HomePACHECO CONTEMPT HearingsSchneider's DOT/PAGA ViolationsPRIVATE ATTORNEY Gen. ACTWalter Ellis SCHNEIDER ComplaintTestimonialsContact UsLinksProduct Detail
 

 Ruling rebuffs Wal-Mart

 

A judge keeps the giant retailer in a lawsuit by Inland distribution workers alleging improper labor practices

      STAFF WRITER   jkatzanek@pe.com   

 

A federal judge has denied Wal-Mart’s request to be removed from a lawsuit filed by Inland Southern California distribution workers. The decision means that it is now likely the world’s largest retailer will have to answer workers’ allegations in open court.

 Judge Christina Snyder, in a ruling issued Tuesday, Jan.14, decided that Wal-Mart will remain a defendant in a case filed by workers more than two years ago. The lawsuit alleged a wide pattern of wage-and hour violations at an Eastvale distribution center that supplies goods to its stores.

 The judge also ruled that Schneider Logistics, the company that was the primary operator of the Hamner Avenue warehouse, must also remain a defendant in the suit. Both companies sought summary judgments that would have effectively ended their involvement with the case.   For more information, see:

 

 

 SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS / DOT,PAGA,Law Suits & ViolationsCENTRAL Refrigerated Services DOT, Law Suits PAGA Violations_

 Why do most judges accept 170.6 ccp and Judge John Pacheco refused to do so?

  Section 170.6 provides…..

Section 170.6 provides that no judge shall try any action or special proceeding when it is established by an affidavit that he is prejudiced against a party or attorney so that the party or attorney cannot, or believes he cannot, have a fair and impartial trial before such judge. Facts showing prejudice need not be alleged or proved, and, where a timely motion to disqualify is made, supported by an affidavit alleging prejudice, the case or matter, without any further act or proof, must be assigned to another judge for trial or hearing.

170.3.  (a) (1) If a judge determines himself or herself to be disqualified, the judge shall notify the presiding judge of the court of his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the proceeding, except as provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her disqualification is waived by the parties as provided in subdivision (b).

 

 After filing a timely 170.6 against Judge Pacheco on or about April 2010, this judge for no known reason took my case against my objection and ruled against me on various motions. After SCHNEIDER'S Attorney, David Binder, filed numerous malicious prosecution motions before this judge, I was sued for $700,000+ for failing to take Schneider's name and drivers name off of http://www.truckerscomplaint.com/id70.html

Documents below will show transcripts of court hearings held by Judge Frangie (an apparent fair judge), and John M. Pacheco (an apparent bias judge).

 

 

         

 

 
Case CIVDS906308 - SCHNEIDER NATIONAL -V- ELLIS

TRANSCRIPTHEARING12262013JUDGEPACHECO

 

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC. WAS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA SLAPP Law,see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]

The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.
The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims.

SCHNIEDER’S purpose in filing a law suit against me was to force me to drop the workman compensation claim from the injury I received 1/13/09. 
===============================================================================================

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

 

09/24/2013

149  

ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 146 filed by Walter L. Ellis CCA # 13-56665. A review of the docket reflects that appellant has not paid the docketing and filing fees for this appeal. Within 21 days from the date of this order, appellant   shall: (1) file a motion with this court to proceed in forma pau peris; (2) pay$455.00 to the district court as the docketing and filing fees for this appeal and provide proof of payment to this court; or (3) otherwise show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See the document for all of the details. Order received in this district on 9/24/2013. (dmap) (Entered: 09/24/2013)

09/23/2013

148  

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 13-56665 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 146 . (dmap) (Entered: 09/24/2013)

09/23/2013

147  

FILING FEE LETTER issued as to Objector Walter L. Ellis re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 146 . (dmap) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

09/20/2013

146  

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Objector Walter L. Ellis. Appeal of Judgment 145 . Filed On: 08/21/2013; Entered On: 08/21/2013; Filing fee $ 455 billed. (dmap) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

 

 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   

 

