This will effect the renta truck guys more than anything. The lawsuit claims that Swift misclassified truck drivers who leased trucks through the company as independent contractors, when in reality they acted like employees. Meanwhile, Swifts mandamus petition and appeal of the District Courts decision to hold a trial of employment status are pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After those papers are filed with the Court, the matter will await decision by the District Court. There are significantly greater costs to arbitration for both the Plaintiffs and Swift. We will update our website if the acquisition affects our litigation in any way. If any employee suffered retaliation, Swift and IEL would be liable for double the injury caused by retaliation against an employee. I dont care if your a company, owner op, independent contractor, or lease purchase driver, tenured driver or green. This is typical of complex cases such as this one. Click here to read Plaintiffs Response Brief. For several years, And the California Labor Board (known formally as the Dept. The Drivers have moved torenew (883) their Collective Action Motion (105), which is fully briefed by both sides, and have moved forClass Certification of a nationwide class of Lease Operators (884). All the addendums in subsequent pages spell out that you are clearly not an employee. Merrill is now the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Denver, alleging that Pathway and CFI acted as "joint employers" of the lease drivers, mis-classifying them as. Warren transport would not let you take a load that didnt come from their dispatch. Posted on Wednesday, July 27 2011 at 2:35pm. The argument will be handled by Edward Tuddenham for the Plaintiffs. Click here to review defendants letter brief. 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. 108, 884 P. Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, 885 P. MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, 862 ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING SJ TO PLAINTIFFS, 689 DECLARATION of Robert Mussig re Docket 688D. We will post more information as it becomes available. Among other things, it prevents employees from having access to much of the internal company documents that can be necessary to win their claims. Swift has said that the contract must be signed by March 1st, 2017, and is retroactive to January 1st, 2017. Merger or Take Over? Swift has filed its opposition to Plaintiffs motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Click here to review the Parrish affidavit. Click here to read Plaintiffs Reply brief. The months where I was on the road actually working, The miles they pay me doesnt match the miles I drove. After trip, drivers do not get wat is left of that fuel $$, paid to them. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Either way, you operate as a sort of owner-operator leased to company equipment. (LogOut/ It is worth noting however that the lawsuit that Judge Sedwick ruled on only concerns 5 specific drivers. Please select the number of verifiable months youve been driving professionally using your Class A CDL within the last 3 years. One, these organizations have lobbied the government for years to institute regulations that prevent drivers from making money (so they cant branch out on their own) and to push the small fleets and individual truckers out by making costs to operate unsustainable for small organizations. The parties filed competing proposals for how the issue should be decided. During the legal battle, Swift argued that drivers could choose to refuse loads, or take loads from other companies. When plaintiffs win a pay case, the defendant must pay the plaintiffs costs and attorneys fees. 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. I need tbe money. First, Plaintiffs ask the Court to forbid Swift from taking collections measures (including negative DAC reports) on any driver deemed to be in default. Second, Plaintiffs ask the Court to forbid Swift from requiring drivers to agree to contract changes under threat of being put in default.Click here to read the brief in support of Plaintiffs PI motion. I was paid for 3000. Beware of western express, will rob you blind. 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. Here's the PayPal info: https://www.paypal.me/truckertodd806 Here's the Cash App $cashtag:$truckertodd806My Venmo is:@truckertodd806Link for the Mudflap app to save on fuel: https://www.mudflapinc.com/truckertodd They only put his name on lease papers..but my money pays truck payment the same as his. The Qualcomm message with the notice shall be sent on three consecutive days, starting February 27, 2017. Why you waited until they stab you? Edited: 3:39 pm, February 28, 2023. Swift replied to Plaintiffs response to their motions to compel discovery (674) on August 14th. 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. But because of the way the lease is set up we cant go anywhere to make up the money loss. Well read it BUT, pay a lawyer and then sit down and have him explain it to you. If the District Court determines that drivers are employees, the case cannot be sent to arbitration and will remain in federal court. My lease with Landstar states in bold print that I am not a Landstar employee. In the meantime, the Ninth Circuit stay means that our case cannot proceed until these issues are resolved by the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, August 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit notified us that we are on the Courts schedule for oral argument on November 4, 2013. (287 D Opp to Pl. We also seek to stop any negative reporting to DAC or DriverFACTS. Repair and tire replacement reserve of 1 cent per authorized dispatch mile (unused portion refunded at the end of the lease purchase agreement) 7. Swift is publicly owned. As is the case with any Class Action lawsuit, the settlement is subject to approval by the court. To date, Defendants attorneys have refused to cooperate. . When your on title as leese you have skin in the game. The Settlement Notice was mailed August 16, 2019. Lease purchase Lease Operator (Former Employee) - Cedar Rapids, IA - November 16, 2021 This is a great company to lease purchase a truck with, you have to be able to plan your own loads and not wait for a dispatcher. I think as long as you own the truck and your name is on the title also you should be fine. 