Court hereby orders Jerry L. Steering and the Law Offices of Melvin M. Belli, Sr. to cease and desist from conduct which interferes with the execution of the Amended Consent Decree issued by this Court as set forth below.
I. BACKGROUND This is a class action suit brought under federal and state civil rights statutes challenging racially discriminatory customer policies and practices at Denny’s Restaurants in California. On May 24, 1994, the parties filed, and the Court preliminarily approved, an Amended Consent Decree settling all monetary and injunctive issues. The Amended Consent Decree was given final approval by the Court on July 29, 1994. The Amended Consent Decree includes provisions for the establishment of a claims procedure under which members of the class who file valid and timely claims are entitled to a pro rata share of a settlement fund of approximately $27 million.
Under the Amended Consent Decree, the claims procedure is to be administered by an experienced claims administrator jointly selected by the parties. The parties selected the Rust Consulting Group, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota as Claims Administrator. A toll-free 800 telephone number was established to provide potential claimants with access to the Claims Administrator to request claim forms and to seek assistance in completing and filing claims. Additionally, under the
1

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
Amended Consent Decree, the law firm of Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein is designated as Class Counsel.
Following preliminary approval of the Amended Consent Decree and announcement of the settlement in May 1994, the parties received reports that a number of individuals and organizations in California were charging fees to individuals for services related to the preparation and/or filing of claims in this case. The parties investigated these activities and submitted two reports on their investigation to the Court.
On June 16, 1994, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order that (1) amended the claim form in this action to include express language advising that “giving false information or assisting others in providing false information on this claim form is a crime” and that anyone “provid[ing] false information on this claim form or assist[ing] others in providing false information ... could be subject to investigation ... and ... criminal prosecution;” and (2) directing that a Special Notice be mailed, along with the claim form, to all potential claimants. The Special Notice expressly cautions claimants that the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel are available to provide, free of charge, assistance in filing claims.
In July 1994, Class Counsel were advised by Robert Moran of the Law Firm of Melvin Belli, Sr. that Belli’s firm represented a number of individuals who had possible race discrimination claims against Denny’s Restaurants. Moran requested that should any of these individuals file a claim that is determined to be valid, that the settlement check be issued jointly in the names of the Law Offices of Melvin Belli and the claimant. It was represented that Belli’s clients were facing the decision of whether to opt-out or remain in the class and file a claim and that Moran wanted to ensure some way for the Belli firm to be paid for work already undertaken in investigating their clients cases and advising them of their options. Class Counsel agreed to the issuance of joint checks on the condition that Belli’s office provide Class Counsel with: written confirmation of their representation for each claimant; signed statements from each client authorizing and requesting that payment of his or her monetary settlement be made jointly; and written confirmation that the substance of the Special Notice approved by the Court on June 16, 1994 had been reviewed with each claimant.
*2 In August, Mike Mundi of Belli’s office called the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel requesting that 500 claim forms be issued to Belli’s office. Mundi claimed that Belli had written consent from Class Counsel and Defendant’s counsel to assist people wishing to file claims. Class Counsel denied the request.
In a letter dated August 24, 1994, attorney Jerry Steering of Belli’s firm provided Class Counsel with copies of retainer agreements between his firm and some 43 individuals. Steering requested that claim forms be issued to these individuals and again asked that additional forms be issued for individuals who may contact the Belli firm in the future as a result of the extensive publicity that Steering received and generated in the case.1
On September 2, 1994, Class Counsel received an electronic mail message from Kristen Hughes of Rust Consulting Group, Inc. which advised them that a caller reported solicitation of potential claimants at a mall in Los Angeles and the distribution of self-addressed stamped envelopes addressed to the Law Offices of Melvin Belli. Class Counsel questioned Jerry Steering about the mall solicitation. Steering admitted that his firm was actively soliciting claimants through advertisements in local African–American newspapers in Lose Angeles.2 However, Steering denied that there were any in-person solicitations. Steering revealed to Class Counsel that individuals who respond to the Belli advertisement are sent a retainer agreement, a letter and a slightly amended version of the claim form which they are requested to complete and return to Belli. Belli’s office then reviews and strengthens the claim as necessary and maintains this draft until the official claim form is received. Upon receipt of the official claim form, the client is to forward the blank form to Belli’s office where the requested information is typed onto the official form in accordance with the previously submitted handwritten draft and then forwarded to the Claims Administrator after a signature is secured. The letter sent by Belli’s firm to the potential claimants contains several misrepresentations and could lead a class member to believe that he or she needs the assistance of the Belli firm to file a claim.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
This Court has personal jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–6 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1345. Continuing jurisdiction has been retained by the Court during the effective period of the Decree. See Amended Consent Decree at §§ V.D. and E. Under the Court’s retained jurisdiction, the Court has authority to issue orders to effect compliance with the Decree. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d). Additionally, The Court has authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [its’ ...] jurisdiction [ ...].”
2

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
III. ANALYSIS
The power and duty of the Court to protect and effectuate its prior orders extends to the issuance of injunctions against nonparties whose conduct interferes with or impedes implementation of those orders. Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passengers Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 692 n. 32 (1979). Under the All Writs Act, “the Court can use its inherent powers to protect its final decrees, especially when the nonparty’s actions threaten the adjudicated public rights of a party to the litigation.” NAACP v. Brock, 619 F.Supp. 846, 852 (D.D.C.1985).
*3 The actions of Jerry L. Steering and the Law Firm of Melvin M. Belli, Sr. do indeed threaten the implementation of the Court’s orders in this case. Aspects of the conduct of the Belli law firm amount to avaricious freeloading on the work of Class Counsel. Under the guise of a contingent fee, class members are induced by the Belli firm to pay money for assistance in filing a claim, a service for which Class Counsel have already been compensated and will perform without charge. The Court is mindful of the benefit to the public and to attorneys which is realized when attorneys are willing to take cases on a contingent fee basis. There is a public benefit because without contingent fee arrangements many people of limited means would not be able to pursue claims because of the high cost of litigation. There is a benefit to attorneys from contingent fee arrangements because, among other things, in some instances the percentage fee greatly exceeds the amount an attorney would earn if the time spent on the case were billed at an hourly rate. Attorneys should be allowed to benefit when they take the risk of providing substantial legal services with the prospect that there might be no recovery.
In this situation, however, the Court questions whether there is a true “contingency” or risk worthy of the high price being charged to the class. There certainly is no need for contingent fee arrangements to encourage people to file their claims since the claims filing procedure set up by the Court is free of charge.
The Court has already established reasonable compensation for attorneys’ fees in this case. The conduct of the Belli law firm has the effect of taxing the class twice for attorney’s fees. The Court’s decree establishes a claim fund which the Court intends to be paid to the class with no further deductions for attorney’s fees.
Of utmost concern to the Court is that the conduct of the Belli law firm interferes with the claims process established by the Court, misrepresents the claims process and poses a danger of harming the interests of the class. The statement in the August 30, 1994 document sent by the Belli law firm to the class states that the “Denny’s case class counsel” have stated that “they have no intention of paying each and every claim submitted to them.” This statement is likely to mislead claimants into believing that legitimate claims will not be honored; and that the Class Counsel is allied with “Denny’s” and is not representing the interests of the class. A statement such as this creates unwarranted fear among the claimants that unless they retain private counsel their claims will not be properly considered.
The August 30, 1994 document solicits claimants to use the Belli law firm to present claims and states that the Denny’s case claims’ administrator and class counsel are “also” available to provide you with assistance free of charge. It further states “[h]owever, neither of them will file claims for you.” This statement has the propensity to mislead claimants into believing that Class Counsel will not assist the class in filing a claim and that the claims process is so complex that the assistance of an individual lawyer is needed to file a claim. The class is further instructed to call the claims administrator and request “our” official form. Although Mr. Steering has informed the Court that “our” was an unintended typographical error, the class is not privy to such knowledge, and such a statement is likely to mislead the class to believe that the Belli law firm has some official position in administration of claims.
*4 The August 30, 1994 document sets up a claims filing procedure which is different from the procedure established by the Court. Under the Court’s Decree any person can obtain a claim form and mail or otherwise deliver it directly to the Claim Administrator. The Belli law firm’s claim process involves a pink claim form created by the Belli law firm, which is identical to the claim form approved by the Court. Claimants are told to request an official form but to not fill it out. They must fill out the Belli claim form and to leave the Court’s official form blank. The Belli firm instructs that it will then transpose the information from its pink form onto the Court’s official form and send it back to the claimants for review and signature. Claimants are instructed that after they approve the official form they must sign it and, instead of sending to the Claims Administrator, they must mail the signed official form back to the Belli law firm. The Belli law firm promises to send the completed form to the Claims’ Administrator. It is likely that this process will result in delay, confusion and potentially result in claims being filed too late under the terms of the Consent Decree.
3

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
The document contains conflicting instructions. For example, on page 2 of the August 30, 1994 document claimants are instructed to “send us [the Belli law firm] the Official Denny’s Claim Form signed ... in the enclosed envelope ...” This is likely to lead a claimant to believe that the Official form must be signed in blank and returned with the attorney-client agreement. This is contrary to the instructions set forth on page 1.
The Belli documents also have the potential to mislead claimants into believing that once they submit the material to Belli’s law firm, they have tendered a claim. This could result in a claim being denied through the conduct of the Belli law firm.
The Court acknowledges the responsiveness and helpfulness that Mr. Steering and the Belli Law Firm displayed at the hearing on this matter. However, the Court finds that the actions of Jerry L. Steering and The Law Firm of Melvin M. Belli, Sr. threaten the integrity and orderly implementation of the claims procedures approved by this Court thereby infringing upon the rights of all class members, potential or otherwise, in this matter.

IV. ORDER
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court Orders as follows:
1. With respect to class members who have signed a contingent fee agreement with the Belli law firm:
a. the Court appreciates and accepts the Belli law firm’s offer made during the hearing on this matter to waive all attorney’s fees;
b. the Court orders Jerry L. Steering and the Belli Law Firm to present Class Counsel with a list, including address and telephone number, if any, of all class members who have signed a contingent fee agreement with their firm; the Court further orders Class Counsel to send each class member on the Belli list a copy of this Order and notice that their attorney’s fees have been waived; a proposed form of such notice shall be sent to the Court for its approval;
*5 d. the Court orders Jerry L. Steering and the Belli law firm to retain copies of any and all documents used in the Belli claims process, including but not limited to, the pink forms that have been sent to class members;
2. The Court orders Jerry L. Steering and the Belli law firm to provide class counsel with a list of those class members who have contacted the Belli law firm regarding this case, but have not yet signed a contingent fee agreement or completed the claim filing process.
3. Jerry L. Steering and The Law Offices of Melvin M. Belli, Sr., you, your agents, servants and employees are HEREBY ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST:
a. from advertising in the manner set forth in the attached Exhibit A;
b. from sending to the claimants or potential claimants in this case, a letter of the type attached as Exhibit B;
c. from soliciting potential claimants to enter into a contingent fee agreement of the type attached as Exhibit C; and
d. from presenting claims in this case that are not made in accordance with the process established by the Court.
Nothing in this Order shall preclude Jerry L. Steering or the Belli law firm from representing individuals who are not members of the class, or who opt out of the class, or whose claims are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

1

It is noted that 5 of the 43 individuals for whom Steering sought claim forms had submitted timely opt out statements and were

referenced in the Court’s Final Approval Order as valid opt outs.

4

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)

2

The advertisement resembles an official class notice or public service announcement. It states “ATTENTION

AFRICAN–AMERICANS If you have been the victim of racial discrimination between November 14, 1988 and May 24, 1994 at a

DENNY’S restaurant you probably have a right to money from DENNY’S call: JERRY L. STEERING, ESQ.”

5

 </s> Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
1994 WL 564571 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California. Kristina RIDGEWAY, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v. FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants. Nos. C 93–20202 JW, C 93–20208 JW. | Oct. 3, 1994.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Thomas L. Pfister, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA.
Brian F. Heffernan, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Housing and Civil Enforcement Div., Washington, DC.
Mary Beth Utti, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, CA.
Antonio Lawson, Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein, Oakland, CA.
Amanda K. Wilson, Public Interest Law Firm, San Jose, CA.
Opinion
ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST
WARE, District Judge.
*1 The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Injunction against Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims and Associates and Others Acting in Concert with them was held on September 30, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. Antonio Lawson appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Jimmy Sims and Jewell Kearney failed to appear. After considering the papers and arguments of counsel, the Court hereby orders Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims and Associates and Others Acting in Concert with them to cease and desist from conduct which interferes with the execution of the Amended Consent Decree issued by this Court as set forth below.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a class action suit brought under federal and state civil rights statutes challenging racially discriminatory customer policies and practices at Denny’s Restaurants in California. On May 24, 1994, the parties filed, and the Court preliminarily approved, an Amended Consent Decree settling all monetary and injunctive issues. The Amended Consent Decree was given final approval by the Court on July 29, 1994. The Amended Consent Decree includes provisions for the establishment of a claims procedure under which members of the class who file valid and timely claims are entitled to a pro rata share of a settlement fund of approximately $27 million.
Under the Amended Consent Decree, the claims procedure is to be administered by an experienced claims administrator jointly selected by the parties. The parties selected the Rust Consulting Group, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota as Claims Administrator. A toll-free 800 telephone number was established to provide potential claimants with access to the Claims Administrator to request claim forms and to seek assistance in completing and filing claims. Additionally, under the Amended Consent Decree, the law firm of Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein is designated as Class Counsel.
1