CENTRAL / SWIFT TRUCKERS COMPLAINTS  /  THESE RACIST BASTARDS JUSTICE FOR BLACKS DRIVING WHILE BLACK

  Wrong Miles S. Mittelstadt? Associate General Counsel

Schneider National Inc

Background / Employment History

Attorney

Schneider National Inc http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/
profile/
person?personId=123397231&targetid=profile

Web References

DAVID (Wellis) VS GOLIATH (SCHNEIDER NATIOAL)........whyTRUCKERS
Need to ORGANIZE........
www.truckerscomplaint.com
11 Dec 2011 [cached]

Miles S. Mittelstadt Associate General Counsel Schneider

National, Inc. SCHNEIDER'S HARRASSMENT for filing a DOT

Complaint.  This is your final chance to stop your false

allegations, leave us alone, and to cease sending your

e-mails to anyone in the Schneider organization other than

me. Your failure to cease such harassment will result in our

legal action against you. Govern yourself accordingly.

Miles S. Mittelstadt, Associate General Counsel /Schneider National,

mittelstadtm@schneider.com  

 http://www.ripoffreport.com/trucking-companies/
schneider-
national-i/schneider-national-inc-noti-5e684.htm


In the lawsuit Bickley v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc.,

drivers also allege they are not being compensated for all

of the miles they drive. The company’s pay system is based

 on the household Movers Guide software system, which

pays drivers ZIP code to ZIP code.
http://www.kendalllawgroup.com/news/disability-

discrimination-lawsuit-

filed-against-schneider-national-carriers-inc/

“For example, they may only be compensated for 500 miles

when in actuality they drove 700 miles,” Humphrey said.

“The drivers are not being accurately compensated for those

 additional 200 miles they drove. The DOT logs that the

drivers have to fill out require that they record their actual

miles driven, regardless of what the HHMG says they should

be paid for.”

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=24252 
This ruling is both procedurally and substantively significant.

Procedurally, Bickley adds to the growing body of authority
demonstrating that the rigorous analysis mandated by the

U.S. Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision did not
effectively end class actions, as many had predicted. Sub-

stantively, the Bickley decision applies the California Sup-

reme Court’s Brinker v. Super. Ct., issued just this past spring.

 http://www.impactlitigation.com/2012/10/01/bickley-v-

schneider
-federal-court-certifies-meal-and-rest-break-class/


                                                                                                                                                  CENTRAL REFRIGERATED  SERVICES' Law suits

Arbitrator Irvine Issues Significant Order – Posted December 10, 2013

Arbitrator (and former Judge) Patrick Irvine issued a VERY significant ruling in this case on December 9th. Judge Irvine held that he was bound to follow the terms set by the District Court to conduct this arbitration on a “collective basis.” Central wanted the Arbitrator to rule that each case had to be separately filed and had argued that the District Court’s order that the case be arbitrated as a collective action could be reconsidered by the arbitrator, since the question was one for an arbitrator to decide. This case now goes forward as a group arbitration. Even more importantly, however, Judge Irvine decided that he agreed with the District Judge’s decision that the case should be heard “collectively.” This extra explanation means that once this case is concluded, Central Refrigerated will be unable to appeal the District Judge’s decision on collective arbitration. The net effect of this ruling is that years of potential delay through later appeals by Central have now been prevented. In addition to this ruling, Judge Irvine agreed with the Drivers and held that the Employment Rules (not the Commercial Rules) will apply to this case and that therefore Central will be required to pay all fees and costs of the arbitration to the extent that the case is brought by drivers who operated only a single truck.

