SCHNEIDER V ELLISSCHNEIDER V ELLISPACHECO CONTEMPT HearingsSchneider's DOT/PAGA ViolationsPRIVATE ATTORNEY Gen. ACTWalter Ellis SCHNEIDER ComplaintTestimonialsContact UsLinksProduct DetailProduct Detail

 

RACIAL SLURS, OFFENSIVE RACIAL SPEECH, RACIAL JOKES AND RACIAL SYMBOLS, AT WORK

What sort of conduct may be illegal?

Offensive symbols, such as the noose, the confederate flag, Klu Klux Klan (KKK) hats or robes, Nazi paraphernalia, and other symbols of racist beliefs, are almost always illegal If you think you are being racially harassed at work, please email us any questions you have, call us at 888-369-1119, or fill out one of our forms online. Your consultation will be free and confidential. If you read our questionnaire below, and email us your answers, it will help us evaluate your case. the workplace.

http://www.joshuafriedmanesq.com/racial-slurs-and-racial-harassment.html?gclid=CJuY7Mb408YCFUGUfgodRLYCCw

posted on:  www.truckerscomplaint.com / https://twitter.com/TruckersComplnt   7/11/15 by Walter Ellis  uedcinc@aol.com  

 

Walter Ellis            Address COMMENTS to uedcinc@aol.com 

LAWSUITS against SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, Inc.

===============================================================================================================================  
 
 SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS LAWSUIT AFTER DRIVER FILED DOT COMPLAINT    

 

On 1/12/2009 Ellis filed a DOT complaint against SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIER, Inc...  In retaliation SCHNEIDER filed a MALICIOUS LAW SUIT

AGAINST Ellis, in the amount of $701,000.00.  Upon appealing Judge Pacheco’s decision the Appeal Court ruled against SCHNEIDER on

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, LIBEL PER SE; AND INFRIGEMENT AND DILUTION OF SERVICE MARK,  see: Appeal OPINON:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020140711040.xml/SCHNEIDER%20NATIONAL,%20INC.%20v.%20ELLIS

On 1/13/09 after filing a DOT Complaint,   LUKE took documents, including my log books in the Drivers lunch room. I was later injured (broken

rib, and knee injury) by BRANDON while attempting to escape from building. Luke later fired me stating," Walter you are being fired for log book violations and refusing a load on 1/12/09"                

On May 8, 2009 I was served by SCHNEIDER’S Attorney: David S. Binder Tharpe & Howell 15250 Ventura Bl.,    9th Floor,   Sherman Oaks, CA. 91403, TEL.: (818) 205-9955  

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, LIBEL PER SE; AND INFRIGEMENT AND DILUTION OF SERVICE MARK, UNLAWFUL RECORDINGS OF CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION (Penal Code 632) (SEE LINK ):  

SCHNEIDER v ELLIS MALICIOUS LAWSUIT click here to download file

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC. v. ELLIS No. G049501. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WALTER L. ELLIS, Defendant and Appellant.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three. Filed July 11, 2014.

Walter Ellis·30 videos... COMMENTS to uedcinc@aol.com

 



      

 Case4:08-cv-05806-JSW  Document97   Filed O4/25/11  Page2 of  5

 

 

 

        Attorney for Lien-Claimants, SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., and JEFF AMES

      

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN  DISTRICT  OF CALIFORNIA


        MORRIS BICKLEY,  MICHAEL D. PATTON, RAYMOND GREW,

         DENNIS VAN HORN;and     

         individually and on behalf of all                                                       

Plaintiff,

vs.

 

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, Inc.



NOTICE OF LIEN_REOUEST TO BE PLACED ON PROOF OF SERVICE  LIST FOR ALL PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY


          CARRIERS, INC., and DOES 1-

10, inclusive,

 

Defendants.

                                                                            

 


         SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation;

         

         Corporation; JEFF AMES,   Lien-Claimants,

                                               vs

WALTER L. ELLIS, and Does   1 through   10, inclusively,

                                  Plaintiff.

