the Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision in truckers favorruling that truckers engaged in interstate commerce are exempt from the FAA under Section 1, regardless of whether their contracts call them contractors or employees, Friend of the Court brief in support of the drivers, renew (883) their Collective Action Motion (105), Class Certification of a nationwide class of Lease Operators (884), Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Class Certification of a nationwide class of Lease Operators, You can read the full, 33-page decision here, Federal Judge Deals Swift Transportation Legal Setback Ruling finds trucking company improperly treated some of its drivers as contractors rather than employees. The Ninth Circuit has now decided that it does not need oral argument to decide the issue the Drivers presented on appeal, whether the District Court must decide whether Drivers are employees or contractors before it can send the class action filed against Swift to arbitration. Click here to read Plaintiffs Reply Brief. The lawsuit also detailed that. That is pure hogwash. And you wonder whats wrong with the industry ? Court Rules That Drivers are Employees! This is typical of complex cases such as this one. Swifts arbitration clause was found unenforceable when the district court judge ruled it was a contract of employment that is exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the Arizona Arbitration Act. Defendants have filed their opposition to the Plaintiffs motion to vacate the stay for arbitration. Talk about shopping at the company store. Scheduling Order Set By District Court Posted October 7, 2014. Drivers Opposition to Swift Appeal Filed Posted August 28, 2017. On November 6, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court erred by sending the case to arbitration. . Swift is worth a lot more than $250 million. On average, a lease-purchase driver will make around $80,000 annually. Lease Purchase Trucking: Pros, Cons, and Considerations No fixed expenses for 2 weeks ($1,038 - $1,538 Cash Savings on truck payment, insurance, escrow, etc,) 1 year lease: $2,000 completion bonus. I hope this gets the industry straightened out for the better. On March 3, 2011,Plaintiffs filed reply papers in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of our petition for mandamus directing the District Court to hear the question of employment status before sending the case to arbitration (8 Petitioners reply to answer to Writ of Mandamus petition.pdf 74KB). AART card - Amsterdam Forum - Tripadvisor On July 15th, 2015, Judge Sedwick granted the Drivers motion to compel discovery responses (see update dated August 18, 2015), ordering Swift to produce the requested documents, yet Swift has refused to comply with those requests. If you havent heard of consolidated freightways you havent been in the industry very little long. In response to Swifts unwillingness to cooperate in the discovery process, Drivers filed a Motion for Sanctions (Dkt 684) on September 22, 2015, including a request that the Court finds Swift in contempt of Court and to fine Swift each day until they comply with all outstanding discovery. (LogOut/ Work for them a year like I did and see if you dont open your mouth about being underpaid. 30 day Appeal Period ends Saturday, March 6th (this is the settlement effective date). Click here to review the Second Amended Complaint. Swift has filed its opposition to Plaintiffs motion for a Preliminary Injunction. I will probably not have anything close to 2k when I am forced to stop due to ill health. Please refer to a prior article where I discussed important elements that an arbitration agreement for independent contractors and employees should include. Plaintiffs will serve their reply letter brief to the Court by Wednesday, February 24, 2010. 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. Screwed again by swift, It just sounds like driving a truck is just not what it used to be and you cant make a good living at it anymore. Its disturbing that alot of workers side and defend big corporations that screw them over. It also means that the case should be back in full swing in the District Court after a long stay. The Wall Street Journalpublished an article on this decision on 1/12/2017:Federal Judge Deals Swift Transportation Legal Setback Ruling finds trucking company improperly treated some of its drivers as contractors rather than employees, Court Rules Drivers are Employees! The drivers attorneys have opposed this motion and filed anopposing briefarguing that the issue was already decided and that Swift failed to meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider. Response to Motion, 695 MOTION for Late Filing of Reply for Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions, REDACTED Montalvo v. Swift Final Objection to Settlement, 631 P. MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses1, 644 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Testify, 645 ORDER granting in part and denying in part, 665 P. RESPONSE in Opposition re 646 649 MOTIONS to Compel Discovery Responses and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of 7500, 671 RESPONSE in Opposition re 652 and 654 MOTION for Protective Order, 674 D. REPLY to Response to Motion 