in the present case the Plaintiff did no mailing or transmitting out of state. The bank deposits made by Plaintiff were for services performed in Utah and were deposited in Utah banks. The insurance forms were for services performed in Utah and were delivered to persons in Utah. Plaintiff has shown that, as a business regulated or licensed by the State of Utah, the company participated in accreditation testing by receiving, evaluating, and returning cultures to a company acting on behalf of the State of Utah, but located in the State of California. The court does not find that such activity is engaging in commerce. More importantly, it is only Plaintiffs activities that are relevant to a determination on whether he is an employee “engaged in commerce.” Wirtz, supra, 263 F.Supp. at 233 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff admits that he did not ship any
holding that an individual debtor not engaged in business is eligible for chapter 11 holding individual defendants are not an employer within meaning of title vii holding that a religious foundation is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the fair labor standards act holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce  within the meaning of  the act holding that the facts supporting a claim that an employee is engaged in commerce within the meaning of  207a1 are dependent upon his individual activities not the nature of the employers business