 NOTICE OF LIEN and REQUEST TO BE PLACED ON PROOF OF SERVICE LIST FOR ALL PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY Morris Bickley, et al. v. Schneider National

Carriers

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Case No. 08-CV-05806-JSW


     TO PLAINTIFF WALTER L. ELLIS AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: YOU, AND EACH OF YOU, ARE HEREBY NOTICED that SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC. and JEFF AMES hereby claim a lien of first priority upon any settlement or judgment rendered in favor of the Plaintiff for amounts payable pursuant to the following Orders for Discovery   Sanctions   in  the   amounts   of   $2,400.00   and   $7,876.50 (totaling $10,276.50) against WALTER L. ELLIS ("ELLIS") in the matter of Schneider National, Inc. et al. v. Ellis, Case Number CIVDS906308, which is pending before the State of California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino:



  lAW sUIT:  Schneider National Carriers, Inc. Regional Drivers

Date Filed: July 20, 2010 

Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California 

Case Number: 08-cv-05806   Key Attorney   Lee M. Gordon     lee@hbsslaw.com

Type of Case: Wage and Hour 
Company Name: 
Schneider National Carriers, Inc., a California-based regional drivers, represented by Hagens Berman, accused Schneider National Carriers Inc. of failing to pay all wages, mileage, and benefits required by state labor laws, see: http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/cases/snc-drivers

 

Complaint Review: Schneider National Carriers, Inc.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Schneider-National-CarriersInc/Green-Bay-Wisconsin-54306/Schneider-National-Schneider-National-CarriersInc-ripoff-avoid-schneider-at-all-cost-Do-80497#comment_161

 

Answer from:

 FMCSA Wisconsin Division Office

1 Point Place  Suite 101 /  Madison, Wisconsin 53719-2809

Phone: (608) 662-2010 Fax: (608) 829-7540

March 16, 2009 

To: Walter Ellis

33432 Hillcrest Ct
Wildomar CA 92595

Dear Mr. Ellis,

This is in response to your fax to our office concerning the safety practices of Schneider National Carriers Inc. The Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration is very much concerned with acts of noncompliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations

by motor carriers and their employees. Your comments have been noted and an investigation will be conducted regarding the safety

violations you allege. It may be necessary during this investigation for the safety specialist to contact you for additional information.

Your interest in motor carrier safety is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Mark G. Oesterle

Division Administrator 

 
 

 

                                                                       SCHNEIDER'S WAREHOUSE LAW SUIT
INTRODUCTION
This is a class collective, and reprehensive action brought under federal and California law by eight warehouse workers, and over 200 additional warehouse

workers who filed consents to sue pursuant to 29 U>S>C. 216(b), whom defendants have forced to work long hours, under oppressive workplace conditions, for

legal in adequate pay, in defendants' Inland Empire warehouses located in Eastvale (formerly Mira Loma), California ("the Mira Loma warehouse"), 

SCHNEIDER WAREHOUSE LAWSUIT / SCHNEIDER WAREHOUSELAWSUITDOC /2   / www.youtube.com/uaad23 /


MANY MORE LAW SUITS AGAINST.....SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS
Web Results       


DRIVERS COMPLAINTS AGAINST………………….  Thread: Schneider National Carriers - Green Bay, Wi. - The Truckers Report 
http://www.thetruckersreport.com/truckingindustryforum/report-a-bad-trucking-company-here/... 
I just finished my first 2weeks out in a team truck for 
Schneider. ... They are the ONLY training carrier that does not have complaints against


Ripoff Report | Schneider National Carriers,Inc | Complaint Review ... 
http://www.ripoffreport.com/driving-schools/schneider-national-c/schneider-national-schnei... 
Feb 15, 2004 ... Ripoff Report | Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported. ... Complaint Review: Schneider National Carriers,Inc ..... file against their competition, to only come back later to suggest their company…
 

California judge certifies class in case against
 Schneider National 
http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=24252 
Oct 5, 2012 ... Truck drivers' allegations that Schneider National Carriers Inc. ... attorney in the class action lawsuit against Schneider National
 in California.
penalties, costs, losses, claims, obligations, ... 


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-938 / 09-1813 Filed ... 
http://www.iowacourts.gov/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20110330/0-938.pdf 
Mar 30, 2011 ... In March 2004, 
Schneider National, Inc. was a truckload carrier and transportation ... Jones also brought suit against Schneider. National inc
 ...  

Robert Taylor v. Schneider National Carriers Inc et al    


Filed: March 4, 2011 as 5:2011cv00380 

Rebecca Hallmark v. Schneider National Carriers Inc et al


Filed: November 3, 2011 as 5:2011cv01749           


Jeffrey Cook v. Schneider National Carriers Inc et al


Filed: October 9, 2012 as 5:2012cv01733
Norman Jones v. Schneider National Carriers Inc et al 
  Filed: August 23, 2012 as 5:2012cv01421
Cheryl Duffus v. Schneider National Carriers Inc et al  


Filed: September 9, 2011 as 2:2011cv07445 
Sharifi vSchneider National Trucking Company et al 

  0/5/2012
California judge certifies class in case against Schneider National
By Clarissa Kell-Holland, Land Line staff writer
Truck drivers’ allegations that Schneider National Carriers Inc. short-changed them on meal and rest breaks, actual miles driven and detention

pay will be decided as a class in California, following a recent ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White.
“This is a huge victory on behalf of the plaintiffs because now they can collectively make these assertions and all of it can be decided in one

swoop by the judge,” Humphrey told Land Line Plaintiffs in the case allege that Schneider is instituting improper pay practices and fails to pay

drivers for every hour they work, instead paying them only “when the wheels are turning,” according

to Humphrey…….. http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=24252 
State Investigators, Workers Cite Labor Abuses in Warehouse ...


www.fairwarning.org › FairWarning Investigates    Cached


Mar 5, 2012 – The case, along with recent investigations by California labor officials ... Instead, the litigation is against the

operator of the three warehouses, Schneider National Inc., a company with annual revenue of more than $3 billion.
 