This decision follows hundreds of pages of briefing by both sides. The next step in this case should be a motion concerning the issuance of a Notice to all owner operators explaining the case. 

http://getmansweeney.com/current-cases/central-refrigerated-forced-labor-minimum-wage

                                                  CENTRAL REFRIGERATED  SERVICES' Law suits

Status Reports

AAA Begins Arbitrator Selection for 200 the Individual Arbitrations Filed, Briefing in Collective Arbitration – Posted October 24, 2013

The AAA has begun the selection process for the individual arbitrations. The AAA is sending panels of 5 different arbitrators for the parties to reject or select, for 25 arbitrations per week, roughly in the order in which the arbitrations were filed. The lawyers will have 2-3 weeks to select or reject. Also, the 200th individual arbitration has now been filed as drivers bring claims that Central misled them to become owner operators by falsely claiming they would make substantially more as owner operators. The individual arbitrations allege that Central operated a scheme intended to coerce them into remaining as drivers for Central, under threat of massive debt and negative credit and DAC reports, if they “default” on their leases by leaving the company.

In the collective case against Central alleging that the company failed to pay owner operators the minimum wage (through deducting lease, gas, tolls, insurance, etc. from their pay and because of all the negative settlements they receive), the parties have now filed many hundreds of pages of briefing to the arbitrator, on issues such as what rules apply to the arbitration, whether the arbitrator is required to follow the instructions of the District Court and what fees apply to the case. Click here to read the drivers’ first brief on these topics. Central filed four briefs consisting of hundreds of pages, seeking to have the arbitrator revisit questions which the District Court resolved. Click here to read the drivers’ second, brief in response to Central’s brief. One more set of reply briefs by both sides will be filed in three weeks.

See:  http://www.truckerscomplaint.com/truckers.compl-centralref/

 

Judge rebukes warehouse operator  
Schneider Logistics, which runs an Eastvale distribution center, used "deceptive" tactics with workers in reacting to a lawsuit

  BY JACK KATZANEK

   STAFF WRITER   jkatzanek@pe.com  

     A federal judge has ruled that Schneider Logistics used “deceptive” and “coercive” tactics when it questioned employees and asked them to sign statements about facts relating to a lawsuit against the operators of the Eastvale distribution center.  

   The suit, filed last March by three workers at the Hamner Avenue distribution center, alleges that Green Bay, Wis.-based Schneider Logistics violated several California workplace laws, including failure to follow overtime, meal and rest break provisions, violations of state law on providing itemized wage statements and other infractions.

   According to court records, about three weeks after the suit was filed, Schneider Logistics managers began calling employees off the floor for private meetings with company officials and their attorneys   . The workers were told these interviews were voluntary and part of the company’s fact-finding regarding the lawsuit, but at the end of the meetings employees were asked to sign declarations prepared by the company’s legal team.

   In an opinion released Monday, March 25, U.S. District Court Judge Christina A. Snyder said that these meetings were “fundamentally misleading and deceptive” because the signed statements that Schneider Logistics was seeking could be used against the plaintiffs in court. That is a factor that distribution center employees, most of   whom have limited education, would likely not have understood.

   Lauren Teukolsky, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said 40 of these declarations were signed on April 5, 2012, the first day. Workers were either paged over the warehouse’s loudspeakers or escorted off the floor to the office by a manager, two methods she said are usually intimidating to a worker.

   In all, 106 declarations were signed and collected over the course of a week.

   Teukolsky, an attorney with the Pasadena-based firm Traber &     Voorhees, said Schneider had concealed the declarations from her firm until recently, and she called Schneider’s move a “Happy Camper” tactic.

   She said she believes the company would eventually have presented the employees’ declarations in court when the plaintiffs sought class-action status, in an effort to prove that workers had not been mistreated.

   “Had we done nothing, we believe Schneider would have used this to limit our chances for class certification,” Teukolsky said.

   The judge ruled that Schneider must get the court’s permission before it communicates with any of   the plaintiffs or potential class members, and that the court will disregard the 106 signed declarations.

   Janet Bonkowski, Schneider’s public relations manager, said the company accepts the court’s interpretation and added that the judge obviously   believes that depositions are the best method for gathering information.

   Teukolsky said her firm expects to be deposing Schneider managers in the coming months and hopes to be seeking class-action status in the fall.  

 

 

A federal judge has ruled that Schneider Logistics used “deceptive” and “coercive” tactics when it questioned employees and asked them to sign statements about facts relating to a lawsuit against the operators of the Eastvale distribution center.  

