Court Sets Argument on Temporary Restraining Order and Stay Posted February 6, 2017. Taylor Swift has told a federal court that she wrote all of the lyrics to her 2014 hit "Shake It Off," and said she had never heard of the group 3LW or their 2001 song "Playas Gon' Play" before a . http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000007482. 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. First, Plaintiffs ask the Court to forbid Swift from taking collections measures (including negative DAC reports) on any driver deemed to be in default. Second, Plaintiffs ask the Court to forbid Swift from requiring drivers to agree to contract changes under threat of being put in default.Click here to read the brief in support of Plaintiffs PI motion. The lawsuit also claimed that since. Posted on Friday, February 12 2010 at 2:09pm. 6-11 Months Plaintiffs request to enjoin Defendants from engaging in future contact with putative class members regarding matters in this suit is denied as unnecessarily restrictive., IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL SWIFT CONTRACTORS REGARDING THE NEW ICOA. The court has asked Plaintiffs to respond no later than February 10, 2017. Taylor Swift beat a lawsuit by a Manhattan real estate broker -- who claimed the pop superstar refused to pay her a $1.08 million commission for the purchase of her Tribeca townhouse -- because . 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. Flatbeds, tarp, chain and strap. 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 . PR Newswire. public transport to Haarlem. Im working for a company now who, think theyre going to continue with their illegal b.s. has nothing to do with this case, the proposed release language could have been viewed as prohibiting the forced labor and unconscionability claims involving Swift and Centrals misuse of the DAC Report. SSI will also set up a settlement website to give important information about the case and provide forms to Class Members, including claims forms and change of address forms. We will update this webpage as the situation develops further. Plaintiffs moved for collective action back in May of 2010 but this process was stopped in the summer of 2010 by Swifts Motion to Compel Arbitration. Some info here. Hope the fallout doesnt effect the rest of us, leased to other companies, too severely. Click here to review the complaint in this case. Click here to read Plaintiffs Reply Brief. [The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals] requires the [Arizona District] court to look at the economic realities of the parties working relationship and not just the contract at issue or the parties subjective intent. Not unless you paid off the truck. They only put his name on lease papers..but my money pays truck payment the same as his. You know what this means?! With that .90 each load/trip first has the miles calculated empty/loaded to pick up-delivery. Below are links to additional resources for drivers. Optional emergency fund 5. Please also send us a copy of your letter. Following a hearing held in Phoenix, AZ on April 18th, Judge Sedwick granted preliminary approval to the Settlement on April 22nd. The 9th Circuit live-streams oral arguments, and archives them for viewing afterward. The Supreme Court gets approximately 7,000 requests to hear cases each year, but hears only one to two percent. petition for a writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant a response. (billing dispute form.pdf 6KB) If you wish to send your own letter or are not a plaintiff in this case, please make sure you send the letter by certified mail, return receipt requested. Now well find out how to go from here to a final resolution.. in Collinge.v.Intelliquick finding drivers very similar to Swift drivers to be employees as a matter of law, Opposition to Swifts Petition For Mandamus, denied Swifts motion to delay the proceedings, Click here to review the Courts Decision, a schedule for determining a critical issue in this case, Click here to review the stipulation and Order, Click here to read Swifts petition for certiorari. Click here to see the Order Granting Preliminary Approval. While the Ninth Circuit may take as long as it wishes, either to schedule oral argument or to decide the appeal without argument, we believe there is a good chance we will be scheduled for oral argument during the Courts November calendar. The matter is fully briefed and we are awaiting the decision of the Court. Until then, we wait. The parties continue to wait for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether District Judge Sedwick erred by sending this case to arbitration without deciding first whether the Plaintiffs are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act. Talk about shopping at the company store. Swift allegedly made unlawful deductions from the drivers pay for truck lease payments, gas, equipment, maintenance, insurance, tolls and other expenses. I work for them 11 years ago and I knew something was Fowl in