California-based regional drivers accuse SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS INC. of failing to pay all wages, mileage, and benefits required

by state labor laws……….

California-based regional drivers, represented by Hagens Berman, accused Schneider National Carriers Inc. of failing to pay all wages, mileage,

and benefits required by state labor laws.
U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White recently appointed attorneys from Hagens Berman to serve as lead counsel for the proposed class of

current and former regional drivers in the class-action lawsuit against Schneider National. Judge White also appointed the Marlin & Saltzman

firm to represent dedicated and intermodal drivers against Schneider National in a consolidated action with the regional drivers.
Schneider National drivers claim they were required to work long hours with few breaks and for pay that failed to adequately compensate them

for all wages due.If you are a current or former regional driver for Schneider National Carriers, Inc. after November 25, 2004, or have information

related to the lawsuit, please fill out this form, or e-mail Hagens Berman attorney Lee Gordon at Lee@hbsslaw.com This is topic Active suit against

SNI - Regional in forum The Driver's Lounge at To visit this topic, use this URL:  http://www.pumpkindriver.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=010788


 For additional information, see:   http://www.truckerscomplaint.com/id71.html


           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


OAKLAND DIVISION


MORRIS BICKLEY, MICHAEL D. PATTON,


RAYMOND GREWE, DENNIS VANHORN,


AND DOUGLAS PUMROY, individually and


on behalf of all others similarly situated,


MORRIS BICKLEY


v.


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC.,  a Nevada corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant.


Case No. 4:08-cv-05806-JSW


CLASS ACTION (FRCP 23)


PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REINSTATE STAY OF ACTION PENDING EXHAUSTION OF ALL


FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW IN


DILTS AND CAMPBELL CASES


Date: September 26, 2014


Time: 9:00 a.m.


Courtroom: 5


Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White


 


 


 


 



 lawsuits:  Schneider National Carriers, Inc. Regional Drivers   


date Filed: July 20, 2010 


Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California 


Case Number: 08-cv-05806   Key Attorney   Lee M. Gordon     lee@hbsslaw.com


Type of Case: Wage and Hour 
Company Name: Schneider National Carriers, Inc., a California-based regional drivers,


represented


by Hagens Berman, accused


Schneider National Carriers Inc. of failing to pay all wages, mileage, and benefits required


by state labor laws, see: http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/cases/snc-drivers


 WALTER L. ELLIS, Pro Se   E-mail: uedcinc@aol.com    
                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA                            


ALAN KRUMBINE, an individual, et. al.; on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

 

                     Plaintiffs,

          v.

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., a Nevada Corporation,

 

                     Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 10-CV-4565-GHK (JEMx)

 

OBJECTOR AND INTERVENOR WALTER ELLIS’S OBJECTIONS TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

 

 

Date:              August 5, 2013

Time:             8:30 a.m.

Ctrm:             650

Date Filed:     June 1, 2011

Judge:            Hon. George King

 

)

 


 


TO COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the Class Action Notice (“the Notice”) mailed to the class members in the above-entitled

action, objector and intervenor Walter L. Ellis (“Ellis”) hereby objects to the final approval of the class action settlement agreement

(“the Agreement”) on numerous grounds.


PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Ellis will appear and object to the final approval of the class action settlement at the class

action fairness hearing currently set to be heard on August 5, 2013.


PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Ellis intends to file a motion to intervene in this action pursuant to the Private

Attorneys General Act and he also intends to file a motion to decertify this class action.


 


Dated: June 24, 2013                                 By______________________________


                                                                                Walter L. Ellis, Pro Se


 


 


OBJECTIONS TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT


          Ellis hereby objects to the Agreement that was entered into in the above-entitled action between the plaintiffs, on the one hand,

and the defendants on the other hand. Ellis objects to the Agreement on the following grounds:


First, Ellis objects to the Agreement on the grounds that it does not appear to be fair or adequate. The evidence suggests that

there are hundreds of class members who are covered by the Agreement; however, the settlement amount is only $3,500,000

which suggests that the each class member will receive only a miniscule amount from the settlement. Defendants are very

profitable companies; wherefore, it does not appear that the punishment fits the crime in this instance. Ellis argues that the

settlement amount should be

sufficient enough to deter other companies from engaging in similar conduct.


