[Crackaces]

Originally Posted by ironeagle2006

And this case can and will be usedagainst Landstar which already has been hit with a summary judgement for the same stuff for 42.7 million looks like the days of a company lining their pockets on the backs of an O/O are finally over.

Actaully the Landstar case has started to be adjudicated. Note this case is slightly different because it involves the disclosures (or lack thereof) made in the "Pro-forma" or prospectus before someone decided to lease.

But .. yes the case law applies.

For the rest of us this is what the posting is all about:

SPECIAL REPORT: Judge agrees with truckers on key Landstar points



In a prelude to a trial that will see OOIDA argue that truckers are owed $42 million-plus, a federal judge ruled Landstar System violated federal leasing regs with undocumented markups on chargebacks such as tires and base plates.

U.S. District Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. entered the ruling Oct. 6 in a class-action case filed by OOIDA on behalf of more than 27,000 owner-operators currently and formerly leased to Landstar and its operating companies Ranger, Ligon and Inway.

Although the case must still go to trial to determine the actual amount of money due to the truckers, OOIDA leaders said Adams' ruling is very good news.

"The days of secret, undocumented profits are coming to an end following these rulings," said Jim Johnston, president and CEO of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.

Having argued against Landstar's request that the judge throw out the truckers' case, OOIDA's General Counsel Paul Cullen Sr. said that the judge's ruling - as well as a similar ruling this fall from a federal judge in Utah in OOIDA's case against carrier C.R. England - will go far to put truckers back in the driver's seat when it comes to their compensation.

Cullen said the rulings mean that motor carriers can only earn profits on chargeback items if they document those profits, or markups, and make that documentation available to drivers.

OOIDA filed the case in November 2002 in U.S. District Court in Jacksonville, FL, and asked that it include all owner-operators leased to Landstar beginning Nov. 1, 1998, and continuing through the resolution of the lawsuit. The court granted that class status, and OOIDA's legal team from The Cullen Law Firm in Washington, DC, has reviewed more than 1 million documents in preparation for the trial, which is expected to be in early 2007.

The judge's rulings this fall came in response to "cross motions for summary judgment." Those motions basically had Landstar arguing that there were no legal grounds to take the case to trial and the truckers' attorneys arguing that there was no legal doubt that the carrier's leases and actions were in violation of federal regs.

In addition to ruling that Landstar violated federal truth-in-leasing regulations by not documenting markups on chargeback items, Judge Adams firmly rejected Landstar's "substantial compliance" defense.

"Landstar had taken the position that it need not make disclosures in its written lease agreement so long as it made disclosures outside of the agreement," Cullen said. "The court rejected Landstar's argument and sided with OOIDA and the truckers, holding that the regulations called for strict compliance in a motor carrier's written lease agreement."

On another point, the judge did not rule in favor of the truckers, but neither did he rule in favor of Landstar.

"OOIDA's position is that the Landstar leases did not identify all the reductions to adjusted gross revenue made before Landstar calculated the driver's percentage share of the revenue," Cullen said. "While the court did not affirmatively grant summary judgment to OOIDA on this claim, neither did it award summary judgment to Landstar. Thus, the question of whether Landstar's conduct in calculating driver compensation was lawful appears to be an issue for trial."

OOIDA's leaders were not disheartened by the judge's decision.

"While the court chose to disagree with some points in our original complaint, we are satisfied that the core items of documentation of all chargebacks and strict compliance to the regulations were affirmed," Johnston said.

The truckers' attorneys estimate that monetary damages related to the chargeback claims that the judge's October ruling addressed are more than $42.7 million. Damages for items not yet ruled on are estimated to be an additional $5.5 million.

The C.R. England and Landstar case are simlar in the chargeback issues howeverwith the chargeback issues being decided against decided Landstar that will make the case agaist England stronger. England also has the cases that OOIDA won agaist Artic and a few others on lease purchase operators and truth in leasing issues the amount of money to England here should be in the 80 maybe 90 Million dollar range total. That is once all of Ooida's legal fees are figured in the cse they filed stated that if OOIDA won England paind the legal bill that way the truckers get the entire class settlement.

[One]

Good info, thanks!

I though it was illegal to deduct anything from settlements unless it is specifically authorized- or does that only pretain to a traditional employer-employee relationship????

[Skullitor]

There is a new update on OOIDA about the C.R.England case and also on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CRENGLAND

[Skullitor]

HERE IS THE UPDATE FROM OOIDA!!!

SPECIAL REPORT: Truckers’ case ‘coming in well’ against C.R. England



Oct. 23, 2006 – The legal team representing about 6,000 truckers in a lawsuit against C.R. England is more than halfway through the presentation of its case in federal court in Salt Lake City.

“I think our case is coming in well,” David A. Cohen, lead attorney on the case for the truckers and OOIDA, said Saturday, Oct. 21. “We have demonstrated C.R. England has failed to comply with the federal truth-in-leasing regulations.”

Specifically, the truckers’ case contends that the motor carrier made millions in illegal profits by failing to disclose markups and chargebacks that it deducted from truckers’ settlement sheets.

Monday, Oct. 23, Cohen and attorney Randall S. Herrick-Stare of The Cullen Law Firm, were scheduled to conclude the presentation of expert testimony with Michael Pakter, a certified public accountant from Chicago who is also a certified fraud examiner.

Pakter’s testimony began last week, after three truckers and three employees of C.R. England testified. Cohen said that the truckers’ case would likely include two more witnesses after Pakter’s testimony concludes.

Then, C.R. England is expected to call four witnesses before the trial wraps up late this week.

U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart will then take the case under advisement. There is no jury because the truckers’ legal team opted for a bench trial after Stewart issued favorable rulings in pretrial orders Oct. 3.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association filed the case, along with a handful of truckers, seeking to have it declared a class action to include any owners or operators who signed lease agreements with C.R. England beginning in August 1998 and continuing through the end of the trial.

Judge Stewart approved the class-action status Aug. 29, 2005. Cohen said that the roughly 6,000 members of the class are seeking the return of “several million dollars” total in what they contend are illegal profits that C.R. England made from undisclosed chargebacks and markups.

According to the motor carrier’s Web site, C. R. England currently has more than 3,800 drivers and independent contractors hauling freight.

Truckers testified last week that tires and other parts were marked up 30 percent by the motor carrier. The truckers contend the carrier also failed to disclose information about fuel discounts.

“In the case of C.R. England, they profited to the tune of millions of dollars by their fuel chargeback practices in which they retained 60 percent of the discounts that were generated by owner-operator fuel purchases,” Cohen said.

“What we will seek at the conclusion of the trial is for the court to order what’s called ‘disgorgement’ to force them to return these illegal profits. The court agreed with the association’s position that it had the power to do that. C.R. England denied vigorously that the court even had the power to require them to return illegal profits. The court disagreed (with that).”

– By Coral Beach. staff editor