Phoenix. On July 15th, the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs,ordering the Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests (Docket #645). Many drivers are also being pressured by their Driver Managers/Driver Leaders to sign, and it appears that the DMs/DLs are similarly being pressured to push their LOs to sign. One has already made delivery. Plaintiffs pointed out that the claims arise primarily from the Lease or under both clauses, and since the clauses conflict, they must legally be considered against the party who drafted them. THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURT IN VAN DUSEN. Video Update About Status Of The Case Posted on January 25, 2012. Who Has The Best Lease Purchase Program In The Trucking Industry Updated on January 3, 2023 Owner Operators Leasing a truck and becoming your own boss is a dream that many truckers have. Judge Sedwick was considering three motions, Plaintiffs motion for permission to mail a collective action motion to all owner operators, Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, and Defendants motion to move the case to arbitration. However, greedy lawyers and judges tend to think alike. Shortly thereafter, Swift moved the Court to reconsider this order. The class action complaint alleged that the drivers were really employees of Swift and were misclassified as ICs. I make a lease payment If you have not received a notice within a week or so, please contact the claims administrator, Settlement Services, Incorporated (SSI), at 844-330-6991. One possible negative outcome from the decision is that this might really push the trucking outfits toward the driverless truck technology, but of course, most have probably starting thinking that way already. Recognizing that the 9th Circuits opinion suggests that a District Judge and not an arbitrator must determine if the drivers in this case are employees, but disagreeing with that finding, Judge Sedwick has certified an appeal to the 9th Circuit on the question of whether the case can be sent to an arbitrator. Preliminary approval means that the Court has reviewed the settlement and considers it to be fair and reasonable at this stage. Posted on Monday, April 12 2010 at 4:22pm. Ripoff Report Needs Your Help! Here's the band's information: The Brothers Roberson:This is why I do this https://thebrothersroberson.bandcamp.com/album/why-i-do-this-singleMy email: truckertodd806@gmail.com Instagram:Trucker_Todd_806If you would like to make a donation to the channel via PayPal, it would be greatly appreciated. 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. For the same reasons set forth in detail at docket 605, the court rejects Defendants arguments once again. The company provides truck drivers with well-maintained equipment, affordable weekly payments as low as $405 and a 12-36-month lease. Click here to read Defendants Response Brief. COMPUTER DRIVEN TRUCKS.WHATS LOGICAL BEHIND IT.A HUGE SHORTAGE OF DRIVERS.NOT FOR ME.COMPUTERS SHORT CIRCUIT AND CAN BE HACKED INTO BY MOSCOW. Other grounds for unconscionability include the imposition of liquidated damages and the mischaracterization of employees as independent contractors. Merger or Take Over? They have alot of great music, check them out. Swift will not go bankrupt. Itis yet to be determined how much each driver will receive in compensation and Swift is currently appealing the decision. Despite numerous decisions to the contrary from Judge Sedwick, Swift continues to argue that the question of whether this case should go to arbitration (and, by extension, whether Drivers are Independent Contractors or Employees) hinges only on the evidence from the Contractor Agreements, and not from any other source of information (Dkt 15-15257 16-1). Click here to review the defendants papers. If you have not received your check within three weeks (by 5/4/2020), please contact SSI. Posted on Tuesday, June 29 2010 at 11:33am, Plaintiffs have renewed their motion for a preliminary injunction in this case. Because the Federal Arbitration Act (under which the Court sent the case to arbitration), does not apply to contracts of employment of workers in interstate transportation (such as truck drivers), the Circuit Court held that the District Court cannot send our case to arbitration until it has determined whether the drivers are employees. Pretty soon theyll tell you we pay as the crow flies. Also, the non-profit organization Public Justice filed aFriend of the Court brief in support of the drivers, to argue that the Federal Arbitration Act exempts all contracts of employment for workers in interstate transportation, no matter whether the worker is employed as a contractor or an employee. If you are already a plaintiff in this case, you may call us if you wish us to send the letter on your behalf. Oct 22, 2022 - Lease Operator in Springfield, MO Recommend CEO Approval Business Outlook Pros Easy to work with , lots of freight all the time, safety is priority, real nice terminals. So far Swift