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
Following preliminary approval of the Amended Consent Decree and announcement of the settlement in May 1994, the parties received reports that a number of individuals and organizations in California were charging fees to individuals for services related to the preparation and/or filing of claims in this case. The parties investigated these activities and submitted two reports on their investigation to the Court.
On June 16, 1994, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order that (1) amended the claim form in this action to include express language advising that “giving false information or assisting others in providing false information on this claim form is a crime” and that anyone “provid[ing] false information on this claim form or assist[ing] others in providing false information ... could be subject to investigation ... and ... criminal prosecution;” and (2) directing that a Special Notice be mailed, along with the claim form, to all potential claimants. The Special Notice expressly cautions claimants that the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel are available to provide, free of charge, assistance in filing claims.
*2 While conducting their investigation, one of the first individuals who came to the parties’ attention was Jimmy Sims, who along with his wife, Jewell Kearney, owns and does business as Sims & Associates Information Center in the South Central District of Lose Angeles, California.
It was initially reported to Class Counsel that Sims & Associates was charging individuals a fee for access to the toll-free number of the Claims Administrator and having individuals execute an agreement under which they agreed to pay Sims and Associates a portion of any recovery obtained in this action. Subsequently, it was reported to Class Counsel that Sims was charging individuals a fee for assisting them in filling out their claim forms and continuing to demand contingency agreements for 20% of the recovery obtained.
Class Counsel subpoenaed Jimmy Sims and Jewell Kearney for deposition and sought production of any and all documents pertaining to their activities in connection with the completion and filing of claims in this case. Neither Mr. Sims, Ms. Kearney, nor any of their employees is a licensed attorney. At his deposition, Jimmy Sims produced 1,094 copies of claim forms which he or others acting with him have assisted individuals in completing1; a number of receipts for cash received by Sims & Associates from individuals in connection with the “Denny’s discrimination” case; and approximately 559 contingency agreements between Sims & Associates and individuals. At the depositions, Class Counsel discovered the following facts:
In late May 1994, Sims began his Denny’s claims activities, initially by charging individuals between $10–25 for access to the Claims Administrator’s 800 number. The amount Sims charges varies by the number of people seeking his assistance. For example, Sims charges $10 for a single person; $20 for two people; $25 for a family of four; and $5.00 for each additional person. In addition to these fees, Sims has all of his “Denny’s” clients execute a written contingency agreement under which they agree to pay him one thousand dollars or twenty percent of their recovery.
On his or her initial visit to Sim’s office, a potential claimant signs the contingency agreement, pays the cash fee and is taken into an office where an employee of Sims dials the 800 number on a telephone and then hands the phone to the claimant to speak to the Claims Administrator’s office and request a claim form. Once the potential claimant receives a claim form, he or she returns to Sims for assistance in completing it. Class Counsel have received reports that Sims charges a fee of up to fifty dollars for assistance in completing the claim form. Sims denies charging such fees. However, the receipts Sims produced to Class Counsel show payments in this amount.
Class Counsel sent its paralegal to Sims and Associates on two separate occasions, posing as a claimant. The paralegal reported that when she visited Sims and Associates, and told the man helping her that she could not remember the date or place of the incident, the man filled in the date for her and gave her a list of Denny’s Restaurants and advised her to pick out any restaurant, since the “whole Denny’s Corporation” was being sued. The paralegal was also encouraged to embellish details of her discriminatory incident. When asked at his deposition, Jimmy Sims denied that he, or anyone on his staff, would ever tell potential claimants what to say on their claim form or to give false information.
*3 After the parties filed their initial report to the Court on their investigation of Sims, the United States Department of Justice requested that the FBI investigate Sims. Even after the depositions and FBI investigation, the Claims Administrator continued to receive reports about the activities of Sims & Associates. Class Counsel sent a private investigator to Sims, posing as a claimant. The private investigator affirmed that Sims was charging a fee for his services and that he encouraged her to embellish details of her discriminatory incident. An investigator from the Alameda County District Attorney’s office also affirmed these practices. Class Counsel noticed the depositions of several individuals who filed claim forms with the assistance of Sims. Their deposition testimony also supports the conclusion that Sims and Associates encouraged and
2

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
participated in the filing of fraudulent claims.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
This Court has personal jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–6 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1345. Continuing jurisdiction has been retained by the Court during the effective period of the Decree. See Amended Consent Decree at §§ V.D. and E. Under the Court’s retained jurisdiction, the Court has authority to issue orders to effect compliance with the Decree. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d). Additionally, The Court has authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [its’ ...] jurisdiction [ ...].”
III. ANALYSIS
The power and duty of the Court to protect and effectuate its prior orders extends to the issuance of injunctions against nonparties whose conduct interferes with or impedes implementation of those orders. Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passengers Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 692 n. 32 (1979). Under the All Writs Act, “the Court can use its inherent powers to protect its final decrees, especially when the nonparty’s actions threaten the adjudicated public rights of a party to the litigation.” NAACP v. Brock, 619 F.Supp. 846, 852 (D.D.C.1985).
The actions of Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims & Associates and others acting in concert with them are an affront to the settlement and remedial provisions approved by the Court. Sims, a thrice-convicted felon who is not an attorney, blatantly has established a claims filing business and is engaged in encouraging and assisting the filing of fraudulent claims and providing incorrect and inadequate information about the claims procedure in this case. Sims and Associates’ activities directly injure the rights of class members with valid claims and otherwise jeopardize the integrity and fairness of the remedial provisions of the Court’s Orders.
The Court has established reasonable compensation for attorneys’ fees in this case and the Court’s decree establishes a claim fund which the Court intends to be paid to the class with no further deductions for attorney’s fees. The Court has also appointed Class Counsel, who are licensed attorneys, to aid class members in filing their claims free of charge. Sims & Associates practice of charging class members to aid them in completing their claim forms not only taxes the class twice for attorney’s fees, but is also extremely dangerous, since neither Mr. Sims, Ms. Kearney nor any of their employees is a licensed attorney.
*4 Furthermore, Sims & Associates encouragement and assistance to others in providing false claims to the Claims Administrator dilutes the value of the claims of persons who actually were victims of discriminatory conduct and undercuts the remedial purpose of the Decree “[t]o provide ... monetary relief to all class members by means of the ... procedures set forth in th[e] Decree.”
By providing false and misleading information to individuals about the claim filing requirements, Sims & Associates create the danger that claims of actual victims of discriminatory conduct will be rejected since the claim may fail to provide information sufficient for a determination of validity.
The actions of Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims and Associates, and others acting in concert with them seriously threaten the integrity and orderly implementation of the claims procedures approved by this Court thereby infringing upon the rights of all class members in this matter.
IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney and Sims & Associates, their officers, agents or employees, and others acting in concert with 3

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
them shall:
1. cease and desist from engaging in any activities related to the claims procedure in this case, including, but not limited to, the completion of claim forms and filing of claims for or on behalf of any person; entering into contingent fee agreements with any class members; and charging class members for access to the Claims Administrator’s 1–800 line; and
2. present Class Counsel with a list, including address and telephone number, if any, of all class members who have signed a contingent fee agreement with Sims & Associates;
3. present Class Counsel with a list, including address and telephone number, if any, of all class members who have paid a fee to Sims & Associates for services related to filing claims in this action, including but not limited to, those class members who were charged a fee for access to the Claims Administrator’s 1–800 line;
4. present Class Counsel with a list, including address and telephone number, if any, of all class members who have contacted Sims & Associates, but have not yet signed a contingent fee agreement or completed the claim filing process;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Class Counsel shall send to each class member on the various Sims and Associates lists, a copy of this Order and a special notice informing the class members who filed their claims with the assistance of Sims and Associates, and who have otherwise valid claims, that they will be permitted to notify the Claims Administrator of such claims; a proposed form of such notice shall be sent to the Court for its approval.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order to Cease and Desist be personally served on Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney and Sims and Associates. The Court appoints the following process server for this purpose:
Alex Martinez, Process Manager
*5 EXPRESS NETWORK, INC.
601 West 5th Street, Room 350
Los Angeles, California 90071
Personal service on Jimmy Sims and Jewell Kearney shall be deemed service upon him and her and Sims & Associates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

1

Class Counsel have reviewed the 1,094 claim forms produced by Sims. The reports of discriminatory incidents on these claim

forms are completely at odds with the patterns that emerged during Class Counsel’s initial eight month investigation in which they

interviewed over 3,000 individuals about 1,426 separate incidents of discriminatory treatment at Denny’s restaurants in California.

4

 </s> Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
1994 WL 665243 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California. Kristina RIDGEWAY, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v. FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants. Nos. C 93–20202 JW, C 93–20208 JW. | Nov. 8, 1994.
Attorneys and Law Firms Leo Bazile, Harrison, Taylor & Bazile, Oakland, CA. Thomas L. Pfister, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA. Brian F. Heffernan, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Housing and Civil Enforcement Div., Washington, DC. Mary Beth Utti, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, CA. Antonio Lawson, Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein, Oakland, CA. Amanda K. Wilson, Public Interest Law Firm, San Jose, CA. Opinion
ORDER VACATING DEPOSITION OF JERRY VARNADO AND REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF CLAIMANT LIST TO CLASS COUNSEL
WARE, District Judge. *1 The hearing on the Order to Show Cause re: Contempt issued to Jerry Varnado was held on September 30, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. After considering the papers and arguments of counsel, the Court hereby vacates the deposition of Jerry Varnado and orders as follows.
I. BACKGROUND This is a class action suit brought under federal and state civil rights statutes challenging racially discriminatory customer policies and practices at Denny’s Restaurants in California. On May 24, 1994, the parties filed, and the Court preliminarily approved, an Amended Consent Decree settling all monetary and injunctive issues. The Amended Consent Decree was given final approval by the Court on July 29, 1994. The Amended Consent Decree includes provisions for the establishment of a claims procedure under which members of the class who file valid and timely claims are entitled to a pro rata share of a settlement fund of approximately $27 million.
Under the Amended Consent Decree, the claims procedure is to be administered by an experienced claims administrator jointly selected by the parties. The parties selected the Rust Consulting Group, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota as Claims Administrator. A toll-free 800 telephone number was established to provide potential claimants with access to the Claims Administrator to request claim forms and to seek assistance in completing and filing claims. Additionally, under the
1

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
Amended Consent Decree, the law firm of Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein is designated as Class Counsel.
Following preliminary approval of the Amended Consent Decree and announcement of the settlement in May 1994, the parties received reports that a number of individuals and organizations in California were charging fees to individuals for services related to the preparation and/or filing of claims in this case. The parties investigated these activities and submitted two reports on their investigation to the Court.
On June 16, 1994, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order that (1) amended the claim form in this action to include express language advising that “giving false information or assisting others in providing false information on this claim form is a crime” and that anyone “provid[ing] false information on this claim form or assist[ing] others in providing false information ... could be subject to investigation ... and ... criminal prosecution;” and (2) directing that a Special Notice be mailed, along with the claim form, to all potential claimants. The Special Notice expressly cautions claimants that the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel are available to provide, free of charge, assistance in filing claims.
Jerry Varnado is an attorney with offices in Oakland, California. Mr. Varnado came to the attention of Class Counsel in connection with their investigation of activities related to the filing of claims against Denny’s. Class Counsel learned that a company called Accident Case Experts (ACE) was advertising on a local cable television station that it would provide assistance to individuals wishing to file claims against Denny’s in connection with the settlement of this case. Class Counsel further learned that individuals responding to ACE’s ad were initially interviewed by either Gerald Salaam or Paul Jackson.1 Salaam or Jackson obtained information from potential claimants about their Denny’s claim and had the claimants sign retainer agreements with one of two attorneys, Martin McDonagh2 and Jerry Varnado. The retainer agreement provided for the claimant to pay to Mcdonagh or Varnado 33⅓% to 40% of the amount that he or she recovered.
*2 On July 12, 1994, Class Counsel issued a subpoena for Varnado to appear for deposition on July 26, 1994 at 1:00 p.m. The subpoena further directed that he produce for inspection and copying documents identified in Attachment A to the subpoena. Varnado was personally served with the subpoena on July 12, 1994.
On July 13, 1994, Varnado telephoned the offices of Class Counsel and spoke with Antonio Lawson. Varnado stated that he had received the subpoena but did not know whether he would appear. Lawson advised Varnado that his deposition was being taken in order to provide a report to the Court on the status of claims administration. Lawson further advised Varnado that his deposition remained as scheduled on July 26, 1994.
On July 26, 1994, Varnado did not appear for his deposition nor did he produce any of the documents identified in Attachment A to the subpoena. Class counsel confirmed in writing in a letter to Varnado his failure to appear for his deposition without justification.
On July 27, 1994 Class Counsel drafted a Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Contempt requiring Jerry Varnado to appear and show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt and subject to sanctions. A copy of the draft of the OSC motion was served on Varnado on July 27, 1994. Prior to filing the OSC motion with the Court, Class Counsel sought to provide Varnado another opportunity to appear for his deposition. A second subpoena was issued on July 27, 1994, noticing Varnado’s deposition for Monday, August 8, 1994 at 9:30 a.m. Varnado’s secretary, Yvette Johnson, accepted service of this subpoena.
On July 28, 1994, attorney Leo Bazile called Class Counsel claiming to represent Jerry Varnado. Bazile informed Lawson that Varnado was in receipt of the subpoena but did not recognize the authority under which it was issued and might not appear for deposing. In a letter dated August 1, 1994, Lawson advised Bazile of the nature of Class Counsel’s investigation and need to depose Varnado. The letter also advised that Varnado’s deposition remains scheduled for August 8, 1994. A copy of the August 8, 1994 deposition subpoena was personally served on Varnado on August 1, 1994.
On August 8, 1994, Varnado did not appear at the scheduled time for his deposition nor did he produce any of the documents identified in the attachment to the subpoena. Late in the afternoon on August 8, 1994, Class Counsel received a letter from Bazile, advising that Varnado would not attend his deposition because he is a “practicing and busy attorney” and had a conflict.3
Class Counsel provided Varnado with a third opportunity to appear for his deposition requesting in a letter that Varnado contact Class Counsel by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 11, 1994 to schedule a mutually convenient date for his deposition. Neither Varnado nor Bazile responded to Class Counsel’s letter.
2

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(e) provides that “[f]ailure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued.”

III. ANALYSIS
*3 Class Counsel requests that the Court hold Jerry Varnado in contempt for his actions related to the taking of his deposition, and further requests that the Court order Varnado to pay Class Counsel’s expenses and legal fees in connection with this motion and the aborted depositions. However, at the hearing on September 30, 1994, Varnado agreed with Class Counsel to the following:

IV. ORDER

1. Jerry Varnado agrees to produce a list of any and all Denny’s claimants that have contacted him and/or have signed contingency fee agreements with him. Such list shall contain the names, addresses and telephone numbers of each claimant. The list shall be produced to Class Counsel at the offices of Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein, 1300 Clay Street, 11th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 within three (3) business days of the date of this Order.
2. Jerry Varnado shall provide a written certification to Class Counsel, at the offices of Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein. Such certification shall contain a statement made under the penalty of perjury that he does not represent any class members.
3. The depositions of Jerry Varnado is hereby VACATED without prejudice. Class Counsel reserves the right to re-notice such depositions if necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

1

Jackson and Salaam are also being investigated by Class Counsel. Both Jackson and Salaam appeared at their depositions in this

matter, but failed to answer any questions, claiming to invoke their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Class

Counsel has filed Motions to Compel their deposition testimony which are scheduled for hearing on September 30, 1994.

2

Martin McDonagh was subpoenaed for deposition on three separate occasions and failed to appear. McDonagh’s subpoena was

issued from the Central District of California because McDonagh maintains an office in Los Angeles and could not be located for

service in Oakland. Class Counsel are in the process of filing a motion for an order for McDonagh to show cause and to transfer

contempt proceedings against him to this Court because of the relationship between McDonagh, Varnado, Salaam and Jackson.

3

The letter from Bazile was dated on August 4, 1994 and postmarked August 4, 1994.