Second, Ellis objects to the settlement on the grounds that this action should be expanded to include additional causes of action.

The evidence suggests that Defendants intentionally stole wages from Ellis and thousands of other aggrieved employees over a long

period of time; wherefore, Defendants should be held liable for their wrongful acts. Additionally, Ellis argues that Defendants have a

well-documented history of retaliating against employees who complain about their working conditions; wherefore, Ellis argues that

this

action should be expanded to include a cause of action for retaliation. Ellis further argues that this action should be expanded to

include causes of action for theft and conversion of labor, fraud and deceit, conspiracy to commit fraud, violation of the

Racketeer Influenced

Corrupt Organizations Act and violations of Labor Code sections 98.6, 216, 223, 232.5 and 1102.5.


Third, Ellis argues that the class should be expanded to include additional “aggrieved employees” pursuant to the PAG Act. In

and around 2004, the California Legislature signed into law the PAG Act which provides that an “aggrieved employee” can file a

lawsuit

against an employer for any violation of the Labor Code and the other “aggrieved employees” can then benefit from a judgment

entered against said employer. Ellis argues that this action should be expanded to include all “aggrieved employees” and applicants

who were affected

by

Defendants’ Labor Code violations throughout the State of California and not just the class as defined in this lawsuit.


Fourth, Ellis objects to the Agreement on the grounds that the release is overly broad. The Agreement requires that the class

members release claims that were never actually litigated in this action including, but not limited to, claims for race and

gender discrimination. Additionally, the Agreement requires that the named plaintiffs release their individual claims when said

claims were

never actually

litigated in this action. The named plaintiffs should not be punished for acting as class representatives. The Agreement specifically

states that the class members are required to release all claims that “were asserted or reasonably could have been asserted in this

Action”. Ellis argues that said language is overly broad and the Agreement should be revised to notify the class members that they

have a right to

pursue other claims against Defendants that were not explicitly released by the Agreement.


Fifth, Ellis objects to the Agreement on the grounds that the PAGA payment is insufficient and should be increased to $5,000,000.

The Agreement provides that the PAGA payment will not exceed five percent of the total settlement amount which Ellis

believes is insufficient to deter Defendants from further violating the Labor Code. Ellis argues that based on the facts alleged

in this complaint, the PAGA penalties

alone should be in excess of $25,000,000. The class attorneys have not sufficiently justified the enormous discount on the PAGA

penalties; wherefore, Ellis argues that this Court should not approve the Agreement because the PAGA payment is insufficient and

does not serve the

goal

and purpose of the PAGA statute.


Sixth, Ellis objects to the settlement on the grounds that the PAGA claims should not have been certified as a class action. The California Legislature

enacted the PAG Act for the benefit of all California workers and not just a certain “class” of workers. (See Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq.) Additionally,

the California Supreme Court ruled that a PAGA action is an enforcement action and need not be certified as a class action. (See Arias v. Superior Court

(Angelo Dairy), 46 Cal.4th 969, 209 P.3d 923, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 (2009).) Ellis further argues that class counsel cannot prove that a class action is superior

to a representative PAGA action; wherefore, Ellis argues that this Court should not approve the Agreement.


          Seventh, Ellis objects to the Agreement on the grounds that the attorneys’ fee award is excessive. The Agreement provides that the

class counsel will receive 33 percent of the gross settlement fund; however, the lack of complexity and the shortness of duration of this

litigation clearly do not warrant attorneys’ fees in excess of a million dollars. Additionally, lead attorneys Lee Gordon (“Gordon”) and

Daniel Chaleff (“Chaleff”) spent 1591 and 431 hours, respectively, litigating this action and their assistants only spent a fraction of said

time litigating this action. The evidence suggests that Gordon and Chaleff billed the class members for work that could have been performed

by lesser paid assistants thereby defrauding the class members out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees. Ellis argues that

this Court should not just “rubber stamp” the attorneys’ fee award requested in this action. This Court should require Gordon and Chaleff

to explain why they spent more time litigating this action than their assistants in clear contradiction to well-known law firm practices.


