And Uncle Sam needs to put em in jail too for even thinking about trying to avoid their responsibility to their drivers and people wonder why rates wont rise yet the same rats that are getting away with this are the same that keep running to DC to get all types of laws passed to drag down the little man that plays by the rules??? After this order, Judge Sedwick denied Plaintiffs request that he certify the issue to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Since Levy and Vinson controlled the. That fuel amount is placed on fuel card (only for fuel!!!!). Swifts Increasing Desperation Posted February 26, 2015. The defendant has made payment to the settlement fund. Getman Sweeney would like to speak with former Swift Owner Operators who have documents or other evidence (such as photographs, emails, QualComm messages) concerning: 1) collections efforts by Swift after turning in their truck or having it repossessed, or Click here to read a copy of the petition for mandamus. Significant documentary discovery was exchanged as well. Judge Sedwick denied Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. (Def. The case is closed and Settlement checks have been mailed to participating class members. Its about time that a court stepped in and said, no more. It is true that the ruling will create difficulties for Swift as well as the trucker Plaintiffs. Ill gladly take whatever I get from this. This case was also handled by Martin & Bonnett, co-counsel for the drivers in this case. The Ninth Circuit yesterday gave Plaintiffs good news when it ruled that the petition for a writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant a response. The Swift lawsuit commenced in the federal district court for Arizona. The drivers brief will be due July 22nd. Edward Tuddenham argued the motion for Plaintiffs. When you receive your notice, please read it carefullyit includes important details about the case and the settlement, including your options and the deadlines to exercise those options. We do get ripped off a lot. CDL Grad, No Experience Swift will not go bankrupt. I know right?? We believe the contract is unlawful, deceptive, and coercive, and we are asking that the Court grant a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction:(1) enjoining 16 and 17E of the new Agreement; (2) requiring Defendants to inform all lease operators including those who have already signed the Agreement that paragraphs 16 and 17E have been enjoined and are no longer operative; (3) enjoining Defendants and their counsel from engaging in any further contacts with current opt-ins and putative class members regarding the matters raised in this suit, including communications that request or require LOs to enter into agreements that may in any way impact the liability or damages issues that are currently pending before this court, without first informing Plaintiffs counsel and obtaining permission from the Court. Click here to review Plaintiffs Reply Brief. (300 P. Reply to Response to Motion re [277] Motion.pdf 101KB) Defendants filed a motion requesting the opportunity to file a sur-reply and that motion was granted by the Court. The lawsuit claims that Swift treated truck drivers who leased trucks through the company as independent contractors even though they acted as full-time employees. An Iowa federal court ruled that a class of CRST Expedited drivers can proceed with most of its claims in a wage lawsuit based on alleged predatory lease agreements. Click here to review defendants letter brief. The courts video feed of the argument is available here. You have to be the smart guy and know how to ripoff the guy(company)with the money. On February 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit stayed this case pending a decision by the Supreme Court in the New Prime v. Oliveira case, in which the Court considered whether the Federal Arbitration Act applied to interstate truckers. It has taken over a year for the Circuit to set a date for argument. The Court will also hear arguments regarding Swiftsmandamuspetition; Swift contends that the District Court should not have lifted the stay on discovery, granting Plaintiffs access to Defendants records of those drivers who may have claims in the case. Yeah, sure I believe that when I see my share of when swift gave me the shaft and broke there own contract with me over the buy out of my truck. We expect the checks will be mailed in mid-April 2020. Im working for a company now who, think theyre going to continue with their illegal b.s. Plaintiffs lawyers in this case are reaching out to the Plaintiffs attorneys inEllis v. Swift, to see if our concerns can be addressed in such a way that the drivers can participate in that settlement and avoid giving up claims that are asserted in this case. In addition, under wage protections statutes, plaintiffs seek to compel Swift to reimburse truckers for the various deductions from their pay, including truck lease, insurance, gas, tolls, maintenance, etc. The Two-Check System: Treating O/Os as Employees and Renting