3

 </s> Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
1994 WL 665414 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Kristina RIDGEWAY, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants.
Nos. C 93–20202 JW, C 93–20208 JW. | Nov. 8, 1994.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Thomas L. Pfister, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, CA.
Brian F. Heffernan, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Housing and Civ. Enforcement Div., Washington, DC.
Mary Beth Utti, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, CA.
Antonio Lawson, Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein, Oakland, CA.
Amanda K. Wilson, Public Interest Law Firm, San Jose, CA.
L.W. Holt, Berkeley, CA.
Opinion
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
WARE, District Judge.
*1 The motion of non-parties Gerald Salaam and Paul Jackson to alter or amend the judgment of September 30, 1994, was submitted on the papers without oral argument. Good cause appearing therefor, the Court DENIES the motion, as discussed below.
This is a class action suit brought under federal and state civil rights statutes challenging racially discriminatory customer policies and practices at Denny’s Restaurants in California. On May 24, 1994, the parties filed, and the Court preliminarily approved, an Amended Consent Decree settling all monetary and injunctive issues. The Amended Consent Decree was given final approval by the Court on July 29, 1994. The Amended Consent Decree includes provisions for the establishment of a claims procedure under which members of the class who file valid and timely claims are entitled to a pro rata share of a settlement fund of approximately $27 million.
Under the Amended Consent Decree, the claims procedure is to be administered by an experienced claims administrator jointly selected by the parties. The parties selected the Rust Consulting Group, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota as Claims Administrator. A toll-free 800 telephone number was established to provide potential claimants with access to the Claims Administrator to request claim forms and to seek assistance in completing and filing claims. Additionally, under the Amended Consent Decree, the law firm of Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein is designated as Class Counsel.
Following preliminary approval of the Amended Consent Decree and announcement of the settlement in May 1994, the parties received reports that a number of individuals and organizations in California were charging fees to individuals for services related to the preparation and/or filing of claims in this case. The parties investigated these activities and submitted two reports on their investigation to the Court.
1

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
On June 16, 1994, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order that (1) amended the claim form in this action to include express language advising that “giving false information or assisting others in providing false information on this claim form is a crime” and that anyone “provid[ing] false information on this claim form or assist[ing] others in providing false information ... could be subject to investigation ... and ... criminal prosecution;” and (2) directing that a Special Notice be mailed, along with the claim form, to all potential claimants. The Special Notice expressly cautions claimants that the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel are available to provide, free of charge, assistance in filing claims. While conducting their investigation, the parties received reports that individuals connected with an organization called Accident Claims Experts or Accident Case Experts (“ACE”) were engaged in activities to solicit potential claimants and, for a contingency fee, file claims on their behalf. Paul Jackson and Gerald Salaam appeared to be persons associated with ACE who were engaged in such activity. *2 Accordingly, Jackson and Salaam were subpoenaed for deposition. Although both individuals appeared for their depositions, they refused to answer questions on the basis of the Fifth Amendment. A motion to compel was then filed and heard by the Court on September 30, 1994. At that hearing, Class Counsel offered to withdraw the motions to compel if Jackson and Salaam would agree to produce the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the persons who had contacted them regarding filing claims. Jackson and Salaam agreed and the matter was resolved. Jackson and Salaam requested that the Court award them their fees and costs incurred in defending against the motion to compel. The Court denied the request. Jackson and Salaam again request, by this motion, that the Court award them their fees and costs in defending against the motion to compel. The Court DENIES the motion. As the Court noted at the hearing on September 30, 1994, Class Counsel’s conduct in filing the motions to compel was entirely appropriate. The fact that the motions were withdrawn by agreement of counsel does not mean that Jackson and Salaam “successfully defended” the motions to compel. Nor does the fact that Class Counsel is compensated for their time in this action require that Jackson and Salaam also be compensated for their time in defending themselves against the motions to compel. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Jackson’s and Salaam’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

 </s> United States v. TW Servs., Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California April 1, 1993, Decided ; April 1, 1993, Filed; April 2, 1993, Entered
CIV. No. C-93-20208 JW

Reporter: 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7882

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TW agreed that, in order to avoid protracted and costly litigation,

SERVICES, INC. and DENNY'S, INC., Defendants.

this controversy should be resolved voluntarily.

Counsel: [*1] For United States of America, Plaintiff: James P. Turner, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Paul F. Hancock, Brian F. Heffernan, Fernando M. Olguin, Christopher T. Shaheen, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 65998, Washington, D.C. 20035-5998, (202) 5148034. John A. Mendez, United States Attorney, Stephen L. Schirle, Chief, Civil Division, Assistant United States Attorney, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.

As indicated by the signature of counsel at the end of this document, the parties have consented to the entry of this Consent Decree. However, to further the public interest, a description of the United States' contentions and the evidence on which it would rely if this case were adjudicated [*3] will be recited below in section II.
II.
THE UNITED STATES' CONTENTIONS

Judges: Ware Opinion by: JAMES WARE
Opinion

The United States contends that it would produce, at a minimum, testimonial evidence at trial substantially as follows, and that, if such testimony were elicited as described, it would demonstrate a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c:

CONSENT DECREE
The United States files this Consent Decree ("Decree") simultaneously with its complaint against defendants TW Services, Inc. ("TW Services") and Denny's, Inc. ("Denny's"), alleging violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq. ("Public Accommodations Act"). Defendant TW Services is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Denny's is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Spartanburg, South Carolina. TW Services, through its subsidiary Denny's, conducts business in, among other places, the State of California.
The complaint [*2] of the United States alleges that Denny's, a subsidiary of TW Services, has engaged in a pattern or practice of denying to black persons, on the basis of their race or color, the use and enjoyment of the facilities, services, and accommodations of Denny's Restaurants on the same basis as they make such available to non-black persons. More specifically, the United States alleges that Denny's: (1) implemented terms and conditions for service to black persons that are less favorable than the terms and conditions for service to white persons; (2) treats black customers less favorably than white customers; and (3) discourages black persons from visiting its restaurants.

A. As of the date of this Consent Decree, Denny's Inc., a subsidiary of defendant TW Services, owns, operates and franchises Denny's Restaurants in, among other places, the State of California.
B. The testimony would establish that defendants required prepayment and/or cover charges as a precondition for black persons to receive service at defendants' restaurants. In one such incident, a group of approximately eighteen (18) black high school and college students visited a Denny's Restaurant in San Jose, California. The group was told by defendants' manager that, prior to being seated, they would have to pay for their meals in advance and/or a $ 2.00 "cover charge" or "minimum." During this visit, there was a group of white students in defendants' restaurant that had not been asked to prepay and/or pay a cover [*4] charge. The black students, despite their offer to break up into smaller groups, were denied service by defendants.
C. The testimony would further establish that at a Denny's Restaurant in San Diego, California, a group of eleven (11) black persons, most of them related, were required to prepay for their meals in advance. Witnesses observed several nonblack persons pay at the cash register.
D. The testimony would further establish that on two separate occasions at a Denny's Restaurant in San Jose,

Denny's and TW Services deny the allegations set forth in the complaint of the United States. However, the parties have

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7882, *4

Page 2 of 10

California, two different groups of black persons were

required to prepay prior to being served. The first group DEFINITIONS

consisted of seven (7) to ten (10) black students. The second group, which consisted of approximately fifteen (15) to (20) black high school students, waited for more than an hour without having their orders taken. A waitress finally came

The following terms (whether or not underscored) when used in this Decree, in addition to the terms defined elsewhere in this Decree, shall have the following meanings:

over and told the group that they would have to pay for their meals before they could be served. Approximately half of the group left the restaurant. A few minutes later, the other half of the group was escorted out of the restaurant by police at

A. "Agent" shall mean any person including, but not limited to, security personnel, involved in the treatment and service of customers at Denny's Restaurants.

defendants' restaurant's request.

B. "Complaint" includes any written, formal or informal

E. The same restaurant referenced in paragraph D above was complaint, to any administrative or official body or to any responsible [*5] for the removal from the restaurant by the officer, employee or agent of any defendant.

police of a group of four female high school students, three black and one East Indian. The females, who were not allowed to finish their meals, were removed because,

C. "Denny's" shall refer to Denny's Inc. and all companyowned "Denny's Restaurants."

according to the testimony that would be provided, there were D. "Testing" shall refer to a controlled process that is used to

"too many of you people here."

identify and document any differences on the basis of race or

F. The testimony would further establish that at one of defendants' restaurants in Santa Clara, California, a black person was required to prepay and treated poorly by the waiter on duty, while a white male was seated--without prepayment--by the same waiter.

color in the treatment and/or service provided [*7] to customers of Denny's Restaurants. For purposes of this Decree, at least two different groups of people (e.g., one black and one white group) must visit a restaurant within a relatively short period of time to constitute one test.

G. The evidence and testimony would further establish that at a Denny's Restaurant in Sacramento, California, black customers were required to prepay for their meals and provide identification prior to being allowed into the restaurant.
H. The evidence and testimony would further establish that a black family of five (two parents and three children) who visited one of defendants' restaurants in Vallejo, California, to celebrate the birthday of one of the children was denied a "free birthday meal." The family was made to wait an excessively long period of time for service, was treated discourteously, and required to produce burdensome [*6] proof of their child's date of birth. The family eventually left the restaurant because of the embarrassment and humiliation they had suffered.

IV.
JURISDICTION AND SCOPE OF INJUNCTION
A. The parties have consented to the entry of this Decree. To this end, the parties stipulate and the Court finds that: (1) Denny's Restaurants are places of public accommodation within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b)(1); (2) Denny's Restaurants' operations affect interstate commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c)(1); and (3) this Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants and jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-6 and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
B. The provisions of this Decree shall apply as follows:

I. The evidence and testimony would further establish that a Denny's Restaurant in San Jose also does not provide "free birthday meals" to black customers on the same terms and conditions as those provided to non-black customers.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
III.

1. All provisions of this Decree shall apply to Denny's, its subsidiaries, officers, employees, agents, assigns, successors in interest in the ownership and/or operation of Denny's restaurants, and anyone acting in whole or in [*8] part under the direction of Denny's or any of Denny's subsidiaries.
2. Section V shall apply to TW Services and Denny's, and all their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Decree by personal service or otherwise.

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7882, *8

Page 3 of 10

3. Sections VIIIB1. and VIIIC4. shall apply to TW

Services, its subsidiaries, officers, employees, I. Denying service, or offering less favorable terms or

agents, assigns, and successors in interest, or anyone conditions of service, to any nonblack customers who

acting in whole or in part under the direction of TW patronize defendants' facilities as part of a group which

Services or any of TW Services' subsidiaries.

includes black customers.

V.

VI.

GENERAL NONDISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS

COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS

TW Services and Denny's, together with their respective subsidiaries, officers, employees, agents, assigns, successors in interest in the ownership and/or operation of their respective places of public accommodation, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the Decree by personal service or otherwise, are HEREBY PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from:
A. Denying to any person, on the ground of race or color, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of its restaurants;
[*9] B. Denying service, or offering less favorable terms and conditions of service, to any person on the ground of race or color;
C. Requiring prepayment, a cover charge or identification as a condition of service, on the ground of race or color;
D. Implementing different terms and conditions, on the ground of race or color, concerning Denny's offer of "free birthday meals" or any other promotional offers;

Defendant Denny's shall take the following steps to insure that its restaurants are operated in a nondiscriminatory manner:
A. General Compliance
Denny's shall implement the plan described below to ensure compliance with federal law by Denny's, its subsidiaries, franchisees, agents, officers and employees. The plan includes, but is not limited to, provisions for the development and implementation of a training program for personnel, the hiring of a Civil Rights Monitor ("Monitor"), testing of Denny's franchise and company-owned restaurants to monitor and ensure compliance with this Decree, and notifying the public that Denny's Restaurants will operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. In order that compliance with this Decree may be monitored appropriately, Denny's shall maintain appropriate records and serve periodic reports upon the United States. Denny's and its entities shall cooperate with the United States [*11] in providing complete, accurate and current information regarding its restaurants and compliance with this Decree.

E. Making statements, on the ground of race or color, that would discourage a reasonable person from visiting defendants' restaurants;
F. Instructing or encouraging employees or staff members to discourage any person, on the ground of race or color, from visiting defendants' facilities or from enjoying the full benefits of defendants' facilities;
G. Making, printing, or publishing, or causing to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement with respect to the service or equal enjoyment of defendants' restaurants that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race or color, or an intention to make any such limitation or discrimination;
H. Representing to any person, because of race or color, that service or enjoyment of defendants' facilities [*10] is not available, when such is in fact so available; and

B. Written Policies
Within sixty (60) days after the retention of the Civil Rights Monitor, as provided in section VIII below, Denny's, in consultation with the Monitor, shall review and, if appropriate, revise its written policies to ensure that they are consistent with the non-discriminatory provisions of section V above. A copy of such policies shall be submitted for review and approval to counsel for the United States 1 no later than ten (10) days thereafter. If the United States does not object within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the proposed written policies, Denny's may implement such policies. If the United States objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the written policies before bringing such matters before the Court. The United States, as the objecting party, shall bring the matter before the Court in the form of a motion that shall be accompanied by a certification that the parties have conferred in an attempt to resolve the matter. Such policies shall be uniformly

1 Counsel for the United States is: Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 65998, Washington, D.C. 20035-5998.

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7882, *11

Page 4 of 10

applied to all customers, regardless of their [*12] race or expense. Where this Decree requires defendant to provide its

color.

officers, employees or agents a copy of a document (e.g.,

Exhibit B), the officers, employees or agents are entitled to

This Decree shall not restrict Denny's from revising or keep permanently a copy of that document. Merely showing

modifying its policies concerning the treatment and service of the officer, employee or agent a copy of the document does

customers, provided the revisions or modifications do not not comply with the requirements of this Decree. discriminate on the basis of race or color. Defendant Denny's,

through its Monitor, shall submit to counsel for the United (c) Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Decree,

States all such proposed revisions or modifications. If the Denny's shall inform each current officer, employee and agent

United States does not object within fifteen (15) days of employed in the State of California that Denny's cannot and

receipt of the proposed revisions or modifications, Denny's will not reprimand, [*15] penalize, or otherwise retaliate in

may implement the revised or modified policies. If the United any way against any officer, employee or agent who provides

States objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to information to any law enforcement agency official, the

resolve all issues concerning the proposed revisions or Monitor, or TW Services and/or Denny's management official

modifications before bringing such matters before the Court. regarding Denny's compliance with Title II and/or this

The United States, as the objecting party, shall bring the Consent Decree. This notice may be a separate document or

matter before the Court in the form of a motion [*13] that incorporated as a part of Exhibit B, concerning the employee's

shall be accompanied by a certification that the parties have or agent's duties and obligations under Title II.

conferred in an attempt to resolve the matter.

(d) With respect to new officers, employees or agents

C. Notice to Employees and Agents and Training and employed in the State of California, Denny's shall comply

Education Program

with the provisions of subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) above

within seven (7) days of commencement of employment of

1. Notification to Employees and Agents

the new officer, employee or agent.