Eighth, Ellis objects to the Agreement on the grounds that the class members were not given an opportunity to conduct discovery

to determine the adequacy of the settlement that was reached in this action. The class members should be allowed to review

Defendants’ financial statements in order to determine if the settlement is fair and adequate. The parties have not adequately

explained why the settlement amount should not be considerably more. Ellis argues that he should be given permission to contact the

other class members to discuss the fairness of the Agreement without interference from the Defendants or from class counsel. Ninth,

Ellis objects to the Agreement on the grounds that there appears to be fraud and collusion between Plaintiffs’ counsel and

Defendants’ counsel. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel over $1,000,000 in attorneys’ fees; however, Plaintiffs’ counsel

failed

to ensure that the class members were adequately compensated for the injuries that they have sustained. Ellis hereby objects to the

award of attorneys’ fees in this action. Additionally, it appears that Plaintiffs’ attorneys and Defendants’ attorneys colluded with

each other to discount the PAGA claims without justification.


Finally, Ellis objects to the Agreement on the grounds that the class members should be given an opportunity to select different

class counsel to represent them in this action. Ellis has received credible evidence which suggests that the class counsel appointed in

this action have failed to adequately represent the class members in other class actions that they have participated in.


REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION


Should this Court approve the Agreement over Ellis’s objections, Ellis hereby requests that this Court grant him leave of Court to

file a complaint in intervention. Ellis argues that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with the Department of Fair

Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) wherefore he has standing

to pursue additional claims against Defendants. Ellis argues that thousands of current and former employees and applicants of

Defendants will likely benefit from this action should this Court grant his request for leave of Court to file a complaint in intervention.


Ellis further argues that Defendants will not be prejudiced should this Court grant his request for leave of Court to file a complaint

in intervention because Defendants have known about his claims for several years and have had ample to prepare a defense to said

claims. Ellis has reason to believe that Defendants continue to discriminate against African-American and women employees in

hirings, firings, pay, promotions and other terms and conditions of employment; wherefore, Ellis argues that he should be

granted permission to vindicate the rights of the many.


  


Dated: June 24, 2013                               By______________________________


                                                                              Walter L. Ellis, pro se   


LAWSUITS / COMPLAINTS CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES, Inc.
 

CENTRAL REFRIGERATED DOT, PAGA Violations_

CENTRAL'S COLLECTIVE & CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Defendants CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICE,
INC, (CRS) and CENTRAL LEASING, INC. (CLI) are private companies, owned and operated by related individuals (including JON ISAACSON and JERRY MOYES)                            
for a common business purpose, i.e. moving freight interstate for customers of CRS
.
(for more
information
click on links below)
 Female truck driver files gender discrimination lawsuit

setexasrecord.com/news/276244-female-truck-driver-files-gender-discriminate


 

 

Status Reports

Case Updates – Posted July 29, 2015

Collective Action
The discovery period tentatively concluded on July 3rd, however a few remaining pieces of discovery are still concluding. Nine drivers were deposed and Claimants had the opportunity to depose a number of witnesses from Central Refrigerated (see May 8, 2015 update below).

Although the discovery period is nearing conclusion, Central has the opportunity to depose one more driver who has opted into the case. Additionally, we will depose Jerry Moyes on July 30th, and will also depose a member of Central’s IT department as well as possibly one more witness.

Individual Arbitrations
We have just begun the initial steps for the over 300 individual arbitrations filed against Central so far. The first step is initial mandatory disclosures. Each case will then move into discovery (see explanation of discovery in September 2, 2014 update below). If you worked for Central within the past three years, feel you may have forced labor or fraud claims against Central, want to pursue those claims in an individual case against Central, and have not yet filed an individual case against Central, you can call us at 845-255-9370 to review your claims.

Discovery Updates – Posted May 8, 2015

The discovery deadline in the collective arbitration has been extended through July 3 to allow the parties additional time to exchange information and take a total of 20 depositions – 10 per side. Please see our post from September 2nd (below) for an explanation of this important phase of the case. In the coming weeks, we will depose the following people from Central Refrigerated: Jon Isaacson, Bill Baker, Butch Schmitt, Steve Pettit, and Nick Burbidge. Additionally, we will take depositions of the companies – Central Refrigerated and Central Leasing – through company representatives. We have noticed a deposition of Jerry Moyes but Central has disputed the deposition. Central asked Arbitrator Irvine to dismiss Moyes from the case and asked the Arbitrator to allow him not to sit for deposition. We have briefed the issue and are waiting on a decision on the Moyes deposition from the arbitrator. We are in the process of briefing various discovery issues. This case is now in high gear, and both Claimants and Defendants will be gathering and producing evidence through July 3rd, and briefing a flurry of motions related to discovery.

 

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION

 

SUPPLEMENTAL ARBITRATION FACTS AND CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF WALTER ELLIS

 

FACTS ADDITIONAL TO COMPLAINT

 

Fraud and Misrepresentation That Owner Operators Would Earn 15 to 43% More As Owner Operators.

