In the motion, defendants Swift and IEL claimed that the arbitration clause which they inserted in the ICOA demands that the case go to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA). (15 Opinion Denying Mandamus.pdf 73KB). last edited on Thursday, March 11 2010 at 12:30pm, Posted on Friday, February 19 2010 at 1:08pm, Judge Berman also imposed the following case management plan directing that discovery begin in the case. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. SSI will also set up a settlement website to give important information about the case and provide forms to Class Members, including claims forms and change of address forms. US Supreme Court Denies Review Of AB5 Lawsuit ABC Test Now The Law of the Land. Swift allegedly made unlawful deductions from the drivers pay for truck lease payments, gas, equipment, maintenance, insurance, tolls and other expenses. (FINAL Letter Brief Opposing Transfer.pdf 70KB) Any truckers interested in seeing the 90 pages of exhibits that were attached to the Court filing should contact Getman Sweeney for a copy. That fuel amount is placed on fuel card (only for fuel!!!!). Swift is routing certain owner operator drivers to select terminals to meet with its lawyers. Each side will have 20 minutes to present their argument and respond to the Judges questions. Click here to read Plaintiffs opening Appeal Brief.Click here to read Defendants Response.Click here to read Plaintiffs Reply Brief. Plaintiffs Granted the Right to Appeal Posted on January 20, 2012. The Drivers believe that this appeal is entirely frivolous, as there is no right to appeal an interim decision of a District Court regarding how employee misclassification is to be determined. You should know that the conservative Supreme Court and previous conservative Congresses have, for the last two decades, increasingly made arbitration a priority for all employment and consumer cases, effectively allowing large and powerful companies the power to insulate themselves from lawsuits by cantankerous employees and consumers they have cheated. (187 p Reply in Support MOTION to Certify Class.pdf 78KB), Posted on Tuesday, July 20 2010 at 2:33pm. 2) a negative DAC report from Swift or IEL, or Its the main reason why I went LTL/union. Tennessee, Chatanooga. Defendants have already contacted the Courts chambers to request information from the Court on how to delay all briefing on the plaintiffs motion while defendants get their motion to send the case to arbitration ready, which is due by May 25, 2010. Do you know if there is a website i can go to file? What's so good about a company paying Owner Operators below the standards of Owner Operators. Due to the size of the class, it may take some time for class members to receive their notices. Loaner truck program based on availability 4. Swifts appeal does not dispute that the District Court reached the correct decisionthat the Plaintiff drivers are employees under the law. Swift claims it will be filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court asking it to reverse the Ninth Circuit. Now that the Arizona District Court has ruled against Swifts arbitration motion, and said that the case must remain in federal court, the next step after these appeals will be to revisit the class and collective action motions. 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. Pretty much that is all carriers none that I know actually pay you for the amount of miles you actually run hell on weeks where I do eventually put in a 3000 mile pay week I pretty much put in about 3300 to 3500 and we have to always log everything we do because of dot saying if we are away from home we are working so then they should start paying us for that. Protecting Claims Here From Ellis v. Swift Posted October 7, 2014. 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. All these companies are very reminiscent of the old coal mines and the fight that took place at Matewan. 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 . 1975 X $.90= $1777.00 The fuel for trip is calculated as being aprox $1056.63. Drivers Opposition to Swift Appeal Filed Posted August 28, 2017. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has set March 16, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. PST to hear oral arguments on Swifts appeal of the District Courts January 2017 ruling that this case cannot go to arbitration because the named-plaintiff drivers were/are employeesnot independent contractorsas a matter of law. That ruling was important for many reasons first, it prevented the case from being sent to arbitration, and second, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that drivers are employees as a matter of law. Better throw in interstate distributor Inc too. TheCourt adopted the drivers proposal. 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. And you wonder whats wrong with the industry ? ALSO, DRIVERS WHO HAVE CONTACT INFORMATION (SUCH AS NAME, TELEPHONE # OR ADDRESS) FOR FORMER MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES OF SWIFT AND IEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO CALL JANICE PICKERING OR KATHY WEISS TO GIVE CONTACT INFORMATION. Posted on Wednesday, March 9 2011 at 12:31pm. Although the case is venued in Arizona, the case was assigned to a Judge from Alaska, the Honorable John W. Sedwick. Your email address will not be published. While we are very disappointed in this ruling, which we consider to be completely incorrect, this is a very preliminary ruling which may also turn out to help us further down the road. Plaintiffs moved the Court to lift the stay in order to require Swift to provide names and contact information for all drivers who may be able to participate in this case, and the Court required Swift to provide this information by June 19th. Many drivers do not know why they owe money or they dispute the debt claim. FORMER employees are encouraged to call Getman & Sweeney and ask to speak with Dan Getman or Carol Richman. The court rejected that argument at docket 546 and then again at docket 605 after a detailed analysis of other Section 1 cases and applicable case law regarding employment classification. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Court must decide whether this case is arbitrable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or not before sending the case to arbitration. The lawsuit claims that Swift and IEL treated the truckers who leased trucks through IEL as independent contractors when they were really employees of Swift AS A MATTER OF LAW. In addition to filing its petition for mandamus, Swift also filed a notice of appeal from the same decision. Swift had also asked the Ninth Circuit and the District Court to stay proceedings while the appeal is pending. This secret removal of poor and middle income peoples legal rights has been accomplished far from the public limelight, as it is a technical issue that most people simply dont understand and dont pay attention to that is until it happens to them. 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. containers division, and I had to take a mandatory logbook class in Phoenix,AZ.after my class I asked for a load going back to CA. Click here to read Plaintiffs Response Brief. Since Levy and Vinson controlled the. Swift along with many other these major trucking companies short many drivers on pay they work for. Click here to read a copy of the petition for mandamus. The Ninth Circuits ruling was a critical decision in favor of the drivers, since it meant that the District Court must decide whether the ICOA/Lease constitute a contract of employment, and if the Court found the contract to be one of employment then the case would never go to arbitration. I make a lease payment Click here to read Plaintiffs Reply brief. CDL Grad, No Experience Also, the non-profit organization Public Justice filed aFriend of the Court brief in support of the drivers, to argue that the Federal Arbitration Act exempts all contracts of employment for workers in interstate transportation, no matter whether the worker is employed as a contractor or an employee. (69-2 Supplemental Memorandumn.pdf 133KB), Posted on Wednesday, March 31 2010 at 4:21pm. Under the law of contract, plaintiffs seek to declare the contracts void or voidable for unconscionability. Go to the Haas Bergman (spelling may be incorrect) website and checkout their lawsuits. Posted on Wednesday, March 31 2010 at 4:20pm. 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. . But we still make that weekly truck payment. The motion seeks to prevent Swift and IEL from 3 activities during the pendency of the case. Click here to review Swift and IELs response to our motion. . Swift Settlement Update Posted April 2, 2020. As long as we stay as individual drivers concerned abou ourselves we will continue to see this industry go down the tubes. If you have not received a notice within a week or so, please contact the claims administrator, Settlement Services, Incorporated (SSI), at 844-330-6991. They certainly lost this hand. We will post new updates as information becomes available. 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. inventory of Freightliner, Peterbilt, and International truck models. Significant documentary discovery was exchanged as well. Click here to review the 9th Circuits decision. 1589 and 1595, and to make various other claims in the case. Click here for decision. Plaintiffs have amended the complaint to raise claims under the federal Forced Labor statute, 18 U.S.C. Change), You are commenting using your Twitter account. This will effect the renta truck guys more than anything. Judge Requires Swift to Issue Corrective Notice Posted February 27, 2017, On February 24th, US District Judge Sedwick found that Swifts communication of a new contract was both misleading and coercive. The Court granted Plaintiffs request that Defendants send a curative notice for deceptive terms included in the new Contractor Agreement that it is requiring current lease operator contractors to sign. After all of the briefing is complete (by September 16, 2016), the Court will rule on the misclassification issue. Mr. Bell, Posted on Thursday, October 7 2010 at 9:38am. On February 23rd, we filed an opposition to the transfer of venue. .. ive yet to find a trucking Co. or broker who is hounst in the least. The drivers called for discovery and a trial; Swift said the Court should make a decision based solely on the contract and lease. Work for them a year like I did and see if you dont open your mouth about being underpaid. Please continue to check back here for further updates, and if any of your contact information changes, please call 844-330-6991 to update it. Does anyone have a number for the person to contact about the status, I am one of these drivers in the lawsuit against Swift, I was told to show proof of overtime worked by supplying my settlement for the nine years I was an owner operator with swift, three days ago Monday, 11 March, I was told that Swifts records show that I did not work the hours that I say I did and I have proof, so there for I will probably not be compensated , word True, I am going to just keep my fingers crossed and see what becomes of all of this, it has been about 10 years now in the making, will keep posted. Swift has filed its opposition to Plaintiffs motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Video Update About Status Of The Case Posted on January 25, 2012. On Friday, January 6th, the Court ruled in favor of the drivers with respect to arbitrationthe case will remain in federal court. This case was also handled by Martin & Bonnett, co-counsel for the drivers in this case. What goes around comes around and God does not like ugly. When plaintiffs win a pay case, the defendant must pay the plaintiffs costs and attorneys fees. And all of these costs will ultimately be borne by Swift if the arbitrator rules for Plaintiffs. The class action complaint alleged that the drivers were really employees of Swift and were misclassified as ICs. 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. Plaintiffs expect to argue that if Swift mis-treated the drivers as employees (while calling them independent contractors) drivers would be entitled to back pay for deductions, such as lease, insurance, tolls, gas, bonds, etc. However, the Courts ruling now indicates that the Court will seriously consider whether the District Judge erred in sending this case to arbitration. Mail may be slower than usual due to the COVID-19 situation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered that the District Court must determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies to the drivers in this case before deciding whether it must send the case to arbitration. We expect the checks will be mailed in mid-April 2020. You forgot Prime and Knight. 888-927-9914. No driver would go outside the company for a load for fear of severe backlash and devastating financial consequences.