(a) Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Decree, Denny's shall send each of its officers, employees and agents employed in the State of California: (a) a Summary of the Decree as set forth in Exhibit A and (b) a copy of the Notice set forth in Exhibit B, explaining the employee's and/or agent's duties and obligations under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and this Consent Decree. In addition, Defendant Denny's shall inform its officers, employees and agents that any breach of, or failure to comply with, the terms and conditions set forth in section in of this Decree shall subject him or her to dismissal or other appropriate disciplinary action. Each person receiving the Summary and Notice shall execute a statement acknowledging that he or she has received and read the Summary and Notice, and that he or she agrees to act in accordance therewith. Such statement shall be in the form of Exhibit C to this Decree and copies thereof shall [*14] be retained at the individual restaurant where the employee works or, in the case of district, regional, or divisional leadership, at the divisional office, or, in thee case of corporate officers, at Denny's corporate office. During the term of this Decree, copies of such statements shall be made available, upon ten (10) days notice, to counsel for the United States.

(e) Within one-hundred and twenty (120) days of the effective date of this Decree, Denny's shall send each of its officers, employees and agents employed outside the State of California a copy of the Notice set forth in Exhibit D, explaining the employee's and/or agent's duties and obligations under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and this Decree. In addition, the Notice shall inform the officers, employees and agents that: (i) any breach of, or failure to comply with, the terms and conditions [*16] set forth in section V of this Decree shall subject him or her to dismissal or other appropriate disciplinary action; and (ii) Denny's cannot and will not reprimand, penalize, or otherwise retaliate in any way against any officer, employee or agent who provides information to any law enforcement agency official, the Monitor, or TW Services and/or Denny's management official regarding Denny's compliance with Title II and/or this Consent Decree. Proof that compliance with this subparagraph has been completed shall be provided to counsel for the United States no later than one-hundred and fifty (150) days after the effective date of this Decree. Proof that compliance with this subparagraph has been completed shall be in the form of an affidavit from the appropriate corporate personnel.

(b) Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Decree, Denny's shall inform its current officers, employees and agents in the State of California that if the officer, employee or agent wants a copy of the Consent Decree, one will be provided to him or her at Denny's

(f) All Denny's officers, employees and agents shall be notified of the entry of this Decree in the first issue of the Denny's Newsletter ("Denny's Today"), published

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7882, *16

Page 5 of 10

subsequent to the effective date of this Decree. However, such of making decisions concerning the operations of the

publication shall not be later than six (6) months following the restaurants and service to customers; (v) a discussion of the

effective date of this Decree. The notice shall be printed on business advantages of serving all persons on a non-

the cover page of the Denny's Newsletter. The discriminatory basis; (vi) training in racial sensitivity and

notice [*17] shall be submitted to counsel for the United more general management issues which impact on issues of

States within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this race; and (vii) provided the training program is presented live,

Decree. If the United States does not object within fifteen (15) a question and answer session for the purpose of reviewing

days of receipt of the proposed notice, Denny's may publish each of the foregoing areas.

the proposed notice. If the United States objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the proposed notice before bringing such matters before the Court. The United States, as the objecting party, shall bring the matter before the Court in the form of a motion that shall be accompanied by a certification that the parties have

The training program may be provided via the use of videotape, provided: (i) the videotape is developed in consultation with the Monitor; (ii) the tape is approved by counsel for the United States and (iii) the employees are provided with the opportunity to contact, via telephone or

conferred in an attempt to resolve the matter.

letter, a person who has been trained to respond to the employees' questions or concerns regarding the training. The

2. Training of Employees and Agents

Monitor shall provide the persons with [*20] the training that

(a) Within sixty (60) days subsequent to the hiring of the Monitor, Denny's, through its Monitor, shall submit to the United States for comment and approval a proposed training program for the instruction of all currently employed

the Monitor deems appropriate to satisfy the question-andanswer requirement of this paragraph. In California, the first training session in each Region shall be attended by the Monitor to ensure compliance with the Decree.

personnel designated in subparagraphs 2(b) and 3(b) below The videotape shall be submitted to counsel for the United

regarding their duties and obligations under Title II of the States within sixty (60) days following the approval of the

1964 Civil Rights Act and this Consent Decree, and identify training program by the United States. If the United States

the persons or organizations who will conduct such training. does not object within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the

The program shall be created by or under [*18] the videotape, Denny's may utilize the proposed videotape. If the

supervision of the Monitor and other persons experienced in United States objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith,

handling interracial problems or who have received or will to resolve all issues concerning the proposed videotape before

receive instruction or training to handle such problems. If the bringing such matters before the Court. The United States, as

United States does not object within fifteen (15) days of the objecting party, shall bring the matter before the Court in

receipt of the proposed training program to the program or to the form of a motion that shall be accompanied by a

the person or organization conducting the training program, certification that the parties have conferred in an attempt to

Denny's may implement the training program. If the United resolve the matter.

States objects, the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the proposed training program before bringing such matters before the Court. The United States, as the objecting party, shall bring the matter before the Court in the form of a motion that shall be accompanied by a certification that the parties have conferred in an attempt to resolve the matter.

(b) Within thirty (30) days of the approval of the videotape by the United States, Defendant Denny's, with the assistance of the Monitor, shall implement the training program required by subparagraph (a) above. The training shall be provided to all Denny's officers, [*21] Division Leaders, Region Leaders, District Leaders, General Managers, Restaurant Managers, Managers in Training, Servers, Hosts/Hostesses, bus persons

At a minimum, the training program shall include the and security personnel. Receipt of such training shall be a

following: (i) instruction on the requirements of all applicable necessary condition for the continued employment of such

federal public accommodations laws; (ii) a review of the persons.

company's non-discrimination policies and of the specific

requirements of this Consent Decree; (iii) notice that the company cannot and will not reprimand, penalize, or otherwise retaliate in any way against any [*19] employee who provides information to any law enforcement agency official, Denny's or TW Services management personnel,

(c) Each newly hired officer, employee or agent designated in subparagraph (b) above shall also receive training of the type described in subparagraph (a) above. The additional training shall be provided within thirty (30) days of the new officer, employee or agent's commencement date.

regarding the company's compliance with Title II and/or this

Decree; (iv)

(d) Each officer, employee or agent who participates and

instruction in procedures designed to ensure that neither race receives instruction through the training program set forth

nor color enters, either directly or indirectly, into the process

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7882, *21

Page 6 of 10

in subparagraphs (a) - (c) above shall sign a statement in the

form of Exhibit E to this Consent Decree, acknowledging that (c) The United States shall not seek to hold Denny's in

they have participated in and completed the training program. violation of the Consent Decree for the refusal of a franchisee

to participate in the training program set forth above,

(e) For a period of four (4) years from the effective date of provided [*24] that Denny's has made best efforts to secure

this Decree, Denny's also shall include instruction regarding compliance on the part of the franchisee. However, Denny's

the company's duties and obligations under Title II of the shall provide the United States with the name and location of

1964 Civil Rights Act, and this Consent Decree, in all written any Denny's franchisee which refuses or fails to participate in

training materials and training sessions dealing with treatment the training sessions within thirty (30) days of when Denny's

of the public provided [*22] in the ordinary course of first receives knowledge of such refusal or failure.

business to the persons designated in subparagraphs 2(b) and

3(b) above. Such instruction shall be developed by the D. Notice to the Public and Advertising

Monitor and include a statement that the company cannot and will not reprimand, penalize, or otherwise retaliate against any officer, employee or agent who provides information to any law enforcement agency official, the Monitor, or TW Services

Defendant Denny's shall inform the public generally and all potential customers specifically of their non-discrimination policies as follows:

and/or Denny's management official regarding Defendant Denny's compliance with Title II and/or this Consent Decree. 1. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Decree,
Denny's shall post at each public entrance to its restaurants

(f) Articles selected by the Monitor on the subjects of diversity, racial sensitivity and/or race relations shall be published a minimum of twice per year in the Denny's Newsletter ("Denny's Today") during the period in which this Decree is in effect.

and in a location clearly visible to patrons, a sign indicating that the facility is open and that service will be provided to all persons without regard to race or color. The sign shall have dark letters at least one inch (1") high on a contrasting background. Denny's or any successor in interest shall maintain these signs at all times during the period in which

3. Notice to and Training of Franchisees

this Decree is in effect.

(a) Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree, Denny's shall provide each and every one of its franchisees nationwide with a copy of the Decree (and obtain a return receipt) and a letter informing them of their obligation to comply with Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The letter shall explain that Denny's has entered into the Decree and is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination. [*23] The letter shall explain the requirements of the Decree and, specifically, that appropriate employees of the franchisees will be required to attend training sessions as set forth in the Decree.
(b) Pursuant to the appropriate section of the Denny's Franchise Agreement, Denny's shall apply the training program requirements set forth in subsections 2(a) - (d) above to its franchisees. Accordingly, within thirty (30) days of the implementation of the training program outlined in subsections 2(a) - (d) above, Denny's shall give each franchisee written notice, pursuant to the appropriate section of the Franchise Agreement, of the commencement of such training program. Denny's shall require that all existing and newly hired franchise General Managers, Restaurant Managers, Managers in Training, Servers, Hosts/Hostesses, buspersons and security personnel attend the training program as set forth in subsections 2(a) - (d). Denny's shall impose no charge on the franchisees for the provision of such training program.

2. Pursuant to the appropriate provision of the Franchise Agreement, when the sign referred to in paragraph 1 has been displayed in seventy percent (70%) [*25] of Denny's restaurants, Denny's shall require each of its franchise restaurants to display the sign in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 1. The United States shall not seek to hold Denny's in violation of the Consent Decree for the refusal of a franchisee to display the sign, provided that Denny's has made best efforts to secure compliance on the part of the franchisee. However, Denny's shall provide the United States with the name and location of any Denny's franchisee which refuses or fails to display the sign within thirty (30) days of such refusal or failure.
3. With the exception of highway billboards, Department of Transportation highway signs, and advertisements or promotional materials that appear solely inside or on individual Denny's restaurants or are created at the individual unit level, the nondiscrimination statement described above in paragraph 1 shall be readily legible in all written media (newspapers, magazines, posters, brochures, fliers, etc.). The statement shall appear in a type size that conforms to the following requirements:
(a) Where other parts of the advertisement or promotional statement appear in only one type size, the nondiscrimination [*26] statement must also appear in the same type size;

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7882, *26

Page 7 of 10

(b) Where other parts of the advertisement or non-white persons shall not be utilized in the computation of

promotional statement appear in two sizes, the the above percentages. The computation of the percentage

nondiscrimination statement may appear in either shall specifically exclude the "Corlick Sisters."

type size; and
(c) Where other parts of the advertisement or promotional statement appear in three or more type sizes, the nondiscrimination statement shall appear in the next to smallest type size.

With respect to television commercials, the aggregate total of persons appearing in such advertisements shall be arrived at by reference to the total number of impressions made by each commercial. "Impression" is defined as the total number of times a specific commercial is seen (including multiple

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Denny's may exhaust the inventory of promotional materials (e.g., coupons, direct mail pieces, rolodex cards, frequency cards, book marks, menu samplers, etc.) on hand as of March 19, 1993. This exhaustion exception shall expire as of November 15, 1993.

viewings by the same person). The total number of impressions made by a commercial is determined by a computation which involves the number of times the commercial is run, the gross rating points of the time slot when the commercial is aired and the number of viewers in the market where the commercial is aired. The gross rating

4. All menus and nationally distributed brochures (e.g., Denny's Travel Guide), which go to press one hundred and twenty (120) days subsequent to the effective date of this Decree, shall contain the nondiscrimination statement described in paragraph 1 above. The statement shall appear in a type size that conforms to the requirements set forth in

points on which the impressions are based are those provided by independent rating services [*29] (e.g. Nielsen). Denny's shall provide the total number of impressions and other information specified in section VIII.C.1 below to the United States in accordance with the reporting provisions of this Decree (section VIIIC).

subparagraphs 3(a)-(c) above.

7. All advertisements called for in this section shall be

5. To help ensure that both black and non-black persons are distributed in a nondiscriminatory manner to convey the notified that they are welcome as customers of Denny's message that both black persons and non-black persons are Restaurants, Denny's, for a [*27] period of four (4) years welcome as customers at all Denny's Restaurants.

from the effective date of this Consent Decree, in consultation with the Civil Rights Monitor, shall place newspaper

VII.

advertisements for Denny's Restaurants in the San Jose TESTING Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee,

Oakland Tribune, San Diego Union, and Los Angeles Times, that comply with paragraph 1 above. The first set of advertisements shall be developed no later than sixty (60) days following the retention of the Monitor. The placement of such advertisements shall begin no later than thirty (30) days following the development of the advertisements, and shall be

A. The Civil Rights Monitor shall develop and implement a testing program to monitor Defendant Denny's practices at its restaurants in California during the term of this Consent Decree. No less than 200 tests--50 per year--must be conducted during the term of this Decree.

run for four (4) days at least two (2) times per year. The size B. No less than 100 of the tests shall be conducted by an

of the advertisement shall equal or exceed a quarter of a page. independent qualified civil rights organization selected by

The advertisements containing the nondiscrimination Denny's. Within sixty (60) days after retention of the Monitor,

statement may be of the type and nature customarily used by Denny's shall advise the United States of the identity of the

Denny's to advertise its products and/or services.

organization which it proposes to select to conduct the testing.

6. Beginning with the effective date of this Decree, a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the aggregate total of human persons appearing annually in all television commercials, newspaper advertisements, and all other promotional materials including, but not limited to, brochures, flyers, [*28] coupons or any other materials (collectively "advertisements") that depict human persons shall be identifiably non-white. At least twenty percent (20%) of the aggregate total shall be identifiably black. With the exception of advertisements that feature a sole spokesperson,

If the United States does not object within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this information, Denny's may select the organization. If the United States objects, [*30] the parties shall endeavor, in good faith, to resolve all issues concerning the appropriateness of the organization before bringing such matter before the Court. The United States, as the objecting party, shall bring the matter before the Court in the form of a motion that shall be accompanied by a certification that the parties have conferred in an attempt to resolve the matter. The costs and expense of all tests shall be paid by Denny's.

advertisements that solely feature

C. The Monitor shall have the discretion to choose when,

where and how the remaining 100 tests shall be conducted,

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7882, *30

Page 8 of 10

and to contract with any other qualified entities or persons to a diligent effort to locate someone suitably qualified. The

conduct such tests. The Monitor shall also be given the certification shall set forth in detail the steps Denny's took in

discretion to conduct non-testing, on-site investigations attempting to locate someone for the Monitor's position. After

designed to ensure compliance with this Decree. Such non- such certification has been filed with the Court, the parties

testing investigations may include, but not be limited to, on- shall meet within fourteen (14) days of the filing of such

site observation of Denny's Restaurants and the treatment and certification to discuss revision of the qualifications and/or

service provided to customers.

other candidates who may be suitable for the Monitor's

position. If the parties are unable to reach an

D. Nothing in this Decree shall prevent the United States from utilizing its own testers to monitor Denny's practices during the term of this Decree. The United States also shall not be prevented from conducting non-testing investigations that include, [*31] but are not limited to, on-site observation of Denny's Restaurants and the treatment and service provided to

agreement [*33] as to the qualifications and/or hiring of the Monitor, the United States shall file a motion with supporting memorandum setting forth its position. Denny's shall file its response to the motion pursuant to the Local Rules of this District. The United States may file a Reply pursuant to the Local Rules of this District.

customers, provided such investigations do not interfere with

the normal business operations of the unit.