 

   The suit, filed last March by three workers at the Hamner Avenue distribution center, alleges that Green Bay, Wis.-based Schneider Logistics violated several California workplace laws, including failure to follow overtime, meal and rest break provisions, violations of state law on providing itemized wage statements and other infractions.

 

   According to court records, about three weeks after the suit was filed, Schneider Logistics managers began calling employees off the floor for private meetings with company officials and their attorneys   . The workers were told these interviews were voluntary and part of the company’s fact-finding regarding the lawsuit, but at the end of the meetings employees were asked to sign declarations prepared by the company’s legal team.

 

   In an opinion released Monday, March 25, U.S. District Court Judge Christina A. Snyder said that these meetings were “fundamentally misleading and deceptive” because the signed statements that Schneider Logistics was seeking could be used against the plaintiffs in court. That is a factor that distribution center employees, most of   whom have limited education, would likely not have understood.

 

   Lauren Teukolsky, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said 40 of these declarations were signed on April 5, 2012, the first day. Workers were either paged over the warehouse’s loudspeakers or escorted off the floor to the office by a manager, two methods she said are usually intimidating to a worker.

 

   In all, 106 declarations were signed and collected over the course of a week.

 

   Teukolsky, an attorney with the Pasadena-based firm Traber &     Voorhees, said Schneider had concealed the declarations from her firm until recently, and she called Schneider’s move a “Happy Camper” tactic.

 

   She said she believes the company would eventually have presented the employees’ declarations in court when the plaintiffs sought class-action status, in an effort to prove that workers had not been mistreated.

 

   “Had we done nothing, we believe Schneider would have used this to limit our chances for class certification,” Teukolsky said.

 

   The judge ruled that Schneider must get the court’s permission before it communicates with any of   the plaintiffs or potential class members, and that the court will disregard the 106 signed declarations.

 

   Janet Bonkowski, Schneider’s public relations manager, said the company accepts the court’s interpretation and added that the judge obviously   believes that depositions are the best method for gathering information.

 

   Teukolsky said her firm expects to be deposing Schneider managers in the coming months and hopes to be seeking class-action status in the fall.  

   http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/PressEnterprise/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=UFNFLzIwMTMvMDMvMjk.&pageno=OTA.&entity=QXIwOTAwMA..&view=ZW50aX

========================================================================================================

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CA

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS TRANSLOADING AND DISTRIBUTION, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

[Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Partial Summary Judgment; Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and

Conclusions of Law; Declarations of Lupe Del Gado, Scott Larson, Michael Pickens and Alec Hillbo; Compendium of Evidence; and [Proposed] Order]

Hearing Date: November 4, 2013

 

EVERARDO CARRILLO; FERNANDO CHAVEZ; ERIC FLORES; JOSE MARTINEZ ARCEO; BALTAZAR ZAVALA; and JUAN CHAVEZ, for themselves and all others similarly situated and the general public,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS, INC.; SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS TRANSLOADING AND DISTRIBUTION, INC.; PREMIER WAREHOUSING VENTURES, LLC;

ROGERS-PREMIER UNLOADING SERVICES, LLC; IMPACT LOGISTICS, INC., and DOES 1-15,

Defendants.

Case No. CV 11-08557 CAS (DTBx)

 

Case 2:11-cv-08557-CAS-DTB Document 430-1 Filed 08/30/13 Page 1 of 27 Page ID

#:9898

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CAIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION

Case No. CV 11-08557 CAS (DTBx)

SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS TRANSLOADING AND DISTRIBUTION, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing Date: November 4, 2013

 

TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Defendant Schneider Logistics Transloading and Distribution, Inc. hereby submits the following Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and supporting evidence in support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED MATERIAL FACTS

AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

 

STATEMENT OF CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Plaintiffs’ claims against SLTD fail as a matter of law because Plaintiffs

cannot establish that SLTD is a joint employer with Impact under California law.

Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (2010); Futrell v. Payday Cal., Inc., 190

Cal.App.4th 419 (2010).