Their Equipment FromThem, WORK COMP AUDITS IN THE ERA OF AB5 AND ABCTEST. Pathetic! Swifts Appeal of Judge Sedwicks Misclassification Ruling Posted June 15, 2017. Talk about shopping at the company store. We opposed Swifts application for a stay and asked the Court to sanction Swift for a frivolous motion. Id like to see a computer do all the physical labor. There are many other examples that I cant think of at the moment, but you get the gist. Motion to Vacate Stay.pdf 1MB) Plaintiffs will file a reply brief shortly. The Swift lawsuit commenced in the federal district court for Arizona. We will be in touch with clients individually following our discussion with the lawyers for the drivers in the Ellis case. We will update this webpage as the situation develops further. An enemy divided is easily defeated. Defendants also asked the Court to permit them to make a motion to transfer venue of the case to Arizona that is to seek home field advantage. We are hopeful that the Court will affirm our position and reverse the District Court, since the Circuit already ruled that Plaintiffs were correct on this precise question in its prior ruling on the mandamus petition. Taylor Swift beat a lawsuit by a Manhattan real estate broker -- who claimed the pop superstar refused to pay her a $1.08 million commission for the purchase of her Tribeca townhouse -- because . For more information on arbitration cases generally, see http://www.tlpj.org the website of a public interest law firm primarily working on arbitration issues. However, Plaintiffs argue that the question of whether Plaintiffs are employees (and thus whether the exemptions to the FAA and AAA apply) is thus an issue the Court must address first. Sick humor. The Supreme Court today denied Swift Transportations motion to hear Swifts argument as to why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong. Click here to read Plaintiffs Reply brief. On May 24th, 2017, Swift filed an appeal to the Arizona District Courts Order and Opinion (Jan. 2017) in which the District Court ruled that the five named-plaintiff drivers are employees, not independent contractors as a matter of law, for the purposes of 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The case raises class action claims under the law of contract, and under various state laws which also protect workers from unlawful deductions (so far, the state laws of New York and California, however additional state statutes will apply to workers in other states). This stinging defeat essentially forced Swiftto settle given their huge exposure in a class-action case. WOW! Click here to review the Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. letter mot to dismiss.pdf 88KB) Judge Berman accepted defendants letter as the motion to transfer venue and asked plaintiffs to respond. To Protect Claims in This Case, Plaintiffs Have Objected to Settlement in Montalvo v. Swift and Calix v. Central Refrigerated Posted October 2, 2015. Here are some key facts to consider. Plaintiffs moved for collective action back in May of 2010 but this process was stopped in the summer of 2010 by Swifts Motion to Compel Arbitration. Oct 22, 2022 - Lease Operator in Springfield, MO Recommend CEO Approval Business Outlook Pros Easy to work with , lots of freight all the time, safety is priority, real nice terminals. It is worth noting however that the lawsuit that Judge Sedwick ruled on only concerns 5 specific drivers. Click here to see the Order Granting Preliminary Approval. Ripoff Report Needs Your Help! Click here to review the defendants papers. 4) mid-contract changes demanded by Swift or IEL under threat of having the truck repossessed or the driver put on safety hold until a signature is given. Please select the number of verifiable months youve been driving professionally using your Class A CDL within the last 3 years. Cause they use hhg and not practical/actual miles. I struggle to make ends meet and pay my taxes each and every year which is yet another struggle. Posted on Tuesday, April 6 2010 at 11:53am. Blood suckers each and everyone of these companies!!!!! The case cannot move forward until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determines whether District Judge Sedwick erred by sending this case to arbitration without deciding first whether the Plaintiffs are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act. (321 ORDER that plaintiffs motion at [315] is GRANTED i.pdf 38KB), Click here to review the 9th Circuits decision. In a lease-purchase agreement, or lease-to-own trucking program, you need to make a down payment on the truck, but you own it at the end. Past and present truckers driving for Swift as owner operators anywhere in the U.S. may be included in this lawsuit. Depositions and Upcoming Motion for Summary Judgment Posted May 11, 2016. Plaintiffs also filed aMotion to Compel defendants to testify [in depositions] (Docket #644)on July 13th. Instead, Swift argues that the District Court erred by considering the Lease as well as the Contractor Agreement and the parties