opposes this motion. Since Levy and Vinson controlled the. Getman Sweeney would like to speak with any participants in the meetings who would care to discuss what occurs. In the meantime, we await Judge Sedwicks decision on the Drivers most recent motion for sanctions. Driver may have concerved fuel enough where, of that $1056.63, he saved $100+ dollars on the trip. Click here to read Plaintiffs Reply brief. If the drivers are employees, the case cannot be sent to arbitration. The timeline for a decision is uncertain. It is important that you keep your contact information up to date with SSI so that your settlement payment is sent to the correct address. Plaintiffs expect that the District Courts order of January 6, 2017 will almost certainly be summarily affirmed and Swifts appeal will be dismissed. Swift Vows to Take Case to Supreme Court December 10, 2013. Once the appeal is fully briefed the court may or may not assign a date for oral argument. and also be entitled to minimum wage for each week of work, as well as a variety of other damages. .. ive yet to find a trucking Co. or broker who is hounst in the least. Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport. 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. The effect of these twin doctrines has been that employees and consumers are shunted into a forum favorable to the companies that support them and they are barred from taking action collectively. Ill gladly take whatever I get from this. 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. New Prime v. Oliveira Affirmed! Judge Sedwick denied Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. While positions were discussed, no resolution was reached at that time and no further on-going discussions are currently planned. . There accidents prove thats not the case, give them enough rope maybe they will hang themselves. Plaintiffs objected, noting that the Lease agreement requires that claims be heard in Court. The court rejected that argument at docket 546 and then again at docket 605 after a detailed analysis of other Section 1 cases and applicable case law regarding employment classification. (15 Opinion Denying Mandamus.pdf 73KB). If you are being billed for the full amount of remaining lease payments, download and attach the declaration of Ms. Parrish in that post which states that IEL does not actually collect full remaining lease payments. Although such writs are sparingly granted, Plaintiffs believe there are strong grounds for the 9th Circuit to hear the issue at this time. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong ! On March 3, 2010, defendants filed their reply papers asking Judge Berman to transfer the case to Arizona. Each side will have 20 minutes to present their argument and respond to the Judges questions. They will be what they claim to want to be. By checking this box and clicking the "Send me job offers" button below, I represent that I: By checking this box and clicking the "Send me job offers" button below. We will continue to see longer days on the road with less pay. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the Court may only send a case to arbitration if either the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), or the Arizona Arbitration Act (AAA) applies. Section 1 of the FAA exempts from arbitration contracts of employment of . Under the law of contract, plaintiffs seek to declare the contracts void or voidable for unconscionability. Swift is worth a lot more than $250 million. Also, the Federal Arbitration Act and the Arizona Arbitration Act bar enforcement of arbitration for employees in interstate transportation. We understand there may be some concern and confusion regarding interpretation of certain provisions of the new ICOA issued on January 9, 2017, and the effect of those provisions on your rights in ongoing legal proceedings, including the lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona, titled Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation Company Inc. We are sending this message to clarify that the new ICOA will not interfere with your rights to participate or recover monetary relief in ongoing court proceedings in existence on January 9, 2017. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. of Industrial Relations) has generally agreed with the plaintiffs. Western express is next in line for a audit in cheating thousands of drivers out of wages and home time. The appeal was fully briefed seven months ago on May 1st, 2012. On April 5th, Judge Berman transferred venue in the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. #3 Lease purchase is bad! Perhaps this is whats behind Moyes stepping down, though dont worry that hes going to be hurting, considering his 200k a month golden parachute. Hell do just fine. Click here to review the Parrish affidavit. A lot of owner/ops lease on with other companies. Significant documentary discovery was exchanged as well. Its disturbing that alot of workers side and defend big corporations that screw them over. Please let Janice Pickering know, in advance if possible, if you might be stopping by and we can pick you up at the toll plaza. I struggle to make ends meet and pay my taxes each and every year which is yet another struggle. We will update our website if the acquisition affects our litigation in any way. We are hopeful that the Court will affirm our position and reverse the District Court, since the Circuit already ruled that Plaintiffs were correct on this precise question in its prior ruling on the mandamus petition. 