646 MOTION and 649 MOTION, 672 REPLY to Response to Motion re 644 MOTION to Compel Defendants, 3 Real Parties In Interests Opposition to Petition For Mandamus, 637 ORDER of USCA denying appellants motion for stay of district court, 631 P. MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, 634 Def Opp to Pls Motion to Compel Discovery1, 635 REPLY to Response to Motion re 631 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, 622 ORDER the court does not find the motion 612 is frivolous and that sanctions are warranted, 546 ORDER that the plaintiffs approach to what is required by the remand order is correct1, 605 ORDER denying Ds Motion to Determine Appropriate Standard, 546 ORDER that the plaintiffs approach to what is required by the remand order is correct, 566 D. MOTION to Stay Ds Motion to Determine Appropriate Standard1, 566 D. MOTION to Stay Ds Motion to Determine Appropriate Standard, 48 Memorandum in Support re 47 MOTION for Settlement objection, 57 STIPULATED ORDER re Stipulation of Settlement Agreement and Release and Claims, STC 321 ORDER that plaintiff's motion at [315] is GRANTED i(2), STC 300 P. Reply to Response to Motion re [277] Motion, STC 287 D Opp to Pl. I drove for swift now read all this glad I didnt. 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 Most other companies lease a truck at $750-$800 a week for older models or $1,100-$1,200 for new equipment. So, the drivers filed a motion in the District Courtto compel Swift to answer discovery. The Final Fairness Hearing has been scheduled for January 22, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. at the Federal Courthouse in Phoenix, AZ. Yet I would bet that this fat cat just like trumpet pays zero taxes. "We know that starting and running your own truck driving business can be risky . (ltr to Berman stamped 3.24.10.pdf 2MB), Posted on Wednesday, March 24 2010 at 4:14pm, Defendants have requested Judge Berman to give them permission to make a motion to dismiss the case in favor of arbitration. Taylor Swift Copyright Lawsuit May Go to Trial, Judge Rules On July 15th, the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs,ordering the Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests (Docket #645). Click here to review plaintiffs letter brief. 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. 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. Click here to read Swifts petition for certiorari. 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. My pay and deductions doing a lease purchase at Swift - YouTube Repair and tire replacement reserve of 1 cent per authorized dispatch mile (unused portion refunded at the end of the lease purchase agreement) 7. And to make matters worse, Judge Sedwick ruled in such a way that no appeal of his ruling is permitted, until after the arbitration occurs. The Ninth Circuit agreed to stay its decision but only for 90 days, giving Swift time to make another stay motion to the Supreme Court. 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. Two important decisions were rendered by the Ninth Circuit court of appeals with respect to FedEx drivers. November 16th Oral Argument: Video Feed Posted November 19, 2015. The Court has scheduled a final fairness hearing to consider the response of the class and whether to approve the settlement on January 22, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. at the Federal Courthouse in Phoenix, AZ. When Does AB5 and The ABC Test Apply to InterstateTrucking? Click here to read the brief filed with the Court. On January 15th, 2019, the Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision in truckers favorruling that truckers engaged in interstate commerce are exempt from the FAA under Section 1, regardless of whether their contracts call them contractors or employees. . Lease Purchase Trucking - Trucker Path (172 D Response to P Motion for PI.pdf 125KB) Drivers who have information contrary to the claims raised by Swift are urged to call Getman Sweeney and speak with Janice or Kathy. Taylor Swift's lawyers have said "It's on," effectively, to a Utah theme attraction, Evermore Park, that sued Swift earlier in February, alleging that her "Evermore Probably has a gambling problem. Swift Transportation and their Lease Purchase Plan Like PT Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute. TheCourt adopted the drivers proposal. All individuals who filed consents to sue in the case remain in the case in Arizona. Swift will likely try to appeal this decision, but we believe the courts ruling is correct and well-reasoned. On a run from say Seattle to Miami is close to 3500 miles. THE COURT HAS NOT YET RULED AND TAKES NO POSITION ON THE MERITS OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF. No one will get less than $250 (drivers with the shortest employment time). The parties are now ready to brief whether or not Lease Operators are employees or contractors for purposes of deciding whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies to the drivers or not so that the District Court can decide. I agree you always have some company people who say that is the way it and always will be and there is nothing you can do about it ,your a trucker and you are going to get screwed over so just accept it as hard work.I would