3. The Monitor's job duties shall include, but not be limited

E. Alleged discriminatory test results shall be reported to counsel for defendants, the United States, and the Monitor. The parties shall engage in good faith efforts to resolve informally such potential breaches of this Decree prior to making any application to the Court for additional relief and/or sanctions under the Decree.

to, the following: (1) preparation of all reports called for under the terms of this Consent Decree; (2) in-house monitoring and supervision of progress towards compliance with this Decree; (3) development, implementation and monitoring of a testing program; (4) investigating complaints by customers and/or third parties who believe they have been discriminated against, or subjected to unequal treatment due

VIII.

to their race or color, or witnessed others being discriminated against due to the race or color of those persons; (5)

investigating complaints by Denny's employees who believe

MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING they have witnessed discriminatory actions of other Denny's

REQUIREMENTS

employees and/or managers or believe they have themselves

A. Civil Rights Monitor

been pressured to discriminate by other Denny's employees and/or managers; (6) providing counsel for the

1. In order to ensure equal access to Denny's Restaurants for all persons on a nondiscriminatory basis, Denny's, no later than seventy-five (75) days from the effective date of this Decree, shall recruit and submit to counsel for the United States the name and resume of the person it proposes to hire as the Civil Rights Monitor. The hiring of the Monitor shall be subject to the approval of the United States, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The United States may, at its discretion and expense, interview the person proposed by Denny's. If the United [*32] States has any objection to Denny's proposed appointment, it shall notify Denny's within ten (10) days of receipt of the name and resume. If any disputes arise concerning the appointment of

United [*34] States any relevant information under any provision of this Decree upon reasonable request; (7) preparing a written semi-annual report for submission to counsel for the United States on or before December 1, 1993, and every six (6) months thereafter, which shall describe the activities and/or investigations of complaints, if any, undertaken by the Monitor in the preceding six months, and set objectives for the next six months to eliminate any concerns of discrimination which the Monitor has identified; and (8) meeting and conferring with counsel for the parties to consider suggestions for implementing the spirit and letter of this Decree and to clarify any information contained in the Monitor's reports.

the Monitor, the parties shall attempt to resolve them voluntarily before presenting them to the Court for resolution.

B. Record-Keeping

2. The Monitor's qualifications shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) a minimum of ten years work experience in the civil rights field, specifically in the areas of race and ethnicity; and (2) a minimum of five years of experience in personnel development and training. If Denny's is unable to locate a person who satisfies the above qualifications, Denny's shall certify that it has made

For a period of four (4) years from the effective date of this Decree, the Civil Rights Monitor shall maintain the following records (or other computerized counterparts):
1. Records of all formal and informal complaints of discrimination on the basis of race or color filed or submitted by any customer, potential customer, or employee, concerning Denny's service and treatment of customers. This paragraph shall apply to all complaints,

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7882, *34

Page 9 of 10

letters, or notices filed or submitted [*35] to any of Denny's

or TW Services' officers, employees or agents, including, but 2. The first report shall include a certification that the training

not limited to, all complaints submitted to TW Services' program required in section VI.C2.(a)-(e) above has been or is

corporate headquarters and divisional offices.

scheduled for completion, and the whereabouts of

copies [*37] of all employee acknowledgments required by

2. All records relating to written, video or oral training this Decree.

materials, including but not limited to, training program

materials, instructions, directives, guidelines, policy 3. Each report thereafter shall contain a description of all

statements, and formal training sessions provided to those training activity conducted pursuant to section VI.C.2. above

persons designated in section VI.C2.(b) above.

which has occurred during the reporting period along with

copies of all written materials distributed or any videotapes

3. Representative copies of all advertisements and produced.

promotional materials in all media and all records relating to

the dates and/or times and media where such advertisements 4. Each report shall contain full details of any complaint or promotional material appeared and where and how such received charging or alleging discrimination, on the ground of

materials were disseminated and distributed.

race or color, with respect to service or treatment at any

Denny's Restaurant (both in and outside of California),

4. All records and results derived from and refuting to any and including a description of any action taken in response to such

all tests conducted pursuant to section VII of this Decree.

complaint together with all documents relating to such

complaint.

5. All records relating to implementation of any provision of

this Consent Decree.

IX.

For a period of four (4) years from the effective date of this Consent Decree, counsel for the United States shall, upon fifteen days' (15) notice, be permitted to inspect and copy any of the records described in the Record-Keeping provisions of this Consent [*36] Decree.
C. Reporting Provisions

NOTICES
All notices and other communications required under this Decree shall be in writing and delivered either personally or by depositing the same postage prepaid, in the United States mail, addressed to the party hereto, to whom the same is directed at the following addresses:

No later than December 1, 1993, and every six (6) months thereafter for a period of four (4) years from the effective date of the Decree, Defendant Denny's, through the Monitor, shall serve on the United States a report containing the following information:
1. A list of all advertisements and promotional materials which were published, printed, disseminated or aired during the reporting period, together with a statement indicating the dates and media where it appeared and where and how promotional materials were disseminated or distributed. With respect to television commercials, Denny's shall verify the depiction of human persons by providing the United States with the following information:
(a) A list of all commercials produced during the year;
(b) The total number of persons depicted in each commercial, broken down by race;
(c) The number and location of markets in which each of the commercials aired;
(d) The total number of impressions made by each commercial.

TO: Plaintiff United States of America Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 65998 Washington, D.C. 20035-5998 TO: TW Services, Inc. and Denny's Inc. General Counsel TW Services, Inc. [*38] 203 East Main Street MS P-12-4 Spartanburg, S.C. 29319
The parties may from time to time change their address for the purposes of this section by providing written notice, return receipt requested, of such change to the other parties.
X.

1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7882, *38

Page 10 of 10

TERM AND ADMINISTRATION OF CONSENT DECREE date of entry of the Decree by the Court. The period of this

Decree shall be extended, as appropriate, by the Court for any

A. The parties shall endeavor to resolve informally any dispute that must be resolved by the Court.

differences regarding interpretation and compliance with this

Decree prior to bringing such matters to the Court for C. Absent any extensions by the Court or objections by the

resolution. Before any party brings before the Court any United States, defendants TW Services and Denny's may

matter regarding this Consent Decree, the moving party shall move for dismissal of this case at the close of the four (4)

file with the Court a certification that the parties have year [*39] period.

conferred in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

It is so ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1993.

B. The provisions of this Decree are effective immediately

upon the entry of the Decree by the Court. The Decree shall James Ware

be effective for a period of four (4) years from the

United States District Judge

 </s> CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 1 of 7

CLOSED, ICMS, REFDIS
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:93-cv-20208-JW

USA v. TW Services, Inc., et al

Date Filed: 03/26/1993

Assigned to: Judge James Ware

Jury Demand: None

Referred to: Mag. Judge Patricia V. Trumbull

Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights:

Demand: $0

Accomodations

Related Case: 5:93-cv-20202-JW

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Public Accomodations)

Plaintiff USA

represented by Brian F. Heffernan USDJ-Housing & Civil Enforcement Civil Rights Division P O Box 65998 Washington, DC 20035-5998 (202) 514-0809 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher T. Shaheen USDJ-Housing & Civil Enforcement Civil Rights Division P O Box 65998 Washington, DC 20035-5998 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James P. Turner USDJ-Housing & Civil Enforcement Civil Rights Division P O Box 65998 Washington, DC 20035-5998 (202) 514-4738 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John A. Mendez U.S. Attorney's Office 1301 Clay Street 340S Oakland, CA 94612-5217 510-637-3680 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Beth Uitti U.S. Attorney's Office 1301 Clay Street

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?746022271673324-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
V. Defendant TW Services, Inc. Defendant Denny's Inc. Amicus Alfonso M. Dyson Amicus Marvin L. Fowlkes Amicus Merrill L. Hodge Amicus Joseph W. James Amicus Leroy E. Snyder Amicus Robin D. Thompson Amicus Washington Lawyers' Committee for

Page 2 of 7
340S Oakland, CA 94612-5217 510-637-3680 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul F. Hancock USDJ-Housing & Civil Enforcement Civil Rights Division P O Box 65998 Washington, DC 20035-5998 (202) 514-2447 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L. Schirle U.S. Attorney's Office 1301 Clay Street 340S Oakland, CA 94612-5217 510-637-3680 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?746022271673324-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 3 of 7

Civil Rights and Urban Affairs

Date Filed 03/26/1993 03/26/1993 03/26/1993 03/26/1993 04/01/1993 04/06/1993 05/24/1994
05/24/1994
05/24/1994 05/24/1994
05/24/1994 05/24/1994

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (no process) Fee status wv entered on 3/26/93. (bfv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/30/1993)

2 NOTICE by plaintiff USA of related case(s) C93-20202 JW (bfv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/30/1993)

RECEIVED consent decree submitted by plaintiff USA (bfv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/30/1993)

3 ORDER by Mag. Judge Patricia V. Trumbull setting status conference for 2:00 8/3/93 (cc: all counsel) (bfv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/30/1993)

4 CONSENT JUDGMENT by Judge James Ware dismissing case ; appeal filing ddl 5/3/93 (cc: all counsel) ( Date Entered: 4/2/93) (bfv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1993)

5 REASSIGNMENT ORDER by Assignment Committee granting related case notice [2-1] Case reassigned to Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 4/22/93) (cc: all counsel) (bfv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/22/1993)

6 JOINT MOTION before Judge James Ware plaintiff USA in 5:93-cv20208 for preliminary approval of consent decree, certification of settlement class and scheduling order [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)

7 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in 5:93-cv-20208 in support of motion for preliminary approval of consent decree, certification of settlement class and scheduling order [67-1] in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93-cv20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)

RECEIVED Order ( plaintiff USA in 5:93-cv-20208) granting preliminary approval of class action settlement [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)

8 DECLARATION by Mari Mayeda on behalf of plaintiffs in 5:93-cv20202 and C 93-20208 in support of joint application for preliminary approval of consent decree [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)

RECEIVED Amended Consent Decree submitted by plaintiff USA in 5:93-cv-20208 [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)

9 ORDER by Judge Ware granting motion for preliminary approval of consent decree, certification of settlement class and scheduling order [61] In court hearing for final approval of the settlement will be held 11am 7/29/94 (Date Entered: 5/25/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20208] (mh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/25/1994)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?746022271673324-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 4 of 7

05/24/1994 05/24/1994 05/24/1994
06/16/1994 07/29/1994 09/16/1994
09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/23/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994

10 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE by Judge James Ware re consent decree (Date Entered: 5/25/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20208] (mh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/25/1994)
11 MOTION before Judge Ware by pla for preliminary approval of consent decree , certification of settlement class , approval of calss settlement notice & scheduling order [5:93-cv-20208] (mh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/25/1994)
12 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20208 in support of motion for preliminary approval of consent decree [11-1], of motion certification of settlement class [11-2], of motion approval of calss settlement notice [113], of motion scheduling order [11-4] [5:93-cv-20208] (mh, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/25/1994)
13 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : amending claim form and special note (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/17/1994)
14 ORDER by Judge James Ware granting motion for final approval of amended consent decree and certification of settlement class [80-1] in 5:93-cv-20202 ( Date Entered: 8/9/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
15 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why The Law Offices of Melvin Belli should not be restrained from engaging and advertising (see attached exhibit to order: by Judge James Ware ; hearing set for 9:00 9/22/94 in 5:93-cv-20202, in 5:93-cv-20208 (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
16 ORDER to cease and desist by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 9/26/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
17 PROOF OF SERVICE of Order to SHow Cause and Letter [5:93-cv20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
18 ORDER by Judge James Ware to clarify Order to cease and desist ( Date Entered: 9/26/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
19 OPPOSITION to the contempt motion. [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
20 MEMORANDUM in support of opposition [124-1] in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
21 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge James Ware to extend time to file opposition to the order to show cause re contempt [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
22 DECLARATION by Leo Bazile in support of motion for extention of time [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?746022271673324-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 5 of 7

09/26/1994 09/27/1994 09/27/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/30/1994
09/30/1994 10/03/1994 10/11/1994 09/15/1995 09/18/1995 07/15/1996

10/04/1994)
RECEIVED Order ( ) re motion for order to show cause re contempt [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
23 MOTION before Judge James Ware to extend time to file opposition to motion to compel with Notice set for 9/30/94 at 9 am [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
24 DECLARATION by Theresa Demchak on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202, Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20208 in reply to opposition of Jerry Varnado to contempt motion [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
25 REPLY by Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv-20202 to motion to show cause re contempt [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
26 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : re amendment to notice plan (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
27 MINUTES: ( C/R Irene Rodriguez) that the motion to compel responses to deposition [99-1] is submitted in 5:93-cv-20202, that the motion for attorney fees [99-2] is submitted in 5:93-cv-20202, that the motion for an injunction against Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims & Associates and others [88-1] is submitted in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
28 ORDER and special notice by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 10/7/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
29 ORDER to cease and desist by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 10/7/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
30 MOTION before Judge James Ware to alter or amend judgment with Notice set for 11/4/94 at 9 am [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/14/1994)
31 MOTION for reconsideration denial of claim. [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/18/1995)
32 STIPULATION and ORDER AND AGREE that the distribution of the settlement funds to claimantd shall occur no later than 12/8/95. by Judge James Ware : (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/19/1995)
33 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : to clarify confidentiality provisions of amended consent decree. (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/16/1996)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?746022271673324-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 6 of 7

07/23/1996 08/28/1996 12/18/1996 12/20/1996
03/26/1997 07/11/1997 07/16/1997 01/16/2001 04/04/2001

34 ORDER by Judge James Ware re [33-2] errata to stipulation and order re: clarification of confidentiality provisions of amended consent decree. ( Date Entered: 7/23/96) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/23/1996)
35 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : modifying amended consent decree provision re: date of distribution of residual funds (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/29/1996)
36 JOINDER by Plaintiff USA in 5:93-cv-20208, defendant TW Services, Inc. in 5:93-cv-20208 report to the court on final accounting of class settlement fund and stipulation extending until 1/20/97 the date for distribution of residual funds and approving final distribution of residual funds. [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/18/1996)
37 ORDER by Judge James Ware granting join/joinder [36-1] report to the court on final accounting of class settlement fund and stipulation extending until 1/20/97 the date for distribution of residual funds and approving final distribution of residual funds. ( Date Entered: 12/27/96) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/27/1996)
38 STIPULATION and ORDER re: Disclosure of Confidential information by Judge James Ware : (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/26/1997)
39 STATUS REPORT by Plaintiff USA in 5:93-cv-20208, defendant TW Services, Inc. in 5:93-cv-20208, defendant Denny's Inc. in 5:93-cv-20208 [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/11/1997)
40 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : for disbursement of all remaining monies in the class settlement fund, closing of class settlement fund trustee account and relieving claims administrator of its duties and responsibilities under the consent decree (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/17/1997)
41 FINAL REPORT by Plaintiff USA to the court concerning dfts completion of requirements of the consent decree and recommendation for early dismissal of the decree. [5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/16/2001)
42 ORDER by Judge James Ware dismissing of the Consent decree Governing this action shall be deemed terminated effective 11/14/00, and the case shall be dismissed.. , dismissing case ( Date Entered: 4/4/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/04/2001)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?746022271673324-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