2. Plaintiffs’ claims against SLTD fail as a matter of law because Plaintiffs

cannot establish that SLTD is a joint employer with Impact under Fair Labor

Standards Act. Bonnette v. California Health and Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465

(9th Cir. 1983); Moreau v. Air France, 356 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2004); Maddock v. KB

Homes, Inc., 631 F.Supp.2d 1226 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

3. Plaintiffs’ claims against SLTD fail as a matter of law because Plaintiffs

cannot establish that SLTD is a joint employer with Premier under California law.

Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (2010); Futrell v. Payday Cal., Inc., 190

Cal.App.4th 419 (2010).

4. Plaintiffs’ claims against SLTD fail as a matter of law because Plaintiffs

cannot establish that SLTD is a joint employer with Premier under the Fair Labor

Standards Act. Bonnette v. California Health and Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465

(9th Cir. 1983); Moreau v. Air France, 356 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2004); Maddock v. KB Homes, Inc., 631 F.Supp.2d 1226 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

DATED: August 30, 2013 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK

& STEWART, P.C.  By: /s/ Douglas J. Farmer  Attorneys for Defendant SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS TRANSLOADING AND DISTRIBUTION, INC.

Case 2:11-cv-08557-CAS-DTB Document 430-1 Filed 08/30/13 Page 27 of 27 Page ID

#:9924
============================================================

 

06/27/2013

128  

OBJECTOR AND INTERVENOR RANDALL PITTMEN'S NOTICE OF JOINDER TO WALTER ELLIS'S OBJECTIONS TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 117 filed by Intervenor Randall Pittman.(shb) (Entered: 07/01/2013)

 

INTRODUCTION

          On June 24, 2013, Objector and Intervenor Walter Ellis (“Ellis”) filed his objections to the class action settlement agreement (“the Agreement”) that was entered into between, the Plaintiffs on the one hand and, the Defendants on the other hand, in this action. On July 3, 2013, this Court issued an order (“the Order”) requiring Ellis to file a supplemental brief indicating his dates of employment with Defendants.

In reply to the Order, Ellis argues that he should be granted permission to intervene in this action for three reasons. First, Ellis argues that a PAGA action is an enforcement action and not a class action.

 

III.     LEGAL Argument:       A PAGA Action is an Enforcement Action and Not a Class Action

          Defendants contend that Ellis has no standing to object to the Agreement based on the fact that Ellis is not a class member in this action based on the fact that he never worked for Defendants as a mechanic. Ellis concedes that during the relevant time period he worked for Defendants as a truck driver and not as a mechanic; however, because this is a PAGA action Ellis argues that he has standing to intervene in this action on behalf of the LWDA. The California Supreme Court has ruled that a PAGA action is in the nature of an enforcement action and is not a class action. (See Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 975 (2009).) The PAGA was adopted to empower aggrieved employees to act as private attorneys general and to authorize them to seek civil penalties for Labor Code violations that previously could be assessed only by state agencies. (Dunlap v. Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330, 336).

   The Class Members Will be Prejudiced Should Ellis be Denied the Right to Intervene in This Action

          Ellis argues that the class members in this action will be prejudiced should this Court deny him the right to intervene in this action. Ellis has objected to the Agreement for the purpose of increasing the amount of wages paid to the class members and to increase the amount of the PAGA penalties allocated to the LWDA. Ellis argues that the class members will benefit from an increased PAGA payment based on the fact that the LWDA will use said funds for the benefit of all California workers. The PAGA statute provides that 75 percent of PAGA penalties collected by an “aggrieved employee” must be paid to the LWDA. (See Labor Code § 2699(i))

          Ellis further argues that by intervening in this action he is not requesting that the conceded wages owed to the class members be delayed; however, he is requesting that this Court not approve the PAGA penalties and the attorneys’ fees requested in this action. Under California law, an employer must pay an employee any conceded wages owed and without condition. (See Labor Code Labor Code § 206.5) The evidence suggests that class counsel and Defendants counsel have colluded with each other to enter a settlement agreement that only benefits them. The attorneys fees requested in this action are clearly not warranted.

