Court Certifies Lawsuit Against Swift Transportation as Class Action

[Tinkerbell]

Ok, how do I get involved in this suit? Who is the lawyer and is he interested in doing the same for Celadon Trucking? They have the same practice....I am trying to get a class action suit started, but not sure where to start...help

 

[ironmanwife]

There are 4 requirements to proceed with a class action.


1. Numerosity - enough plaintiffs to make class action an efficeint way to handle the claim.

2. Commonality - common issues of fact and law for each claimant

3. Adequacy of Class Rep - the person who is the class representatitve needs to have claims that are the same as the class members and that they are capable of serving as the representative.

4. Adequqcy of Counsel - that the law firm representing the class has sufficient skill and resources to represent the class.
A certified class action suit is one brought on behalf of a large group of people as plaintiffs who have suffered some similar harm from the same actions of the defendant or defendantsA certified class action suit is one brought on behalf of a large group of people as plaintiffs who have suffered some similar harm from the same actions of the defendant or defendants

 

[boone315]

Ok, how do I get involved in this suit? Who is the lawyer and is he interested in doing the same for Celadon Trucking? They have the same practice....I am trying to get a class action suit started, but not sure where to start...help

What is your complaint with Celadon? I worked there as a company driver for a couple months to get some money to repair my truck back in '06, I thought they were pretty decent, some weird policies but every company has those.

 

[cajuntrucker59]

is celadon based out of north carolina? just curious.

 

[boone315]

Indianapolis

 

[Mike]

PHOENIX, Nov. 5, 2010 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that a lawsuit accusing Swift Transportation Corp. of routinely shorting its drivers in pay will move forward as a class action after a long and circuitous route through the Arizona court system.

The lawsuit was first filed against Swift Transportation in early 2004, but the motion to certify it as a class action was initially denied by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge. The judge's decision was appealed by plaintiffs' attorneys at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision.

The appellate court's decision to certify the suit against Swift Transportation as a class action, however, was then overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court on procedural grounds. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the appellate court lacked the jurisdiction to review the decision by the trial court not to certify the suit as a class action.

The case was sent back to the Maricopa County Superior Court where attorneys for lead plaintiff Leonel Garza and the class filed a renewed motion to have it certified as a class action. The court granted that motion Thursday.

"It's been a long and difficult road to get to this moment, but we're happy that the court ruled in our favor," said Hagens Berman attorney Rob Carey. "We've heard from numerous Swift drivers that the company's mileage calculation method cheats them out of honest and hard-earned compensation. These drivers deserve their day in court, and now they'll get it."

The case claims that rather than paying drivers on actual miles driven, the company calculates mileage using a software program. The suit claims that in doing so, the program, on average, underpays drivers by 7 percent to 10 percent. According to court documents, Swift Transportation's manager of contract finance from 1998 until 2002 admitted the software consistently underreported the mileage that drivers actually log by an average of 6 percent.

The lawsuit alleges breach of contract for not paying the correct amount and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on Swift Transportation's adoption of a system that underpays drivers.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge J. Richard Gama ruled Thursday that the class for the case against Swift Transportation encompasses "all persons in the United States, including those who were employed by Swift as employee drivers on or after Jan. 30, 1998 or contracted with Swift as owner-operator drivers on or after Jan. 30, 1998, who were compensated by Swift by reference to miles driven."

The court also certified a subclass, defined as "all persons who contracted with Swift Transportation with a Contractor Agreement East Coast" as of Dec. 14, 2001. In addition, the court certified Garza as the lead plaintiff to represent the class.

About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP represents whistleblowers, investors and consumers in complex litigation. The firm has offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Founded in 1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for investor rights in large, complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes can be found at Hagens Berman.

Media Contact: Mark Firmani, Firmani + Associates Inc., 206.443.9357 or [email protected].

SOURCE Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

 

[Sinister]

Wow. This is actually interesting! I've often been a little bothered by the fact that actual mileages fall short of paid ones, and the trucking industry is one of the few where free labor is sort of the norm. Truth be told, I thought McQuaid had a valid point the few times he mentioned that!

I hope this results in a solution to the gaps between paid mileages and actual ones somehow. This case has the potential to expand this idea, and change the industry fundamentally in terms of mileage pay.

 

[boone315]

I take it they use the household movers guide miles(or as the crow flies)? If that is the evidence being used, just about every company out there can be sued then. Think of how much money collectively truck drivers have been screwed out of over the years. Swift should be sued on a routine basis, a company that gives corporations a bad name. What they did to the M.S. Carrier drivers years ago should have been considered criminal.

 

[shrek]

Driver pay class-action suit against Swift certified by court

Driver pay class-action suit against Swift certified by court

Nov 10, 2010 11:59 AM, By Brian Straight, managing editor

A Maricopa (AZ) County Superior Court judge has certified a class-action lawsuit alleging that Swift Transportation underpaid drivers for several years. And an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case told Fleet Owner the practice may still be going on.


The suit, originally filed on Jan. 30, 2004, claims that Swift uses the Rand McNally Household Goods Mileage Guide to determine miles driven for pay calculations. That guide, according to Amy Wilkins, an attorney with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, which is representing the class, does not accurately reflect the miles actually driven and as such, Swift may have and continues to underpay drivers between 6 and 10%.

“We do believe Swift is still continuing to use this practice,” Wilkins said. “Drivers are running up far more miles on their odometer than [they are being paid for].”

According to Wilkins, even though Swift is using software to calculate the per-mile pay, it is “our understanding it does not use GPS point-to-point data.”

Judge J. Richard Gama ruled that the class of drivers represented includes “all persons in the United States, including those who were employed by Swift as employee drivers on or after Jan. 30, 1998, or contracted with Swift as owner-operator drivers on or after Jan. 30, 1998, who were compensated by Swift by reference to miles driven.”

A subclass, defined as “all persons who contracted with Swift Transportation with a Contractor Agreement East Coast as of Dec. 14, 2001” was also declared.

Wilkins said the class size could be 20,000 to 30,000 drivers. She could not estimate what the damage award would be should the court find Swift guilty of the practice.

“We want Swift to pay its drivers fairly going forward,” she said, adding that the suit is also being viewed as a breach of contract issue. According to Wilkins, driver contracts specify that drivers will be paid per-mile, but does not specify how the company would calculate the mileage.

Kelly Flood, an attorney with Polsinelli Shughart representing Swift, told Fleet Owner the company does not comment on pending litigation.

The case has a n involved history since its original filing in 2004. A Maricopa judge initially denied the plaintiffs’ attempts to make it a class-action suit, but that was overturned on appeal by the Arizona Court of Appeals. Swift appealed the Court of Appeals ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court, which overturned the decision to make it a class-action suit based on procedural grounds, saying the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the lower court’s ruling.

Back in Maricopa County Superior Court, the plaintiffs, led by lead plaintiff Leonel Garza, filed a new motion recently to give the suit class-action status and the court agreed.

“It is a long process and when you have a defendant fighting tooth and nail and doing everything it can, it’s going to be a long process,” Wilkins said. “We hope it will go more rapidly from this point forward and get to the merits [of the case].”

 

[patriciajnsn]

I'm curious to see how this plays out.What about all the other hundreds of companies that don't pay their driverrs fairly.Wish drivers would file a suit against them as well.Hows that household mileage guide work???????????????????????? My company pays from door to door.They use mapquest.

 

[shrek]

Yes but do you drive according to mapquest? I know they have told me routes that are way wrong than what I drive.

I joined the class action, heck I worked for Swift..........

I dont have to worry now I get paid a percentage of my loads