3) a negative credit report from Swift or IEL, or Technically if there is a lawsuit nothing can be exchanged paper or title to a company. We need to use platforms such as this and others to come together. The fuel approximated for entire trip, is then subtracted from wat the load milage would pay, for the load/trip. 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. There are significantly greater costs to arbitration for both the Plaintiffs and Swift. Click here to review the arbitration decision. The indemnification provision in Paragraph 17(E) will not require you to pay the Companys attorneys fees or expenses for any claims you bring or which are brought on your behalf in the Van Dusen lawsuit. I dont believe none of this. I hope they get drug tested too. But unlike his competitors, he doesnt have his nuts in one basket. Hourly pay+cpm for all drivers!!! Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit refused to grant the mandamus petition and order the District Court to reverse the prior decision sending the case to arbitration. Plaintiffs continue to believe that the issue was wrongly decided, contrary to every decision to have considered the issue, and thus are today presenting the issue to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a petition for mandamus. Drivers Opposition to Swift Appeal Filed Posted August 28, 2017. Im darned curious in regards to what 21 years of catch up back pay might look like. Click here to review the defendants papers. It also means that the case should be back in full swing in the District Court after a long stay. The ruling came just a few days after Swift Transportation founder (and newly minted billionaire) Jerry Moyes stepped down as CEO of the company. The motion seeks to prevent Swift and IEL from 3 activities during the pendency of the case. Because the release language in the settlement could be taken to mean that Owner Ops give up claims which are being raised in this case: such as whether Swift engaged in Forced Labor by using the DAC Report to force drivers to continue to work for Swift, Getman Sweeney is extremely concerned that settlement is not in any Owner-Operators interest. 3 Years Here's the PayPal info: https://www.paypal.me/truckertodd806 Here's the Cash App $cashtag:$truckertodd806My Venmo is:@truckertodd806Link for the Mudflap app to save on fuel: https://www.mudflapinc.com/truckertodd They will be dead and buried by the time this gets paid as if it ever will. Stating $.90 cpm. We expect the checks will be mailed in mid-April 2020. We now await the decision of the Ninth Circuit. The Swift Transportation settlement is on schedule, and we do not anticipate any delays. On July 21st, the Court extended Plaintiffs deadline to file reply papers on the motion to August 3, 2010. last edited on Friday, July 23 2010 at 3:17pm. The reason for this is because most of them pay from zip code to zip code only. Then do a check on their Swift lawsuit update. Your getting ripped off. meanwhile this creep has that every single month. Im sure Swift was astonished that their arbitration agreement was rejected. This tactic was fully expected. A tentative settlement was reached between the parties which called for each owner operator to receive $50 in settlement of these claims. Swift Settlement Update Posted March 12, 2020. While scheduling conferences are not generally attended by clients and at times can be short and uninteresting, any truckers who are interested in this case are welcome to be present. Click here to review the District Courts certification order. The Ninth Circuit yesterday gave Plaintiffs good news when it ruled that the petition for a writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant a response. (LogOut/ You may be part of the class action if the Court later certifies the case as a class action. However, certain claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act are not covered in the case until your Consent to Sue Form is returned to the plaintiffs attorneys and then filed with the Court. Swift Settlement Update Posted February 5, 2020. Although we hoped Judge Berman would keep the case, venue transfer motions are easy ones for defendants to win. Posted on Wednesday, March 9 2011 at 12:31pm. If you delay in filing the Consent to Sue Form, part or all of your claim may be barred by the statute of limitation.. No big company is going to pay you for each & Every actual mile you drive. Past and present truckers driving for Swift as owner operators anywhere in the U.S. may be included in this lawsuit. (2.22 Def Letter Reply re Venue.pdf 354KB) The matter now sits with Judge Berman. I hope this gets the industry straightened out for the better. The Settlement Notice is scheduled to be mailed today, August 16, 2019. If you have your CDL and want to be an Owner/Operator, check out these great programs. Settlement Services, Inc. (SSI) Claims Administrator: 844-330-6991, Filing/Postmark Deadline for Disputes as to Calculations: October 15, 2019, Swift Settlement Update Posted August 16, 2019. Objectionto the proposed Ellis class settlement. Your own authority is the correct answer. Click here to review the 9th Circuits decision. Trucking and transport services : Us xpress. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. On August 6, 2013, Swift Transportation Company acquired Central Refrigerated Transportation, Inc. in a transaction valued at $225 million. The case in the district court will continue on the same schedule the judge set, and at the same time, both parties will argue the appeals. 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. Posted on Thursday, October 7 2010 at 9:38am. Click here to review Defendants Letter Brief requesting transfer of the case to Arizona. Judge Sedwick denied Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration(229 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS denying Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration.pdf 13KB). Sick humor. I drove for swift now read all this glad I didnt. For several years, And the California Labor Board (known formally as the Dept. 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. Plaintiffs also argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and the defendants had waived the argument through their litigation tactics. Plaintiffs continue to try to work this process out with the AAA. Motions to Compel, Motions for Sanctions, and Appeals Posted October 27, 2015. Click here to review the arbitration decision. 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. Well read it BUT, pay a lawyer and then sit down and have him explain it to you. . Why you waited until they stab you? SETTLEMENT SERVICES, INC. (SSI), at 844-330-6991. 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. The initial scheduling conference has been set by Judge Berman for February 17, 2010 at 9 am in courtroom 21B of the U.S. District Court, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007-1312. FORMER employees are encouraged to call Getman & Sweeney and ask to speak with Dan Getman or Carol Richman. November 16th Oral Argument: Video Feed Posted November 19, 2015. The decision could possibly have huge ramifications for up to 15,000 former Swift drivers, and even owner-operators with other companies. Posted on Thursday, March 11 2010 at 10:01am. If you receive a letter informing you that you owe a debt, and you dispute this debt, you should know that under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, you may send the bill collector a letter that you dispute the debt. Swift has also asked the court to stay all proceedings pending appeal. 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. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Court must decide whether this case is arbitrable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or not before sending the case to arbitration. According to court documents, Swift Transportation is agreeing to pay $7.25 million. The class action complaint alleged that the drivers were really employees of Swift and were misclassified as ICs. Class actions allow employees to work together to gather evidence, and reduce costs by spreading the costs over a much larger group. Would stop companies from taking advantage of drivers and paying them a measly $70 for a 240 mile load which actually took 12 hours of work to pick up and deliver. It is a small step in accountability. Plaintiffs also made a motion to add two additional named representatives. Employees with a truck payment, and they will deserve it. Swifts appeal does not dispute that the District Court reached the correct decisionthat the Plaintiff drivers are employees under the law. To Protect Claims in This Case, Plaintiffs Have Objected to Settlement in Montalvo v. Swift and Calix v. Central Refrigerated Posted October 2, 2015. . Even practical miles are off by 10%. On January 22nd,the Court denied Swifts motionagain deciding that a trial on the issue of whether the drivers are employees is required by the Ninth Circuit and that the trial would consider evidence of Swifts practices outside those identified in the contract and lease themselves. Accordingly, Plaintiffs lawyers in this case were required to submit anObjectionto the proposed Montalvo/Calix class settlement. Click here to review Swift and IELs response to our motion. Swift allegedly made unlawful deductions from the drivers' pay for truck lease payments, gas, equipment, maintenance, insurance, tolls and other expenses.