 

1.              Through emails, Qualcomm messages, and through Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.’s (CRS) website, CRS and Central Leasing, Inc. (CLI) have regularly and repeatedly misrepresented to their “company driver” employees that they will earn much more as “owner operators” than they do as company drivers. CRS and CLI (collectively “Respondents”) have regularly misrepresented that owner operators will earn $15,000 more than company drivers. Respondents’ website states that “Upon becoming a lease operator, the driver’s average income will increase by nearly

$15,000 per year.” The website also states that “Company drivers average between

 

$35,000 to $40,000 in their first year of employment with Central Refrigerated.” Thus, the website promise of $15,000 more in increased earnings for owner operators is

 

1 All references to “Central Refrigerated Services, Inc.” in the District Court complaint refer to Respondent Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.

2  This supplements the facts and claims for relief raised in the District Court complaint

attached to the Demand for Arbitration.

equivalent to 37 to 43% more in pay. Respondents make similar promises in print advertisements and through other electronic communications with their company drivers.

2.              Respondents make such misrepresentations knowing they are false or make such misrepresentations recklessly, knowing that there is insufficient knowledge upon which to base such a representation, or make such misrepresentations without exercising reasonable care or competence in communicating the information to Owner Operators.

3.              Respondents make such misrepresentations to their company drivers in order to deceive them and induce them to become Owner Operators because Owner Operators are more profitable to Respondents than company drivers, as Respondents can then shift virtually all of their business expenses and business risk to the Owner Operators; coerce Owner Operators into remaining with CRS for years at a time under threat of serious financial harm, and avoid compliance with federal and state protections for employees, such as Title VII, FMLA, NLRA and wage protection statutes such as the FLSA and similar state laws. Respondents also evade the tax burdens that it would bear for employees – Social Security, FUTA, etc. – which are also shifted to Owner Operators.

4.              Company drivers, including Claimant, reasonably and justifiably relied on these representations by Respondents, having no reason to know that such representations were false, and signed contracts and leases with Respondents to become Owner Operators.

5.              Upon information and belief, the vast majority of Owner Operators, including Claimant did not earn 37 to 43 % more than company drivers (employees). Uponinformation and belief, nor do average earnings for owner operators amount to 37 to 43 percent more than earnings of company drivers. Upon information and belief, Respondents possess all financial data necessary to know that its representations concerning increased earnings are false.

6.              Owner Operators, including Claimant, suffered damages and financial losses including, inter alia, loss of wages and interest thereon, due to their reliance on Respondents’ false representations and their subsequent action of becoming Owner Operators.

Procedural and Substantive Unconscionability of the Lease and Employment Contract

 

7.              CRS and CLI presented Owner Operators, including Claimant with an integrated series of preprinted forms, including the Equipment Lease Agreement (“Lease”) and Contractor Agreement (“Contract”), referred to collectively as “Agreements,” to lease Owner Operators trucks owned by Respondents, and to purport to make Owner Operators independent “owner-operator” “business partners” of CRS.

8.              Owner Operators who signed a Lease with CLI were required to simultaneously sign a Contract with CRS. The CLI Lease and CRS Contract are part of a package that Owner Operators are required to sign in toto.

9.              CRS and CLI do not permit Owner Operators to take a copy of the Lease and Contract off the premises to review or show a lawyer prior to signing. Owner Operators are made to sign the Lease and Contract “then and there” on Respondents’ premises on a “take it or leave it” basis.

10.           In many cases, Owner Operators are made to review the Agreements at locations far from their home, with no practical way home, other than by signing the Agreements in order to lease the truck as a means of transportation.

11.           The Contracts allow CRS to terminate Owner Operators’ Contracts, with or without cause, on 10 days’ notice.

12.           Upon information and belief, CRS regularly terminates Owner Operators’ contracts without 10 days’ notice.

13.           The CLI Leases allows CLI to treat CRS’s termination of Owner Operators’ Contracts as a “default” by Owner Operators.

14.           If an Owner Operator is put in “default” by CRS, Respondents take possession of the truck, thereby depriving Owner Operators of their means of livelihood, and claim “liquidated damages” under a provision that guarantees all remaining Lease payments (which can be a hundred thousand dollars or more), including anticipated profits to CRS. This is so even though Respondents’ own unilateral conduct terminating the contract may have caused the “default.” The Lease allows for liquidated damages despite the fact that any actual losses to CLI are capable of determination and mitigation through re-leasing the truck, and that any losses are far less than Respondents unreasonable liquidated damages. Even more onerous to the Owner Operators is that, in addition to liquidated damages, the Lease provides for acceleration of all remaining Lease payments upon default or termination.