11/16/2005 14:49:55

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 5:93-cv-20208-JW

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

0.32

Page 7 of 7

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?746022271673324-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

 </s> CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 1 of 27

CLOSED, ICMS, REFDIS, RELATE
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:93-cv-20202-JW

Ridgeway, et al v. Denny's Corporation, et al Assigned to: Judge James Ware Referred to: Mag. Judge Patricia V. Trumbull Demand: $0 Related Case: 5:93-cv-20208-JW Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights

Date Filed: 03/25/1993 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accomodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Kristina Ridgeway

represented by Mari Mayeda Law Offices Of Mari Mayeda P O Box 5138 Berkeley, CA 94705 (510) 848-3331 Email: marimayeda@earthlink.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sharra Clausell (by and through her parents and next friends Edward and Valia Clausell),

represented by Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa Demchak Saperstein Goldstein Demchak & Baller

Plaintiff Kenneth Clausell

300 Lakeside Dr Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800 Email: dem@gdblegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson 111 West Saint John St. San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 293-4790 Email: Amanda_Wilson@fd.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 2 of 27

Plaintiff Rodney Braddock
Plaintiff Brian Avery
Plaintiff Ayana Bell

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Plaintiff Andre Mitchell
Plaintiff Eddie Lamont Jones
Plaintiff Alex Waldron

Page 3 of 27
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Plaintiff Chad Coleman
Plaintiff Dorothy Jones
Plaintiff Allison Clay

Page 4 of 27
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Plaintiff Jennifer Clay
Plaintiff Muriel Shaw
Plaintiff Yendis Thomas

Page 5 of 27
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report Plaintiff Lisa Washington
Plaintiff Carol Williams
Plaintiff Mike Taylor

Page 6 of 27
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report Plaintiff Eunease Humphreys
Plaintiff Demetrece Maxwell
Plaintiff Michael Maxwell
Plaintiff

Page 7 of 27
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 8 of 27

Danny Thompson
Plaintiff Susan Thompson
Plaintiff Rachel Thompson (by and through her parents and next friends Danny and Susan Thompson)
Plaintiff Jason Thompson (by and through his parents and next

represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 9 of 27

friends Danny and Susan Thompson),
Plaintiff Danny Thompson, Jr. (by and through his parents and next friends Danny and Susan Thompson),
Plaintiff Meling Harrison
Plaintiff Catrena Law

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 10 of 27

Plaintiff Navjot Nijjar
Plaintiff Myra Latson
Plaintiff Vernita Watts

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 11 of 27

Plaintiff Louis McNair (by and through his mother and next friend Vernita Watts)
V. Defendant Denny's Corporation
Defendant TW Services, Inc.
Defendant TW Holdings, Inc.
Defendant

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda K. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa Demchak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph B. Farrell Latham & Watkins 633 West 5th St Ste 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 (213) 485-1234 Email: joe.farrell@lw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph B. Farrell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph B. Farrell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 12 of 27

Denny's Holdings, Inc.
Amicus Alfonso M. Dyson Amicus Marvin L. Fowlkes Amicus Merrill L. Hodge Amicus Joseph W. James Amicus Leroy E. Snyder Amicus Robin D. Thompson Amicus Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs

represented by Joseph B. Farrell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/24/1993
03/24/1993 03/25/1993 03/31/1993
04/06/1993
04/12/1993 04/12/1993

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) Fee status pd entered on 3/24/93 in the amount of $ 120.00 ( Receipt No. 28314); jury demand (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/30/1993)

2 ORDER by Judge James Ware setting status conference for 2:00 8/3/93 (cc: all counsel) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/30/1993)

3 Signature page ADDENDUM to complaint filed by plaintiffs (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/30/1993)

4 CORRECTED ORDER by Judge James Ware setting status conference for 10:30 9/3/93 (cc: all counsel) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1993)

5 ORDER by Judge James Ware relating cases; 5:93-cv-20202 with member cases 5:93-cv-20208 ( Date Entered: 4/19/93) (cc: all counsel) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/1993)

6 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Denny's Corporation on 4/7/93 (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/1993)

7 RETURN OF SERVICE executed on 4/8/93 to The Prentice-Hall Corp.

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 13 of 27

05/07/1993 05/07/1993 05/14/1993 05/20/1993 05/20/1993 05/20/1993 06/02/1993 06/04/1993 06/16/1993 06/16/1993
06/16/1993 06/16/1993 06/16/1993 06/16/1993

System, Inc. (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/19/1993)
8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by plaintiff; jury demand (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/10/1993)
10 RETURN OF SERVICE unexecuted - attempted as to defendant Denny's Corporation (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/25/1993)
12 MINUTES: ( C/R Unreported) motion to dismiss by deft and cross motion for leave to file suplemental complaint by plaintiff submitted without oral argument. (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/27/1993)
9 MOTION by defendant to dismiss or strike claims for declaratory relief, class allegation and dismiss claims with Notice set for 6/28/93 at 9 am (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/1993)
RECEIVED Order ( defendant) dismissing or striking plaintiffs claims (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/1993)
11 CLERK'S NOTICE motions to dismiss and strike will be heard by 9:00 7/2/93 ; (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/27/1993)
13 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant TW Holdings, Inc., defendant Denny's Holdings on 5/25/93 (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
14 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware continuing the motion to dismiss to 7/2/93 at 9:00 am : (cc: all counsel) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/08/1993)
15 MOTION of amici curiae for leave to file brief in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defts' motion to dismiss with Notice set for 7/2/93 at 9:00 am (scu, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
16 BRIEF FILED by amicus Alfonso M. Dyson in 5:93-cv-20202, amicus Marvin L. Fowlkes in 5:93-cv-20202, amicus Merrill L. Hodge in 5:93cv-20202, amicus Joseph W. James in 5:93-cv-20202, amicus Leroy E. Snyder in 5:93-cv-20202, amicus Robin D. Thompson in 5:93-cv-20202 regarding motion for leave to file brief in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defts' motion to dismiss [15-1] in 5:93-cv-20202 (scu, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
RECEIVED Order granting motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief ( ) (scu, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
17 MOTION by plaintiff to continue/deny re Denny's Inc. , and for partial summary judgement with Notice set for no date set (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
18 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion to continue/deny re Denny's Inc. [17-1], of motion for partial summary judgment [17-2] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
19 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to motion to dismiss or strike claims for declaratory relief, class allegation and dismiss claims [9-

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 14 of 27

06/16/1993 06/25/1993 07/02/1993
07/02/1993 07/02/1993 07/06/1993
07/06/1993 07/06/1993 07/06/1993 07/06/1993 07/06/1993 07/06/1993 07/06/1993 07/12/1993 07/12/1993

1] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
20 TABLE OF EXHIBITS in support of memorandum in opposition to motion to dismiss (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/16/1993)
21 REPLY by defendants to plaintiffs' memo in opposition to defts' motion to dismiss (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/1993)
22 ORDER by Judge James Ware granting motion to dismiss or strike claims for declaratory relief, class allegation and dismiss claims [9-1] and plaintiffs are given 10 days leave to file an amendment to complaint ( Date Entered: 7/8/93) (cc: all counsel) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
23 STIPULATION extending time for defts TW Holdings and Denny's Holdings to respond to first amended complaint (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
32 MINUTES: ( C/R Irene Rodriguez) granting/denying in part motion to dismiss or strike claims for declaratory relief, class allegation and dismiss claims [9-1] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
24 ORDER by Judge James Ware granting motion for leave to file brief in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defts' motion to dismiss [15-1] ( Date Entered: 7/8/93) (cc: all counsel) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
25 COVER LETTER dated 7/2/93 from Richard Herring on behalf of the plaintiffs of declarations Ridgeway (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
26 DECLARATION by Florence Spencer on behalf of plaintiff (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
27 DECLARATION by Sletta Carolyn Hughes on behalf of plaintiff (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
28 DECLARATION by Rhonda Hughes on behalf of plaintiff (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
29 DECLARATION by Susanne Holford on behalf of plaintiff (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
30 DECLARATION by Meutril Mailes on behalf of plaintiff (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
31 DECLARATION by Eric Thompson on behalf of plaintiff (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/08/1993)
33 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/13/1993)
RECEIVED Stipulation and Protective Order ( plaintiff) re confidential information (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/13/1993)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 15 of 27

07/14/1993
07/16/1993 07/16/1993 07/19/1993 07/20/1993 08/02/1993 08/02/1993
08/02/1993 08/06/1993 08/20/1993 09/01/1993 09/03/1993
09/03/1993
09/10/1993
09/22/1993 10/05/1993

34 STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge James Ware : re confidential information (cc: all counsel) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
35 AMENDMENT TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [8-1] by plaintiffs (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/16/1993)
36 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff of Amendment to First Amended Complaint (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/16/1993)
38 STIPULATION extending time for defts to respond to first amended complaint (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/23/1993)
37 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/20/1993)
39 NOTICE by plaintiffs of joint status conference statement (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/05/1993)
40 ANSWER by defendant Denny's Corporation, defendant TW Services, Inc., defendant TW Holdings, Inc., defendant Denny's Holdings to first amended complaint [8-1]; jury demand (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/05/1993)
41 DECLARATION by Mabel Fatialofa on behalf of plaintiff (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/05/1993)
42 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 7/2/93 ( C/R: Irene L. Rodriguez) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/06/1993)
43 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT by plaintiff (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/20/1993)
44 NOTICE of change of firm's name (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/02/1993)
45 MINUTES: ( C/R unreported.) Case Management Conference off calendar and reset for 10:30 11/19/93 ; (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/07/1993)
46 ORDER by Judge James Ware continuing case management conference to 11/19/93 at 10:30 am ( Date Entered: 9/7/93) (cc: all counsel) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/07/1993)
47 CLERK'S NOTICE Discovery cutoff (magistrate) is 9/22/93 and discovery conference will be at 10:00 9/28/93 ; (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/17/1993)
48 CLERK'S NOTICE Discovery cutoff (magistrate) is reset at 2:00 10/12/93 ; (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/28/1993)
49 LETTER dated 10/5/93 from Shiela Thomas addressed to Mag. Judge Trumbull re discovery issues (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/06/1993)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 16 of 27

10/05/1993 10/05/1993
10/12/1993 10/14/1993 10/15/1993
10/27/1993 11/12/1993 11/19/1993 11/29/1993
12/01/1993 12/02/1993 12/06/1993 12/21/1993 01/05/1994

50 LETTER dated 10/5/93 from Shiela Thomas addressed to Mag. Judge Trumbull re discovery (duplicate of doc. No. 49) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/06/1993)
51 BRIEF FILED by defendant Denny's Corporation, defendant TW Services, Inc., defendant TW Holdings, Inc., defendant Denny's Holdings re: discovery issues to be resolved (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/20/1993)
52 MINUTES: ( C/R Genny Sarkis 146-93) Status and discovery conference held Motions set 3/11/94 before JW moved to 4/1/94 at 9am (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/20/1993)
53 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Denny's Corporation, defendant TW Services, Inc., defendant TW Holdings, Inc., defendant Denny's Holdings of #51 (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/20/1993)
54 ORDER by Mag. Judge Patricia V. Trumbull plaintiffs' motion for protection is granted; defendants' motion to compel is granted/denied in part See document ( Date Entered: 10/20/93) (cc: all counsel) (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/20/1993)
55 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 10/12/93 ( C/R: Sarkis/Alison Spring) (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/28/1993)
56 LETTER dated 11/12/93 from Sheila Thomas addressed to Mag.Judge Patricia V. Trumbull [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/15/1993)
57 ORDER by Judge James Ware Status conference set for 9:00 4/1/94 ; ( Date Entered: 11/19/93) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/06/1993)
58 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull following in camera review of documents ( Date Entered: 12/6/93) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) Modified on 05/09/1996 (Entered: 12/06/1993)
59 MINUTES: ( C/R unreported) Status conference is reset for 9:00 5/27/94 ; , [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/06/1993)
60 ORDER by Judge James Ware setting hearing date for class certification ( Date Entered: 12/6/93) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/06/1993)
61 ORDER by Mag. Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on motion for clarification ( Date Entered: 12/14/93) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/14/1993)
62 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : re tolling of time to file motion for reconsideration (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/29/1993)
63 MINUTES: ( C/R not recorded) settlement held, case not settled. [5:93-

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 17 of 27

03/22/1994 05/24/1994 05/24/1994 05/24/1994
05/24/1994
05/24/1994 05/24/1994
05/24/1994 05/24/1994 05/24/1994 05/24/1994 05/24/1994 05/24/1994 05/24/1994

cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) Modified on 05/09/1996 (Entered: 01/13/1994)
64 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by plaintiff Sonja Wilson of Lawrence W. Schonbrun [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/29/1994)
65 STIPULATION re filing of second amended complaint [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
66 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202; jury demand [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
67 JOINT MOTION before Judge James Ware plaintiff USA in 5:93-cv20208 for preliminary approval of consent decree, certification of settlement class and scheduling order [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
68 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in 5:93-cv-20208 in support of motion for preliminary approval of consent decree, certification of settlement class and scheduling order [67-1] in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93-cv20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
RECEIVED Order ( plaintiff USA in 5:93-cv-20208) granting preliminary approval of class action settlement [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
69 DECLARATION by Mari Mayeda on behalf of plaintiffs in 5:93-cv20202 and C 93-20208 in support of joint application for preliminary approval of consent decree [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
RECEIVED Amended Consent Decree submitted by plaintiff USA in 5:93-cv-20208 [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/24/1994)
70 STIPULATION re filing of second amended complaint [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
71 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; jury demand [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
72 DECLARATION by Mari Mayeda on behalf of plaintiffs in 5:93-cv20202 in support of joint application for preliminary approval of consent decree [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
73 ORDER by Judge James Ware setting settlement conference to be held 11:00 7/29/94 ; ( Date Entered: 5/26/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
74 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 5/26/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
75 LETTER dated 5/23/94 from Teresa Demchak with Mari Mayeda in

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 18 of 27

06/16/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994 07/25/1994 07/29/1994 07/29/1994
08/02/1994
08/05/1994 08/12/1994
08/12/1994 08/12/1994 08/12/1994