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. In order for you to receive the best possible offers, please make sure your answers above are accurate prior to submitting. If you have not heard from us individually by mid-September, please contact the office for further advice concerning how to handle claims in the Ellis case. Elizabeth Parrish has filed an affidavit stating that a lessee [in default] is responsible only for costs incurred by IEL in preparing the truck for re-lease, and any lease payments missed prior to the re-lease or sale of the truck. See Paragraph 9. or less. Click here to read Plaintiffs Opposition to the Defendants Motion to Compel Arbitration. The rest will be awarded an amount commensurate with their own employment time. A Transportation Law Blog from TransportationAttorneys.NET. Generally claims can be made at least for the three years preceding the date the complaint was filed. Mega-carrier Swift Transportation has just lost a pivotal court decision in a lawsuit brought against it by five former owner-operators at the company over their employment classification. The decisioncould possibly have huge ramifications for up to 15,000 former Swift drivers, and even owner-operators with other companies. The drivers called for discovery and a trial; Swift said the Court should make a decision based solely on the contract and lease. While the appeal moves slowly, we have every reason to be optimistic about a favorable outcome. The companies insist they cant tell what the miles are accurately. A tentative settlement was reached between the parties which called for each owner operator to receive $50 in settlement of these claims. Swift has now filed its appeal brief with the Ninth Circuit. We expect the checks will be mailed in mid-April 2020. But unlike his competitors, he doesnt have his nuts in one basket. Not to worry though, I am confident Swift will appeal and the Judge Sedwicks ruling will be overturned. . After that, drivers will have a month to reply to defendants response. The Settlement Notice is scheduled to be mailed today, August 16, 2019. Posted on Thursday, February 11 2010 at 4:26pm. The claims administrator, Settlement Services, Inc., will begin mailing out settlement checks within ten days after the funding of the QSFMonday, April 6. Hop on hop off bus 5:12 am. If the drivers are employees, the case cannot be sent to arbitration. The appeal was fully briefed seven months ago on May 1st, 2012. Newly minted billionaire getting a salary of 200,000 per month?! Defendants are also directed to send a copy of the notice via first class mail to those same drivers. We need to come together as one united group. Many drivers are also being pressured by their Driver Managers/Driver Leaders to sign, and it appears that the DMs/DLs are similarly being pressured to push their LOs to sign. The parties now have a short period of time to conduct discovery prior to a trial by the District Court on this critical issue. Click here to read the Court of Appeals ruling. In September, Swift requested Plaintiffs attorneys to engage in the first settlement mediationthis is the first movement toward settlement negotiation since the case was filed. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. It is not just Swift that is on the hook! Click here to review Swift and IELs response to our motion. Two important decisions were rendered by the Ninth Circuit court of appeals with respect to FedEx drivers. Plaintiffs ask the Court to find that the lease and ICOA are unconscionable as a matter of law and that Swift misclassifies owner operators as independent contractors, instead of treating them as employees as the law requires. I wasnt talking about my training months. The issue of whether drivers were treated by Swift as employees is now moving closer to resolution. On February 23rd, we filed an opposition to the transfer of venue. Aside from the fact that I dont have to deal with load boards. Plaintiffs pointed out that the claims arise primarily from the Lease or under both clauses, and since the clauses conflict, they must legally be considered against the party who drafted them. Just like the ones who claim to use household movers guide although they dont haul household goods. Once the objection was filed, the Court called all the lawyers together and an acceptable stipulation was filed. The plaintiffs class action lawyers have defeated certain arbitration agreements and successfully argued to the courts that they are unenforceable for a number of reasons including the FAA exemption, poor choice of law, and poor drafting of the arbitration agreement. The motion asks the Court to rule that Plaintiffs are likely to win the case on the issue that the Lease/ICOA is unconscionable. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that the ability of Swift to fire owner operator drivers for any reason or no reason, to then declare this firing as a default by the driver, to take repossession of the truck and still demand all payments that would have been due, even though the driver no longer has the truck, are so unfair as to be unconscionable under the law.