relationship in reaching its decision. The lawsuit is for a symbolic $1, and the counterclaim said that Mueller waited too long to deny that he groped Swift after the original incident was reported. Judge Sedwick denied Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration(229 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS denying Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration.pdf 13KB). Plaintiffs argument is based on the fact that the Lease agreement demands that claims be litigated in Court, that the ICOAs arbitration provision conflicts with the Lease and is superceded by it. This case should make it clear that simply having an arbitration agreement with a class-action waiver in your independent contractor agreement will not guarantee that a trucking company can prevent class-action litigation and force drivers into individual arbitration. John Huetter. Further, please let Getman Sweeney know if you have been overbilled by defendants, or threatened with the higher charges. While positions were discussed, no resolution was reached at that time and no further on-going discussions are currently planned. These Carriers that keep trying to avoid proper responsibility for their workers by playing these games need to be shutdown! Posted on Thursday, February 4 2010 at 5:11pm. On Feb. 4, a federal court in the Northern District of Iowa denied in part and granted in part CRST's bid to dismiss a class action lawsuit. . has nothing to do with this case, the proposed release language could have been viewed as prohibiting the forced labor and unconscionability claims involving Swift and Centrals misuse of the DAC Report. Beware of western express, will rob you blind. Plaintiffs filed an application for aTemporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctionwith the court on Monday, January 30th, and we received a response from the court the following day, January 31st, with a schedule to address our concerns. (LogOut/ A class-action against Swift itself would be much larger, involving up to 15,000 drivers, said Mr. Getman, who also represents the Central Refrigerated drivers. I can almost hear the other companies re-drafting their lease agreements lol. This stay application is not surprising, since Swift has shown it will do anything it can to avoid or delay having the Court hear the drivers case. "We know that starting and running your own truck driving business can be risky . One has already made delivery. The purchase option balloon . U.S. District Judge Sedwick asked the parties to submit a joint proposal for the schedule of this case to determine whether the drivers are employees. last edited on Wednesday, October 20 2010 at 5:33pm, Posted on Tuesday, October 19 2010 at 6:08pm. We will post new updates as information becomes available. Click here to read the brief filed with the Court. Along with this removal of the remedy of going to court, is the fact that class action waivers clauses that companies write into the form agreements they have customers or employees sign which prohibit claims being brought as class actions, have frequently been held to be valid. Its BS! We now await the decision of the Ninth Circuit. last edited on Wednesday, July 27 2011 at 2:46pm, Posted on Thursday, June 30 2011 at 4:01pm. Oral Arguments for both the interlocutory appeal and the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus have been scheduled for Monday, November 16, 2015 9:00 A.M. So far Swift opposes this motion. They alleged that the drivers were not independent because Swift was able to terminate the lease for any reason and demand that all lease payments be made despite termination of the lease. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling today holding that a Court must determine whether the Federal Arbitration Acts exemption for employees in interstate commerce applies to truck drivers such as the Plaintiffs in this case. Lets get one thing straight. So, the drivers filed a motion in the District Courtto compel Swift to answer discovery. On February 23rd, we filed an opposition to the transfer of venue. Especially if you are hauling toilet paper. 15 years, thats a lot of back pay owed me. Judge Sedwick was considering three motions, Plaintiffs motion for permission to mail a collective action motion to all owner operators, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, and Defendants motion to move the case to arbitration. The drivers asked for limited discovery on this issue, while Swift argued that the determination should only be made by considering the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement. Judge Sedwickruledthat the drivers were right. But unlike his competitors, he doesnt have his nuts in one basket. Im currently being sued by my dads ex girlfriend for his estate. Each company we work with has specific experience requirements for their drivers. Another thing is we run husband & wife team. Swift is routing certain owner operator drivers to select terminals to meet with its lawyers. (2.22 Def Letter Reply re Venue.pdf 354KB) The