Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Praveen Khurana v. North Central District Health Defendants

April 16, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: B. Lynn WinmillChief Judge United States District Court



Plaintiff Praveen Khurana runs a restaurant in Lewiston named The Emperor of India/King Thai, which he opened in July 2007. In 2008, the North Central District Health Department suspended Khurana's food license three times for repeated Food Code violations. Khurana maintains that the district health department intentionally interfered with his business and violated his constitutional rights by wrongfully suspending his food license. Defendants seek summary judgment on all Khurana's claims

On March 13, 2012, the Court heard oral argument and took the matter under advisements. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants' summary judgment motion.


Khurana moved from Moscow, Idaho in early 2005, purchased a building on Main Street in Lewiston, Idaho, and began converting it to a restaurant. In the space, Khurana opened a small restaurant called Cafe Fusion, which he expanded it to a larger restaurant named The Emperor of India/King Thai. The Emperor of India/King of Thai opened on July 13, 2007.

1.July 1, 2008 Inspection and July 15, 2008 Suspension

On July 1, 2008, the North Central District Health Department, whose territory encompasses Latah, Clearwater, Nez Perce and Idaho Counties, conducted a routine inspection of Khurana's restaurant. In the report, Health District Inspectors Trevor Anderson and Defendant Vito Palazzolo identified several Food Code violations, but the inspectors allowed the restaurant to remain open. After the inspection Khurana emailed Palazzolo, questioning the violations. Palazzolo explained his view of the violations.

Palazzolo returned with another inspector, Defendant Andy Helkey, on July 15, 2008, to conduct a follow up inspection. Following the July 15 inspection, Palazzolo and Helkey deemed the conditions at Khurana's restaurant an "imminent health hazard" and suspended Khurana's food license.

That same evening, Defendant Paul Guenther, Palazzolo and Helkey's supervisor, noticed that the "Open" sign was lit at Khurana's restaurant. Based on the lit sign, Guenther thought the restaurant looked open for business in violation of the suspension notice; Guenther therefore asked the Lewiston Police Department to send an officer to check whether Khurana was serving food at his restaurant. The officer did not see any evidence of food being served -- just beer and wine.

A couple of days later -- after exchanging several emails with Palazzolo about the violations -- Khurana requested both an appeal of the suspension and a compliance conference. Guenther scheduled a conference with Khurana for July 24, 2008. He also forwarded Khurana's appeal of the suspension to Patrick Guzzle who is the Food Protection Program Manager for the Department of Health and Welfare. Apparently, neither the Health Department nor the Health District processed the appeal, but Guenther conducted a compliance conference with Khurana on July 24.

Defendants claim that the conference lasted over two hours, and that Khurana's perspective concerning the violations was discussed at length. By contrast, Khurana claims that Guenther ignored his concerns about the reported violations and refused to review a black binder full of photographs and other items, which Khurana had prepared.

According to Khurana, Guenther presented Khurana with a compliance agreement and told him to sign it or else his license would be revoked.

It is undisputed, however, that Khurana entered into a compliance agreement. He agreed to correct the violations, comply with the Food Code, and to work cooperatively with the health inspectors. He also consented to random, unannounced enforcement inspections. Pursuant to IDAPA, the Compliance Agreement constituted an enforceable Consent Order.

After the compliance conference, on July 28, 2008, Palazzolo and Helkey re-inspected Khurana's restaurant. While Palazzolo and Helkey documented Food Code violations in the inspection report, they no longer believed that the restaurant conditions constituted an imminent health hazard. They therefore lifted the suspension.

2.September 5, 2008 Inspection and Suspension

A month passed, and Palazzolo and Helkey returned to the restaurant on September 5, 2008, at approximately 2:20 pm to conduct an unannounced inspection pursuant to the Compliance Agreement. Defendants assert that the "Open sign was illuminated, the door was unlocked, and workers were preparing food in the kitchen." Defy.' SUF ¶ 16, Dkt. 30-2. The inspectors believed that they had the right to continue the inspection because Khurana had consented to unannounced inspections in the Compliance Agreement.

Khurana, however, disagrees with Defendants' version of events. He claims that he had inadvertently left the "Open" light illuminated, but the hours posted on the door clearly indicated that the restaurant was closed. Khurana asked the inspectors to leave and return when the restaurant re-opened. The inspectors ignored Khurana's request. Khurana says he felt threatened by the inspectors' hostility, and he, as well as all others who were preparing food, left. Upon leaving Khurana called Guenther to complain, but Guenther allowed the inspection to continue.

Palazzolo and Helkey finished the inspection, and concluded that the conditions at the restaurant constituted an imminent health hazard. They issued a second Notice of Summary Suspension. Five days later, on September 10, 2008, Palazzolo and Helkey conducted a follow-up inspection and found that the conditions had improved enough to justify lifting the suspension. Khurana was allowed to re-open the restaurant.