5:93-cv-20202 re appearance at settlement [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/27/1994)
76 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : amending claim form and special note (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/17/1994)
77 MEMORANDUM in support of joint motion for final approval of amended consent decree and certification of settlement class [5:93-cv20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/25/1994)
78 DECLARATION by Jeffrey Dahl re memorandum [77-1] [5:93-cv20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/25/1994)
79 DECLARATION by Mari Mayeda in support of memorandum No. 77 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/25/1994)
RECEIVED Order ( ) re: [77-1] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/25/1994)
80 JOINT MOTION before Judge James Ware for final approval of amended consent decree and certification of settlement class [5:93-cv20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/02/1994)
82 MINUTES: ( C/R Irene Rodriguez) granting motion for final approval of amended consent decree and certification of settlement class [80-1] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
83 ORDER by Judge James Ware granting motion for final approval of amended consent decree and certification of settlement class [80-1] in 5:93-cv-20202 ( Date Entered: 8/9/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/09/1994)
96 DECLARATION by Teresa Demchak on behalf of Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv20202 re motion to compel responses to deposition questions and [94-1], re motion for attorney fees [94-2] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
81 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 7/29/94 ( C/R: Irene Rodriguez) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/08/1994)
84 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge James Ware by Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202 for order to show cause with Notice set for 9/16/94 ar 9:00 am [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/1994)
85 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202 in support of motion for order to show cause [84-1] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/1994)
86 DECLARATION by Antonio Lawson on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/1994)
87 DECLARATION by Teresa Demchak on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 19 of 27

08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 08/31/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994

20202 re motion for order to show cause [84-1] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/15/1994)
88 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge James Ware by Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202 for an injunction against Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims & Associates and others with Notice set for 9/30/94 [5:93cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
89 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202 in support of motion for an injunction against Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims & Associates and others [88-1] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
90 DECLARATION by Teresa Demchak on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202 re motion for an injunction against Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims & Associates and others [88-1] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
91 DECLARATION by Antonio Lawson on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202 re motion for an injunction against Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims & Associates and others [88-1] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
92 DECLARATION by Dondria Morgan on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202 re motion for an injunction against Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims & Associates and others [88-1] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
93 DECLARATION by Mary Broughton on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202 in support of motion for an injunction [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
RECEIVED Order ( Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202) enjoining Sim s, Kearney, Sims & Associates [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/31/1994)
94 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge James Ware by Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv-20202 to compel responses to deposition questions and , for attorney fees with Notice set for 9/30/94 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
95 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202 in support of motion to compel responses to deposition questions and [94-1], of motion for attorney fees [94-2] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
RECEIVED Order ( )re motion to compel [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
97 DECLARATION by Antonio Lawson on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202 in support of motion to compel [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
98 DECLARATION by Teresa Demchak on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 20 of 27

09/02/1994
09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/02/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994
09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/06/1994 09/09/1994 09/09/1994

20202 in support of motion to compel [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
99 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge James Ware by Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202 to compel responses to deposition , for attorney fees with Notice set for 9/30/94 at 9:00 am [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
100 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202 in support of motion to compel responses to deposition [99-1], of motion for attorney fees [99-2] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
RECEIVED Order ( Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202) compelling Paul Jackson to answer questions upon oral examination [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
RECEIVED Joint Stipulation and order re amendment to notice plan submitted by Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
101 DECLARATION by Nancy Thompson on behalf of Plaintiffs in support of joint stipulation re amendment to notice plan [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
102 LETTER dated 9/6/94 from Antonio Lawson with Mari Mayeda in 5:93cv-20202 re declarations [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
103 DECLARATION by Ron Fleming on behalf of Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
104 DECLARATION by Shgunti Elliott on behalf of Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
105 COVER LETTER dated 9/6/94 from Antonio Lawson with Mari Mayeda in 5:93-cv-20202 from Kristina Ridgeway in 5:93-cv-20202 re signed declarations of Morgan, Phifer and Fisher [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
106 DECLARATION by Dondria Morgan on behalf of Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
107 DECLARATION by Angela Fisher on behalf of Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
108 DECLARATION by Rosemary Fhifer on behalf of Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)
109 COVER LETTER dated 9/9/94 from Antonio Lawson with Mari Mayeda in 5:93-cv-20202 addressed to Judge Ware [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1994)
110 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge James Ware by Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202 for order to show cause [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1994)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 21 of 27

09/09/1994 09/13/1994
09/13/1994 09/15/1994 09/16/1994
09/21/1994 09/21/1994 09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/22/1994 09/23/1994 09/23/1994 09/23/1994 09/26/1994

111 DECLARATION by Antonio Lawson on behalf of Plaintiff in support of exparte application for order to show cause re contempt 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1994)
112 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re civil contempt for failure to appear on 7/26/94 and 8/8/94 : by Judge James Ware ; hearing set for 9:00 9/30/94 (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
113 LETTER BRIEF FILED by Plaintiffs' counsel in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
114 ORDER by Judge James Ware denying joint stipulation re amendment to notice plan ( Date Entered: 9/16/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
115 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why The Law Offices of Melvin Belli should not be restrained from engaging and advertising (see attached exhibit to order: by Judge James Ware ; hearing set for 9:00 9/22/94 in 5:93-cv-20202, in 5:93-cv-20208 (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/16/1994)
116 OPPOSITION of Gerald Salaam and Paul Jackson to motion to compel and request for attorney fees, costs and sanctions [99-1] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/23/1994)
117 RESPONSE to order to show cause [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/23/1994)
118 MINUTES: ( C/R Irene Rodriguez) order to show cause re injunction held, matter is submitted. [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
119 ORDER to cease and desist by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 9/26/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
120 PROOF OF SERVICE of Order to SHow Cause and Letter [5:93-cv20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
121 REPLY by Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv-20202 re opposition [116-1] of Paul Jackson and Geral Salaam to motio to compel [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
122 DECLARATION by Teresa Demchak on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202 re reply [121-1] [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
123 ORDER by Judge James Ware to clarify Order to cease and desist ( Date Entered: 9/26/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/26/1994)
124 OPPOSITION to the contempt motion. [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 22 of 27

09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/26/1994 09/27/1994 09/27/1994 09/28/1994 09/28/1994 09/30/1994
09/30/1994 10/03/1994 10/11/1994 10/11/1994

125 MEMORANDUM in support of opposition [124-1] in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
126 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge James Ware to extend time to file opposition to the order to show cause re contempt [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
127 DECLARATION by Leo Bazile in support of motion for extention of time [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
RECEIVED Order ( ) re motion for order to show cause re contempt [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
128 MOTION before Judge James Ware to extend time to file opposition to motion to compel with Notice set for 9/30/94 at 9 am [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
129 DECLARATION by Theresa Demchak on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202, Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20208 in reply to opposition of Jerry Varnado to contempt motion [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
130 REPLY by Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv-20202 to motion to show cause re contempt [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
131 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : re amendment to notice plan (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
132 MINUTES: ( C/R Irene Rodriguez) that the motion to compel responses to deposition [99-1] is submitted in 5:93-cv-20202, that the motion for attorney fees [99-2] is submitted in 5:93-cv-20202, that the motion for an injunction against Jimmy Sims, Jewell Kearney, Sims & Associates and others [88-1] is submitted in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/04/1994)
133 ORDER and special notice by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 10/7/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
134 ORDER to cease and desist by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 10/7/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/07/1994)
135 PROOF OF SERVICE of Order to Cease and Desist mailed to Jimmy Sims and Jewell Kearney [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/14/1994)
136 MOTION before Judge James Ware to alter or amend judgment with Notice set for 11/4/94 at 9 am [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cgb,

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 23 of 27

10/21/1994 10/21/1994 10/21/1994 10/21/1994 10/21/1994 10/24/1994 11/02/1994 11/04/1994 11/08/1994 11/08/1994 11/08/1994
11/14/1994 11/16/1994 11/16/1994 11/16/1994

COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/14/1994)
137 PROPOSED SPECIAL NOTICE by Plaintiffs Kristina Ridgeway et al in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/26/1994)
138 Class counsel's report to the Court [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/26/1994)
139 DECLARATION by Mary Broughton on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/26/1994)
140 OPPOSITION by Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv-20202 to motion of Gerald Salaam and Paul Jackson to amend and/or to alter [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/26/1994)
141 DECLARATION by Teresa Demchak on behalf of Plaintiff in 5:93-cv20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/26/1994)
142 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 9/30/94 ( C/R: Irene Rodriguez) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/26/1994)
143 LETTER dated 10/4/94 from Antonio Lawson addressed to Judge Ware with proposed order re motion to compel attached (unsigned) [5:93-cv20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/09/1994)
147 MINUTES: ( C/R unreported) motion to alter/or amend judgment by Geral Salaam and Paul Jackson off calendar. Matter is submitted. [5:93cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/23/1994)
144 ORDER by Judge James Ware denying motion to alter or amend judgment [136-1] ( Date Entered: 11/14/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/14/1994)
145 ORDER by Judge James Ware vacating depositions of Gerald Salaam and Paul Jackson ( Date Entered: 11/14/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/14/1994)
146 ORDER by Judge James Ware vacating deposition of Jerry Varnado and requiring production of claimant list of class counsel ( Date Entered: 11/14/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/14/1994)
148 SPECIAL NOTICE to all claimants in this case signed by Judge James Ware [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/23/1994)
149 MOTION before Judge James Ware to amend or alter judgment , with Notice set for 12/16/94 at 9 am [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/05/1994)
150 DECLARATION by Paul Jackson [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/05/1994)
151 DECLARATION by Gerald Salaam [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 24 of 27

11/18/1994 12/05/1994 12/05/1994 12/15/1994 01/04/1995
01/11/1995 01/20/1995 02/02/1995 02/17/1995 03/03/1995 04/04/1995 04/07/1995 04/19/1995 07/28/1995 07/28/1995

STAFF) (Entered: 12/05/1994)
152 ORDER by Judge James Ware vacating hearing on motion to alter or amend judgment ( Date Entered: 12/5/94) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/05/1994)
153 Plaintiffs' report to the Court [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
154 DECLARATION by Mary Broughton on behalf of Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/06/1994)
155 STIPULATION re modification of timing of testing required under the Consent Decree [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/10/1995)
157 LETTER dated 1/4/95 from Mari Mayeda in 5:93-cv-20202 notifying will be leavig firm at the end of 1994. Will continue to work the firm on this case. (new address) [5:93-cv-20202] (bfv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/26/1995)
156 NOTICE by plaintiffs of change of firm name. [5:93-cv-20202] (rg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/25/1995)
158 NOTICE of change of address of Mari Mayeda [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/17/1995)
160 LETTER dated 2/14/95 Abner Johnson [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/17/1995)
159 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : re claims administration (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/17/1995)
161 LETTER dated 2/26/95 Albert Jerom Grays re claim [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/17/1995)
162 LETTER dated 3/29/95 from Antonio Lawson re Abner Johnson addressed to Judge Ware re claim [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
163 LETTER dated 4/4/95 From Antonio Lawson of Saperstein, Goldstein, Demchak & Baller [5:93-cv-20202] (gs, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
LETTER dated 4/15/95 from Abner Johnson re claim [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/04/1995)
164 DECLARATION by Sharon Lybeck Hartman on behalf of plaintiff USA (UNDER SEAL) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/01/1995)
RECEIVED Stipulation and proposed order re confidentiality timing of settlement distribution and testing submitted by defendants Denny's Corporation in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF)

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 25 of 27

07/31/1995 07/31/1995 09/19/1995 09/19/1995 09/20/1995 10/06/1995 10/24/1995 11/08/1995 11/08/1995 11/08/1995 11/17/1995 11/28/1995 11/28/1995 12/05/1995

(Entered: 08/01/1995)
165 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : regarding confidentiality; timing of settlement distribution and testing (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/24/1995)
166 LETTER dated 7/28/95 from Teresa Demchak in 5:93-cv-20202 on behalf of plaintiffs addressed to Judge Ware re the amended consent decree [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/24/1995)
167 RESPONSE by Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202 to petition for reconsideration of pro se claimant, Steve L. Thomas [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/19/1995)
RECEIVED Order ( Plaintiff in 5:93-cv-20202) denying petition for reconsideration of prose claimant, Steve L. Thomas [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/19/1995)
168 ORDER by Judge James Ware denying petition for reconsideration re claim ( Date Entered: 10/12/95) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/12/1995)
169 LETTER dated 10/2/95 from Steve L. Thomas re written petition rejected by Judge Ware [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/08/1995)
170 LETTER dated 10/18/95 from Teresa Demchak in 5:93-cv-20202 addressed to Judge Ware's Law Clerk. [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/08/1995)
171 Joint report to the Court on status of class monetary settlement distribution [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) Modified on 05/09/1996 (Entered: 11/08/1995)
RECEIVED Stipulation and proposed order re approval of class monetary distribution list [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/08/1995)
172 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : re approval of class monetary distribution list(cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
173 Substitution of Exhibit 4 to joint report to the court on status of class monetary settlement distribution [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) Modified on 05/09/1996 (Entered: 12/08/1995)
174 MINUTES: ( C/R Irene Rodriguez) Case Management Conference held re disbursement of class fund and set for further case mgt conf at 9:00 4/26/96 ; [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
175 ORDER by Judge James Ware setting further case management conference on 4/26/96 at 9am ( Date Entered: 12/8/95) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
177 DECLARATION by Jeffrey Dahl on behalf of Plaintiffs in 5:93-cv-

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 26 of 27

12/07/1995 04/15/1996 05/02/1996
06/03/1996 06/13/1996 07/11/1996 10/29/1996 12/16/1996 12/22/1997 10/14/1998 10/22/1998 05/07/1999

20202 [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) Modified on 05/09/1996 (Entered: 12/08/1995)
176 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : re approval of modified class monetary distribution list (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/08/1995)
178 Joint Further CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [5:93-cv-20202] (gm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/1996)
179 ORDER thad all potions of the file previously filed under seal shall be unsealed except for the declaration of Sharon Hartmann filed on 07/28/95 ; it is further ordered that any future reports that contain information deemed by the Monitor and parties to be confidential and/or sensitive that may be filed with the court may be filed under seal by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 05/09/96) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv20202] (gm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/09/1996)
180 LETTER dated 05/31/96 from Teresa Demchak in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93cv-20202] (gm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/17/1996)
181 LETTER dated 01/19/96 from Teresa Demchak in 5:93-cv-20202 [5:93cv-20202] (gm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/17/1996)
182 ORDER clarifying and modifying amended consent decree by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 07/16/96) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (gm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/16/1996)
183 ORDER clarifying amended consent decree by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 11/5/96) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (gm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/05/1996)
184 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : modifying training and report requirements of consent decree (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv20202] (rg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/23/1996)
185 ORDER modifying training and advertising requirements of amended consent decree by Judge James Ware ( Date Entered: 12/30/97) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (gm, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/30/1997)
RECEIVED Joint stipulation and proposed order re transition of monitoring functions from the Office of Civil Rights Monitor to Advantica [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/15/1998)
186 JOINT STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : concerning transition of monitoring functions from the Office of the Civil Rights Monitor to Advantica (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/28/1998)
187 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge James Ware : regarding a plan and schedule for the transition of responsibilities and functions from the Office of the Civil Rights Monitor to Denny's and Advantica; termination of the Office of the Civil Rights Monitor and early dismissal of this