matter now sits with Judge Berman. Court Finds Massive Offshore Oil Lease Sale in Gulf Based on Faulty Legal Analysis Victory: Environmental groups respond to court decision halting lease sale Contacts Lauren Wollack, Earthjustice, (202) 285-5809, lwollack@earthjustice.org Brittany Miller, Friends of the Earth, (202) 222-0746, bmiller@foe.org We expect the checks will be mailed in mid-April 2020. We have filed discovery demands asking Swift and IEL to provide documents we believe will be primary evidence in the case. We need to use platforms such as this and others to come together. Posted on Tuesday, June 29 2010 at 11:33am, Plaintiffs have renewed their motion for a preliminary injunction in this case. U get RAND MCNALLY MILES.NOT PRATICAL MILES.IT STINKS.EVERY PROFFESSIONAL DRIVER LOSES OUT ON RAND MCNALLY.NOT SO WITH PRATICAL.A DIFFICULT LIFESTYLE TO SAY THE LEAST.I STAY IN COMBAT MODE 24 HOURS A DAY. An audio recording of the argument will be available to the public the day after the argument athttp://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/, Swift Transportation Acquires Central Refrigerated. Click here to read Plaintiffs opening Appeal Brief.Click here to read Defendants Response.Click here to read Plaintiffs Reply Brief. The Settlement Notice was mailed August 16, 2019. The Lawyers for the drivers argued that Swift was acting in violation of federal minimum wage laws because the drivers are in reality employees, and not independent. Posted January 7, 2017. Drivers had argued, successfully, that because this case has been slowed down, hindered, and repeatedly delayed for years by the Defendant, the information in Swifts records would not be current or useful if, or when, a Collective Action is certified and Plaintiffs asked for the records so that we could begin the process of ensuring that the contact information in those records is up-to-date and accurate in order to send notice to a group of over 16,000 drivers who may be eligible to join this case, if and when that should occur. Click here to review the Courts Decision. We will post further updates as information becomes available. (175 Declaration of Elizabeth Parrish 172 Response to Motion.pdf 297KB) Thus Swift and IEL are admitting that they overbill drivers, but stating that they will not actually pursue such overbilled amounts. I would think your response is wrong as they let you haul freight from approved carriers on there list. Swift has repeatedly asked the Court to consider whether the drivers are employees based only on the contract and lease. If the drivers are employees, their claims cannot be sent to arbitration. Lease term can be either 3 or 4 years 3. Finally someone had defined what independent means..thank you. This is a big milestone, said driver attorney Dan Getman according to the Wall Street Journal. After trip, drivers do not get wat is left of that fuel $$, paid to them. Plaintiffs filed their Oppositions to both sets of motions (665and671) on August 3rdand August 6th. 1975 X $.90= $1777.00 The fuel for trip is calculated as being aprox $1056.63. The approval order appoints SSI to act as Settlement Administrator and directs that SSI send notice to each affected class member informing them of their tentative settlement share and advising them how to make a claim or exclude themselves from the case, or how to object to the settlement. WOW! Click here to review the Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. Merger or Take Over? Posted on Tuesday, June 14 2011 at 2:45pm, Plaintiffs have filed a motion with the District Court to have the case returned to the District Court in light of the high expenses that would be required for individuals to arbitrate their claims. In the meantime, we await Judge Sedwicks decision on the Drivers most recent motion for sanctions. Published Dec. 10, 2021 Updated Dec. 13, 2021. Click here to review Plaintiffs Reply Brief. This will effect the renta truck guys more than anything. My truck would be paid off today and I probably be hauling cattle or steel. No driver would go outside the company for a load for fear of severe backlash and devastating financial consequences. Swift said that a private equity company called Shamrock Holdings was the one to purchase her masters from Braun but that Ithaca Holdings would still profit off her old music for "many years . We will post further updates shortly to let you know just how we intend to use this ruling to ultimately prevail and force Swift to comply with the law. The fuel approximated for entire trip, is then subtracted from wat the load milage would pay, for the load/trip. Click here to read Plaintiffs Opposition to the Defendants Motion to Compel Arbitration. InMontalvo v. Swift Transportation Co. of AZ, LLC,andCalix v. Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.,the plaintiffs claimed that Swift and Central violated various California state laws for failing to pay drivers minimum wage for the time spent at Swifts and Centrals new hire orientation in California from July 12, 2007 to July 10, 2015.