like to see the trucking industry taken completely down and start over again and this time no phony mileage or percentage pay where you will never be payed for all you do but pay by the hour then you would see the delays and bad dispatching come to a halt. The settlement agreement was presented to U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick, who granted preliminary approval. Courthouse, 95 Seventh Street, Courtroom 4, San Francisco, CA 94103. Swifts Appeal of Judge Sedwicks Misclassification Ruling Posted June 15, 2017. Period end of story! While the lawyers believe the Courts decision is a good sign, we cannot be sure when the Circuit will make a decision on the case. (15 Opinion Denying Mandamus.pdf 73KB) It may take a short period for the parties and the District Court to work out the effect of the decision, however, Plaintiffs are optimistic however, given that the Ninth Circuit affirmed our legal position. 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. All checks will be mailed by USPS to the address the claims administrator (Settlement Services, Inc.) has on file for each class member; there is no direct deposit available for this settlement, and no one will ask you for credit card or checking account information in order to receive your settlement check. We have to much investment to just change jobs. 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. Swift Vows to Take Case to Supreme Court December 10, 2013. Thus, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Plaintiffs legal position that the law requires a Court to decide whether the owner operators are employees exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, but did not order the District Court to comply with that ruling. Court Decision Could Mean $250M+ For Current, Former Swift Drivers In order to argue against Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction barring Swift and IELs collections for the full amount of the remaining lease payments following their putting a driver in default status, Swift has filed a remarkable affidavit, stating that Defendants will demand the full remaining lease payments in its demand from drivers, but will not, in fact, seek all remaining payments. Swift will not go bankrupt. Finally someone had defined what independent means..thank you. Swift is appealing that decision, and we will fight their appeal. 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. If you are an affected class member and have not heard from us individually by early November, please contact the office for further advice concerning the Montalvo/Calix settlement. They are just hurting investors if anything. Hourly pay+cpm for all drivers!!! In addition, Plaintiffs havemoved to renewtheirCollective Action Motion, which is fully briefed by both sides, and have moved forClass Certification of a nationwide class of Lease Operators. Owner ops and leases are endangered always.Check your last settlement, Ther all crooks and back stabers not only swift its Prime inc to and Werner and look how arrow did there drivers money hungry bums. If you have not received your check within three weeks (by 5/4/2020), please contact SSI. last edited on Wednesday, February 9 2011 at 9:36am, Posted on Friday, December 10 2010 at 12:49pm. The case law supports Drivers view. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong ! See the post above dated Monday, August 2, 2010 for fuller information. Swift has also asked the court to stay all proceedings pending appeal. After that, drivers will have a month to reply to defendants response. That fuel amount is placed on fuel card (only for fuel!!!!). The attorneys are interested in speaking with FORMER driver managers and other FORMER Swift and IEL management (including recruiters for IEL) to learn the details of how Swift and IELs operations worked from the perspective of those inside the companies. Swift filed itsresponse. Swift is publicly owned. One has already made delivery. The Supreme Courts ruling, leaves standing a ruling by the Ninth Circuit which was favorable to the drivers, holding that the District Court cannot send the case to arbitration to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies. Get Started No Money Down In-House Financing Program Trailer Pool Business & Accounting Assistance You are entitled to file FLSA claims (using the Consent to Sue form) for the period extending back three years from the date you file the form. Posted on Wednesday, July 27 2011 at 2:43pm. The matter is fully briefed and we are awaiting the decision of the Court. The Drivers believe that other factors illustrate the relationship between Swift and the Drivers (Dkt 15-15257 21-1). Plaintiffs Move to Enjoin New 2017 Contract, Certify Class and Collective; Swift Moves to Stay Posted January 31, 2017. On July 25th, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their motion to lift the stay for arbitration. You all know you dont get paid for the miles you drive. Human still has to. We lease now and loads have dropped to almost no pay. Jury Rules In Favor Of Taylor Swift In Groping Lawsuit : NPR You must learn to Read the fine print. These companies know exactly how many miles it is dock to dock or address to address. (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.