15.           Respondents sometimes demand that Owner Operators accept Respondents’ unilateral Contract modifications during the term of their Contracts. These Contract changes are invariably in favor of Respondents at Owner Operators’ expense. Respondents are able to obtain Owner Operators’ consent to these changes because

otherwise Respondents have the ability to terminate Owner Operators, effectively causing Owner Operators to be labeled as in “default” on their Leases.

16.           Although the Agreements allow for Owner Operators to terminate these contracts, Owner Operators are not free to do so, because terminating a Contract is also termed a “default” in the Lease, leading to severe financial and reputational consequences for Owner Operators.

17.           The Contracts permit unilateral modifications by Respondents, upon notice to Owner Operators.

18.           Furthermore, if Respondents characterize an Owner Operator as in “default” for any reason, Respondents report Owner Operators’ amounts due to credit reporting agencies (thereby impeding Owner Operators’ ability to work for other carriers) and report Owner Operators’ “default” to DAC (thus seriously impeding or denying their ability to obtain future employment).

19.           The Lease and Contract are unconscionable because, inter alia, they purport to allow Respondents to: (a) rescind the Lease and/or Contract whenever they want with all penalties flowing to Owner Operators; (b) unilaterally change the terms of the Lease and/or Contract since all penalties flow to Owner Operators if Owner Operators do not agree to the change, (c) immediately charge Owner Operators for all remaining lease payments upon what is termed a “default” by Owner Operators, even though the decision to end the lease is made by Respondents, and (d) because the Lease and/or Contract misclassify Claimant as an independent contractor.

Unjust Enrichment of Respondents by Claimant Due to Employee Misclassification

 

20.           Despite the characterization of Owner Operators as independent contractors, Respondents exercise virtually the same control over Owner Operators as they do over their employee drivers.

21.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but being misclassified as independent contractors, as they fulfilled the primary business in which Respondents engage and were controlled by Respondents but had to bear employment-related expenses and were not subject to all federal and state protections for employees. Respondents knew of these benefits, as they were the

creators and enforcers of the misclassification scheme. Finally, the acceptance of these benefits by Respondents caused Owner Operators to, inter alia, lose wages and incur negative settlements. Such circumstances make it inequitable for Respondents to retain the benefits of Owner Operators’ employment without paying them for the value of such employment conferred.

24.           The Contract between Owners Operators and Respondents is unenforceable for many reasons including, inter alia, unconscionability. Thus, Owner Operators, including Claimant, do not have an adequate remedy at law and are entitled to the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(FEDERAL COMMON LAW FRAUD CONCERNING MATERIAL ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT)

 

25.           Claimant re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding paragraphs, including those in the complaint filed in Cilluffo, et al v. Central Refrigerated, et al, Case No. ED CV 12-00886 VAP (OPx) (C.D. Cal.), which has been incorporated into Claimant’s arbitration demand.

26.           Respondents engaged in fraud by making (1) a false representation (2) in reference to a material fact (3) made with knowledge of its falsity (4) and with the intent to deceive.

27.                             Claimant took action in reliance upon the misrepresentation.

 

28.           Respondents’ fraud caused Claimant to suffer damages and financial losses including, inter alia loss of wages and interest thereon, and assuming debt and expense obligations inherent in the Respondents’ owner operator program.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(UTAH COMMON LAW FRAUD CONCERNING MATERIAL ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT)

 

29.           Claimant re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding paragraphs, including those in the complaint filed in Cilluffo, et al v. Central Refrigerated, et al, Case No. ED CV 12-00886 VAP (OPx) (C.D. Cal.), which has been incorporated into Claimant’s arbitration demand.

30.           Respondents engaged in fraud by (1) making a representation (2) concerning a presently existing material fact (3) which was false and (4) which Respondents either

(a)  knew to be false or (b) made recklessly, knowing that there was insufficient knowledge upon which to base such a representation, (5) for the purpose of inducing Claimant to act upon it.

31.           Claimant acted reasonably and in ignorance of their falsity, did in fact rely upon Respondents’ misrepresentations and was thereby induced to act to his/her injury and damage.

32.           Respondents’ fraud caused Claimant to suffer damages and financial losses including, inter alia, loss of wages and interest thereon, and assuming debt and expense obligations inherent in the Respondents’ owner operator program.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(UTAH COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CONCERNING MATERIAL ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT)

 

33.           Claimant re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding paragraphs, including those in the complaint filed in Cilluffo, et al v. Central Refrigerated, et al, Case No. ED CV 12-00886 VAP (OPx) (C.D. Cal.), which has been incorporated into Claimant’s arbitration demand.

34.           Respondents engaged in negligent representation by, in the course of their business, profession, or employment, or in any other transaction in which they had a pecuniary interest, supplying false information for the guidance of Claimant in his business transactions, and by failing to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information to Claimant and are subject to liability for pecuniary losses caused to Claimant by Claimant’s justifiable reliance on the representations.