Between the suspension on September 5 and the re-inspection on September 10, a reporter from the Lewiston Tribune submitted a public records request for the suspension notices and inspection reports regarding Khurana's restaurant. The Health District provided the requested copies. The reporter also asked Guenther questions about the suspension, which, Guenther says, he answered truthfully. News of the suspension and Guenther's comments were included in a story published on September 9, 2008.

On September 11, 2008, the same Tribune reporter again contacted Guenther, who confirmed that the restaurant had been allowed to re-open. Guenther told the reporter that it was Khurana's responsibility to maintain standards. The reporter's story, which included Guenther's quotes, was published the next day, after the suspension had been lifted.

3.November 7, 2008 Inspection and Suspension and November 13, 2008 Revocation After a reprieve of two months, on November 7, 2008, Palazzolo and Helkey

conducted another unannounced inspection pursuant to the Compliance Agreement and concluded a third time that the conditions at Khurana's restaurant constituted an imminent health hazard. They issued a third Notice of Summary Suspension. They followed up this inspection on November 13, 2008. After this re-inspection, they did not lift the suspension, concluding that ongoing Food Code violations continued to create an imminent health hazard. Another five days later, the Health District staff conducted a third re-inspection and found the conditions at Khurana's restaurant still did not pass muster. He was not allowed to re-open. Instead, the Health District issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Khurana's food license.

On November 20, 2008, Khurana went to the Health District offices and attempted to drop off a 2009 license renewal application with Rene Barton, a Health District administrative assistant. Barton refused to accept the application because she did not believe she could accept his application given the suspension of Khurana's food license and the notice of intent to revoke. She told Khurana to return the next day to talk to Guenther. This frustrated Khurana, and he became argumentative. He returned twice more that same day and attempted to videotape Barton, as well as Health District clients sitting in the waiting room.

Barton says she felt threatened and reported what happened to the Health District director, Carol Moerhle. Moerhle also learned that Khurana apparently filmed not only Health District personnel but also their clients, including clients seeking medical treatment. She then contacted the Lewiston Police Department, who escorted Khurana off the premises and charged him with disturbing the peace. In conjunction with the police visit, Moerhle signed a Uniform Notice of Trespass, which prevented Khurana from entering Health District premises.

Thwarted in his attempt to renew his food license, Khurana appealed to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare both the November 7, 2008 suspension and the November 13, 2008 notice of intent to revoke. After a hearing was held in February 2009, a Department hearing officers issued a decision finding the appeals moot because Khurana's food license had expired at the end of 2008. Khurana therefore applied for a 2009 food license, which required that a pre-opening inspection be conducted.

4.April 7, 2009 Pre-opening Inspection and May 13, 2009 Re-inspection

Palazzolo and another NCDHD inspector conducted the pre-opening inspection on April 7, 2009. They found several Food Code violations and determined that Khurana should not be issued a license. Khurana appealed this decision and requested a re-inspection. The Department granted the request and determined that one of its inspectors, rather than the Health District's, would conduct the inspection.

On May 13, 2009, a Department inspector conducted the re-inspection and noted a few Food Code violations. But Khurana either corrected them, or promised to correct them within a certain time, so the Department issued him a food license and allowed him to re-open. Khurana has remained open since that time.

5.Khurana's Complaint

Defendants maintain that none of their actions related to Khurana and his restaurant were undertaken with ill will, with an improper objective or purpose, or with intent to injure him or cause him any emotional distress. Instead, Defendants say they were just doing their jobs. Palazzolo and Helkey testify that they actually observed the conditions recorded in their inspection reports and depicted in the photos, and in their professional judgment, they believe those conditions were Food Code violations.

Khurana vehemently disputes Defendants' rendition of the conditions at his restaurant and asserts that the Health District inspectors did not find many "true" violations. For example, Palazzolo and Helkey reported that food was stored below chemicals, but Khurana says this is not true. The inspectors also cited Khurana for his food items in the cooler being above approve temperatures; Khurana, however, asserts that the inspectors did not test the foods for temperature in accordance with the Food Code, which allows for a cooling period after preparation and reheating of up to six hours. According to Khurana, the inspectors "ignored these requirements and manipulated the thermometers and ignored other requirements by taking the food out of the coolers in the heat of summer and not considering how long it had been since was prepared or reheated. Foods were out in a kitchen where temperatures exceeded 90 degrees." Pl's SUF at 3, Dkt. 59-1.

Khurana also disputes almost every other Food Code violation found by the inspectors. Khurana claims that Defendant Palazzolo and Helkey's findings reported in their inspection reports "were dishonest and inconsistent with the food code and previous NCDHD inspectors." Pl's SUF at 6, Dkt. 59-1. He says that it is untrue that his shelving units were not properly constructed, that food items were not properly labeled, that items in the freezer were not properly date marked, or that the spoiled food items found in the cooler were a health ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.