Ellis further argues that by intervening in this action he is not requesting that the conceded wages owed to the class members be delayed; however, he is requesting that this Court not approve the PAGA penalties and the attorneys’ fees requested in this action. Under California law, an employer must pay an employee any conceded wages owed and without condition. (See Labor Code Labor Code § 206.5) The evidence suggests that class counsel and Defendants counsel have colluded with each other to enter a settlement agreement that only benefits them. The attorneys fees requested in this action are clearly not warranted. In

determining what fees are reasonable, a district court may consider a lawyer’s misconduct, which affects the value of the lawyer’s services. (See Image Technical, 136 F.3d at 1358. A court has broad equitable power to deny attorneys’ fees (or to require an attorney to disgorge fees already received) when an attorney represents clients with conflicting interests. (See Silbiger v. Prudence Bonds Corp., 180 F.2d 917, 920 (2d Cir. 1950).) This Court should allow Ellis and Pittman to shine a light on the fraud that was committed in this action thereby protecting the unnamed class members from imminent harm.

 IV.    CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Ellis respectfully requests that this Court accept his objections to the Agreement and grant him permission to intervene in this action pursuant to the PAG Act.  Dated: July 13, 2013      Walter L. Ellis, Pro Se   

 

How I as an AFRICAN AMERICAN am treated by
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL  CARRIERS, INC                                                

 
I am a Litigant in Pro-Se being sued by SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS,
INC.
for accusations I posted DEFAMATORY statements on my web
sites
.  
DEFENDANT, IN MITIGATION, ARGUED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW
 EXACTLY WHAT MATERIAL PLAINTIFF CONSIDERS DEROGATORY.
.
 /  CENTRAL REFRGERATED / SWIFT TRUCKING COMPLAINTS
  /
THESE RACIST BASTARDS   /    http://justiceforblacks.blogspot.com/
========================================================

      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

      
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Defendants:
 Lee Gordon 
         
Attorneys Present for Defendants: Douglas J Farmer

 

 Proceedings:

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Class Action
 Settlement as falling within the Range of Possible Approval (Filed 2/15/13, Doc.
 # 117)
The case is called. Counsel are present. Also present is Objector
 Walter Ellis.
 The Court addresses Objector Walter Ellis and advises him that he is premature
as to his objection. The Court advises counsel that the motion will be GRANTED.
Counsel shall email a Word or WordPerfect version the Revised Notice and
 Proposed Order to the Clerk by the close of business today.
IT IS SO ORDERED
 http://www.truckerscomplaint.com/id15.html                                 
http://schneiderdotviolations.blogspot.com/                                           
 

 

10/5/2012
California judge certifies class in case against
Schneider National
By Clarissa Kell-Holland
, Land Line staff writerTruck 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

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

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
 

 

                               Schneider National Carriers Inc,CEO Corp. Greed Hog Chris Loudgrunt                                    

(Ripoff Report web article)

Oct 14, 2011 ... Schneider Tries to Hide the Ball in Litigation ... Recently, in a pending case I have
 against

 
Schneider National Carriers ,    

 CEO & Corporate Greed Hog Chris Loudgrunt stole the 401k retirement money from 
his employees then used the stolen monies to build a 32,000 square foot mansion in 
Green Bay, a home in Naples FL and a home in the
Cayman Islands
where he declared
residency cause he is a taxhole  who don't want to pay his fair share of
taxes in the USA 
This despicable creature has no soul and looks at the money of his employees
 as some thing  he should steal and Schitter National as his personal piggy bank
, see:
 
 http://www.ripoffreport.com/schneider-national-c/trucking-companies/green-bay-wisconsin-f6

Feb 28, 2013  Schneider National Carriers Inc
 Schitter National CEO& Corporate Ripoff Report Complaints
Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported against
[Schneider
] ... 

CENTRAL / SWIFT TRUCKERS COMPLAINTS / THESE RACIST BASTARDS / JUSTICE FOR BLACKS

DRIVING WHILE BLACK