35.           Respondents’ negligent misrepresentation caused Claimant to suffer damages and financial losses including, inter alia, loss of wages and interest thereon, and assuming debt and expense obligations inherent in the Respondents’ owner operator program.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(UTAH UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE LEASE AND EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT UNCONSCIONABILITY)

 

36.           Claimant re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding paragraphs, including those in the complaint filed in Cilluffo, et al v. Central Refrigerated, et al, Case No. ED CV 12-00886 VAP (OPx) (C.D. Cal.), which has been incorporated into Claimant’s arbitration demand.

37.           The Lease and Contract are unconscionable and thus unenforceable under the Utah Uniform Commercial Code, Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2a-108(3), as Claimant did not have a meaningful choice in the formation and signing of the Lease and Contract and the terms of the Lease and Contract are unreasonably favorable to Respondents.

38.           The Lease and Contract are unconscionable because, inter alia, they purport to allow Respondents to: (a) rescind the Lease and/or Contract whenever they want with all penalties flowing to Claimant; (b) unilaterally change the terms of the Lease and/or

Contract since all penalties flow to Claimant, and (c) immediately charge Claimant for all remaining lease payments upon “default” by Claimant.

39.           Respondents’ unconscionable Leases and Contracts caused Claimant to suffer damages, including but not limited to, loss of wages and interest thereon, and the assuming of debt and expense obligations inherent in the Respondents’ owner operator program.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(UTAH COMMON LAW UNJUST ENRICHMENT DUE TO EMPLOYEE MISCLASSIFICATION)

 

40.           Claimant re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding paragraphs, including those in the complaint filed in Cilluffo, et al v. Central Refrigerated, et al, Case No. ED CV 12-00886 VAP (OPx) (C.D. Cal.), which has been incorporated into Claimant’s arbitration demand.

41.           Respondents were unjustly enriched by Claimants as (1) Claimants conferred benefits on Respondents; (2) Respondents knew of the benefits; and (3) Respondents’ accepted and retained the benefits under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for Respondents to retain the benefits without payment of their value.

42.           Respondents’ unjust enrichment caused Claimant to suffer damages and financial losses including, inter alia, loss of wages and interest thereon, and assuming debt and expense obligations inherent in the Respondents’ owner operator program.

43.           Claimants are entitled to restitution of all benefits conferred upon Respondents, including but not limited to, the business expenses they were required by Respondents to bear, and for the fair value of the services they provided.

WHEREFORE, Claimant requests that the arbitrator enter an Order:

 

1.              With respect to the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims:

 

a.     Declaring that Respondents engaged in fraud and negligent misrepresentation;

b.     Granting judgment to Claimant for his/her damages, including but not limited to unpaid wages and interest;

c.     Granting judgment to Claimant for punitive damages against Respondents; and

d.     Awarding Claimant and his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit including expert fees and interest.

2.              With respect to the Uniform Commercial Code unconscionability claim:

 

a.     Declaring that the Lease and Contract are unconscionable;

 

b.     Fashioning appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to remedy Respondents’ violations of law, including but not necessarily limited to an order determining that the contract is void, or voidable, or alternatively severing any unconscionable clauses and enjoining Respondents from continuing their unlawful practices as described herein;

c.     Awarding statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, appropriate statutory penalties, and restitution to be paid by Respondents according to proof;

d.     Awarding Pre-judgment and Post-Judgment interest, as provided by law;

e.     Granting such other legal and equitable relief as the Court may


deem just and proper; and

 

f.      Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, including expert fees, interest, and costs.

3.              With respect to the unjust enrichment claim:

 

a.     Awarding compensatory and punitive damages, and restitution to be paid by Respondents according to proof;

b.     Awarding Pre-judgment and Post-Judgment interest, as provided by law;

c.     Granting such other legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper; and

Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, including expert fees, interest, and costs.

 

 

 

Dated: November 13, 2012

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Dan Getman Lesley Tse

Getman & Sweeney, PLLC 9 Paradies Lane

New Paltz, New York 12561 Telephone: (845) 255-9370

Fax: (845) 255-8649

Email: dgetman@getmansweeney.com

 

Susan Martin Daniel Bonnett Jennifer Kroll

Martin & Bonnett, PLLC

1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Telephone: (602) 240-6900

Fax: (602) 240-2345

smartin@martinbonnett.com


Edward Tuddenham 228 W. 137th St.

New York, New York 10030 Telephone: (212) 234-5953

Fax: 512-532-7780

etudden@prismnet.com

 

 

ATTORNEYS FOR CLAIMANT