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

Page 27 of 27

05/07/1999 12/27/1999 04/04/2001

action (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
Docket Modification (Administrative) to terminating case [5:93-cv20202] (cgb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/07/1999)
188 NOTICE by Plaintiff Louis McNair in 5:93-cv-20202 of change of address [5:93-cv-20202] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/28/1999)
189 ORDER by Judge James Ware dismissing of the Consent decree Governing this action shall be deemed terminated effective 11/14/00, and the case shall be dismissed.. , dismissing case ( Date Entered: 4/4/01) (cc: all counsel) [5:93-cv-20202, 5:93-cv-20208] (cv, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/04/2001)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

11/16/2005 14:53:33

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 5:93-cv-20202-JW

Billable Pages: 14

Cost:

1.12

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110371759303407-L_280_0-1

11/16/2005

 </s> Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
1994 WL 665250 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Kristina RIDGEWAY, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
FLAGSTAR CORPORATION and Denny’s, Inc., Defendants.
Nos. C 93–20202 JW, C 93–20208 JW. | Nov. 3, 1994.
Opinion
ORDER VACATING DEPOSITIONS OF GERALD SALAAM AND PAUL JACKSON AND REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF CLAIMANT LIST TO CLASS COUNSEL
WARE, District Judge.
*1 The hearing on Class Counsel’s Motion for an Order Compelling Gerald Salaam’s and Paul Jackson’s Responses to Deposition Questions and for Attorneys Fees and Costs was held on September 30, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. After considering the papers and arguments of counsel, the Court hereby vacates the depositions scheduled by Class Counsel and finds as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a class action suit brought under federal and state civil rights statutes challenging racially discriminatory customer policies and practices at Denny’s Restaurants in California. On May 24, 1994, the parties filed, and the Court preliminarily approved, an Amended Consent Decree settling all monetary and injunctive issues. The Amended Consent Decree was given final approval by the Court on July 29, 1994. The Amended Consent Decree includes provisions for the establishment of a claims procedure under which members of the class who file valid and timely claims are entitled to a pro rata share of a settlement fund of approximately $27 million.
Under the Amended Consent Decree, the claims procedure is to be administered by an experienced claims administrator jointly selected by the parties. The parties selected the Rust Consulting Group, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota as Claims Administrator. A toll-free 800 telephone number was established to provide potential claimants with access to the Claims Administrator to request claim forms and to seek assistance in completing and filing claims. Additionally, under the Amended Consent Decree, the law firm of Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein is designated as Class Counsel.
Following preliminary approval of the Amended Consent Decree and announcement of the settlement in May 1994, the parties received reports that a number of individuals and organizations in California were charging fees to individuals for services related to the preparation and/or filing of claims in this case. The parties investigated these activities and submitted two reports on their investigation to the Court.
On June 16, 1994, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order that (1) amended the claim form in this action to include express language advising that “giving false information or assisting others in providing false information on this claim form is a crime” and that anyone “provid[ing] false information on this claim form or assist[ing] others in providing false information ... could be subject to investigation ... and ... criminal prosecution;” and (2) directing that a Special Notice be mailed, along with the claim form, to all potential claimants. The Special Notice expressly cautions claimants that the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel are available to provide, free of charge, assistance in filing claims.
1

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
Gerald Salaam and Paul Jackson are persons affiliated with Accident Claims Experts (ACE) or Accident Claims Services in Oakland, California. ACE came to the attention of the parties in connection with their investigation of activities related to the filing of claims against Denny’s. Class Counsel learned that ACE was advertising on a local cable television station that it would provide assistance to individuals wishing to file claims against Denny’s in connection with the settlement of this case. Class Counsel further learned that individuals responding to ACE’s ad were interviewed by either Gerald Salaam or Paul Jackson. Salaam or Jackson obtained information from potential claimants about their Denny’s claim and had the claimants sign retainer agreements with one of two attorneys, Martin McDonagh1 and Jerry Varnado.2 The retainer agreement provided for the claimant to pay to McDonagh or Varnado 33⅓% to 40% of the amount that he or she recovered.
*2 As part of their ongoing investigation, Class Counsel issued a subpoena for Mr. Salaam and Mr. Jackson to appear for depositions scheduled on August 24, 1994 at 9:30 a.m. and August 24, 1994 at 1:30 p.m. respectively.
Salaam was personally served with the subpoena on August 12, 1994. On August 18, 1994, attorney G. William Hunter telephoned the offices of Class counsel on Salaam’s behalf. Hunter stated that it was his position that service of the subpoena on Salaam was defective. Class Counsel responded that there was a declaration from the process server describing how Salaam had been personally served with the subpoena. Hunter responded, “well, she’s lying.” Class Counsel confirmed this conversation in a letter to Hunter.
Class Counsel then sent Hunter a second letter to which was attached the declaration of the process server. It was Class Counsel’s position that Salaam had been properly served and, therefore, Hunter was informed that a court reporter would be present and Class Counsel ready to conduct Salaam’s deposition on the date and at the time indicated on the subpoena. Mr. Salaam appeared for his deposition at the scheduled time.
Salaam appeared alone, but stated that he consulted with and was represented by G. William Hunter.3 Upon questioning by Class Counsel, Salaam repeatedly refused to answer questions on the basis of his “fifth amendment rights.” Class Counsel claim that Salaam’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment was improper and intended to frustrate the deposition.4
Mr. Jackson was personally served with the subpoena on August 12, 1994. On August 23, 1994, attorney Leon Rountree, Jr. advised Class Counsel that Jackson would not be appearing for his deposition because he was not personally served the deposition subpoena. On August 23, 1994, Mr. Rountree was provided a copy of the declaration of the process server which attested to personal service of Jackson’s deposition subpoena.
Jackson appeared for his deposition, without counsel. He failed to produce any documents responsive to Attachment A of his deposition subpoena. Upon questioning by Class Counsel, Jackson repeatedly refused to answer questions asserting his “constitutional right” to do so.5 Class Counsel claim that Jackson’s invocation of the fifth amendment was also improper and done with the intent to frustrate the deposition.
Class Counsel made a final attempt to resolve this matter without Court action. They sent Salaam and Jackson letters requesting that they reconsider their positions and agree to produce the requested documents and answer questions upon oral examination. Class Counsel also advised Salaam and Jackson of their intent to file the instant motion if a resolution could not be reached by noon, Wednesday, August 31, 1994. The letters were hand-delivered via Federal Express courier to Salaam and Jackson at ACE on August 29, 1994. The Federal Express package was returned on August 30, 1994 and was unopened and marked “return per Mr. Jackson.”
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
*3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(B) provides that “[i]f a deponent fails to answer a question propounded ... the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer.... The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action.”
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4)(A) provides that
[i]f the motion is granted ... the court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the ...
2

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)
deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.
Local Rule 230–4(a) provides that if “counsel for the party against whom the motion will be made willfully refuses or fails to confer, the judge (in the absence of a prior order dispensing for good cause with such a conference) may order the payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4).”

III. ANALYSIS
Class Counsel seeks to compel the deposition testimony of Mr. Salaam and Mr. Jackson. They claim that Salaam and Jackson’s invocations of their Fifth Amendment rights at deposition were merely tactics intended to frustrate the depositions. However, at the hearing on September 30, 1994, Salaam and Jackson agreed with Class Counsel to the following:

IV. ORDER

1. Gerald Salaam and Paul Jackson each agree to produce a list of any and all Denny’s claimants that have contacted them and/or have signed contingency fee agreements with them. Such list shall contain the names, addresses and telephone numbers of each claimant. The list shall be produced to Class Counsel at the offices of Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein, 1300 Clay Street, 11th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 within three (3) business days of the date of this Order.
2. Gerald Salaam and Paul Jackson shall each provide a written certification to Class Counsel, at the offices of Saperstein, Mayeda & Goldstein. Such certification shall contain a statement made under the penalty of perjury that neither person represents any class members.
3. The depositions of both Paul Jackson and Gerald Salaam are hereby VACATED without prejudice. Class Counsel reserves the right to renotice such depositions if necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

1

Martin McDonagh was subpoenaed for deposition on three separate occasions and failed to appear. McDonagh’s subpoena was

issued from the Central District of California because McDonagh maintains an office in Los Angeles and could not be located for

service in Oakland. Class Counsel are in the process of filing a motion for an order for McDonagh to show cause and to transfer

contempt proceedings against him to this Court because of the relationship between McDonagh, Varnado, Salaam and Jackson.

2

Varnado was subpoenaed for deposition and failed to appear. On August 12, 1994, Class Counsel filed a motion for an order to

show cause why Varnado should not be held in contempt. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause set for hearing on September

30, 1994 at 9:00 a.m.

3

Mr. Hunter claims that he no longer represents Mr. Salaam and that Mr. Salaam sought his services only to determine the validity

of the service of the deposition subpoena.

4

Salaam refused to answer nearly every question posed. He refused to answer any questions about ACE including the nature of its

business; the name of employees; the affiliation of attorneys such as Martin McDonagh and Jerry Varnado; the nature of ACE’s

representation of and communication with potential Ridgeway class members; whether Salaam or anyone affiliated with ACE

assisted in the filing of claim forms in Ridgeway; whether potential class members were ever represented by ACE with respect to

filing claims in Ridgeway; what steps, if any, were taken by Salaam, ACE or anyone affiliated with ACE to insure that potential

class members who retained and/or contacted Salaam, ACE and its affiliates as a result of ACE’s advertisements are not under the

impression that they have filed claims simply by contacting ACE; and whether potential class members seeking the service of

Salaam, ACE and its affiliates were apprised of the services provided by the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel free of

charge.

3

Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1994)

5

For example, Jackson refused to answer any questions about ACE, his employment with ACE and ACE’s representation of

potential Denny’s class members. Mr. Jackson further represented that it was his intent to assert his “constitutional rights” and

refuse to answer all questions posed.

4


[CONTENT] March 26, 1993 | the United States | Justice Department | Title II | the Civil Rights Act | 1964 | 42 | U.S.C. | § | 2000a ||| the Public Accommodations Act | the U.S. District Court | the Northern District | California | TW Services | Denny's, Inc. | Denny's Restaurants | African Americans | Denny | California ||| Denny | African Americans ||| Court | April 1, 1993 ||| July 2, 1993 | Court | Ridgeway | Denny's Corporation | March 24, 1993 | the U.S. District Court | the Northern District | California ||| the Public Accommodations Act | Denny | African American ||| 42 | 1981 | 42 | U.S.C. | § | California Business and Professions Code | California Civil Code | § ||| California Civil Code | 1750 ||| the United States ||| The United States | May 24, 1994 ||| Denny | African Americans ||| $28 million ||| Court | James Ware | July 29, 1994 ||| the Amended Consent Decree | California ||| Ware ||| Ridgeway | Flagstar Corporation | Nos | 93-20202 | 93-20208 | 1994 ||| Sept. 22, 1994 ||| Ridgeway | Flagstar Corporation | Nos | 93-20202 | 93-20208 | 564571 ||| Oct. 3, 1994 ||| Ware ||| Ridgeway | Flagstar Corporation | Nos | 93-20202 | 93-20208 | 665250 ||| Nov. 3, 1994 | Ridgeway | Flagstar Corporation | Nos ||| 93-20202 | 93-20208 | 1994 | 665243 ||| Nov. 8, 1994 ||| Ridgeway | Flagstar Corporation | Nos | 93-20202 | 93-20208 | 1994 ||| Nov. 8, 1994 ||| Ware | second | Denny ||| Ridgeway | Flagstar Corporation | Nos | 93-20202 | 93-20208 | 1994 | 669935 ||| Nov. 18, 1994 ||| July | August of 1996 ||| several years | the United States | January 16, 2001 ||| April 4, 2001 | Court | Ware | November 11, 2000 [SUMMARY] On March 26, 1993, the United States Justice Department filed this lawsuit under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a et seq. (the Public Accommodations Act), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against TW Services and its subsidiary, Denny's, Inc., which operates Denny's Restaurants, alleging discriminatory treatment of African Americans by Denny's restaurants in California. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Denny's implemented terms and conditions for service of black customers, such as the requirement of prepayment and cover charges, that were not required of white patrons, that African Americans received poorer service, and that they were discouraged from patronizing the restaurant. 

The complaint was filed contemporaneously with a consent decree, which was approved by the Court on April 1, 1993. On July 2, 1993, the Court, on its own motion, consolidated the case with Ridgeway v. Denny's Corporation, a class action filed on March 24, 1993, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Both actions alleged violations of the Public Accommodations Act in relation to Denny's treatment of African American customers. The class action also alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. and California Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq.

Following execution of the original decree, numerous complaints of racial discrimination were submitted to the Plaintiff Class and the United States. The United States investigated the complaints and, on May 24, 1994, submitted an amended consent decree to expand the protections to customers and prevent future discrimination. The amended consent decree prohibited Denny's from engaging in discriminatory treatment of African Americans and established procedures for compliance, including a comprehensive non-discrimination training program, as well as provisions for notice, advertising, testing, monitoring and record keeping. It also required the defendants to establish a $28 million settlement fund for the plaintiff class, and appointment of a Special Master. The Amended Consent Decree was given final approval by the Court (Judge James Ware) on July 29, 1994. 

After preliminary approval of the Amended Consent Decree, the parties received reports that a number of individuals and organizations in California were charging fees for services related to the preparation and/or filing of claims in the case. The court (Judge Ware) issued several cease and desist orders to counsel concerning processing of potential claimants. Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corporation, Nos. C 93-20202, C 93-20208, 1994 WL 525553 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 22, 1994.), Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corporation, Nos. C 93-20202, C 93-20208, 1994 WL 564571 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 3, 1994)).  The court (Judge Ware) also issued orders vacating depositions scheduled by class counsel. Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corporation, Nos. C 93-20202, C 93-20208, 1994 WL 665250 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 3, 1994), Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corporation, Nos. C 93-20202, C 93-20208, 1994 WL 665243 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 8, 1994), and denying requests of non-party lawyers to amend the judgment and get for fees defending motions to compel. Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corporation, Nos. C 93-20202, C 93-20208, 1994 WL 665414 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 8, 1994). The court (Judge Ware) further denied a second motion from the lawyers, vacated a scheduled hearing, and ordered the lawyers to prepare a list of any Denny's claimants who had signed contingency fees with them. Ridgeway v. Flagstar Corporation, Nos. C 93-20202, C 93-20208, 1994 WL 669935 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 18, 1994).

In July and August of 1996 the court issued orders clarifying the confidentiality provisions of the decree and modifying dates for distribution of residual funds. After several years of status reports, the United States submitted a final report on January 16, 2001, recommending early dismissal of the consent decree. On April 4, 2001, the Court (Judge Ware) terminated the consent decree's provisions effective November 11, 2000, and dismissed the case.

