[Roco]

CR England is in Court' Lets See What' Takes Place! We Haw!
To The Former Drivers .

[devildice]

CR England is in Court' Lets See What' Takes Place! We Haw!
To The Former Drivers .

What for this time???

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Roco

CR England is in Court' Lets See What' Takes Place! We Haw!
To The Former Drivers .

Would it be too much to ask for a few details!! A link, perhaps??

[fireman932003]

I thought OOIDA has had them in couort for some time now.

[Crackaces]

SPECIAL REPORT: Truckers testify against C.R. England


Oct. 18, 2006 ? Truckers took the witness stand this week to tell a federal judge in Salt Lake City about their experiences with C.R. England.

The individual truckers ? who are basically speaking on behalf of thousands of owner-operators who are or have been leased to the motor carrier and are included in the class-action lawsuit ? described how their compensation had been reduced by undocumented chargebacks, markups and fees deducted by C.R. England.

According to the motor carrier?s Web site, the company currently has more than 3,800 drivers and independent contractors hauling freight. The class action, originally filed by OOIDA and five individual truckers, includes truckers currently or formerly leased to C.R. England beginning in August 1998 and continuing through the resolution of the lawsuit.

The trial in the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City is being heard by Judge Ted Stewart and is expected to last through next week. The legal team for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association decided to forego a jury in this case, opting instead to have the judge determine the outcome. Stewart will likely take the case under advisement at the end of the trial, rather than immediately issuing a verdict.

OOIDA?s legal team began presenting evidence Monday, Oct. 16, in the case. The Association and truckers contend C.R. England made illegal profits by violating federal leasing regulations.

On Oct. 3, Stewart issued key rulings in favor of the truckers, including a crucial victory for the truckers regarding whether motor carrier leases must disclose markups and fees on goods and services that are charged back against drivers? settlement sheets. It establishes law that can be applied in other similar cases.

?The judge found there is no specific language in the regulations that prohibit a motor carrier from marking up a product ... However, the court ruled it must be disclosed,? attorney David A. Cohen told ?Land Line Now? on XM Satellite Radio recently.

Cohen, of The Cullen Law Firm, is the lead attorney on OOIDA?s legal team for the case.

?That is a significant ruling because it was the first time that a federal court has specifically made that ruling,? Cohen said of Stewart?s statements about disclosure requirements.

Judge Stewart?s ruling can be cited and applied in other similar legal battles OOIDA is fighting against other carriers ? including Landstar, Swift, FFE and M.S. Carriers.

Specifically, the C.R. England case addresses holes in the company?s lease, its use of escrow funds, its undocumented markups on goods and services, and the forced purchase of goods and services. For example, the truckers testified that tires and other parts were marked up 30 percent by the motor carrier.

?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,? attorney David Cohen told ?Land Line Now? on XM Satellite Radio.

?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).?

In another important ruling in favor of the truckers, Stewart agreed with OOIDA?s interpretation of the federal truth-in-leasing regulations on the topic of escrow funds. Cohen explained that the Association and the truckers contend that the federal regs require leases to specify exactly what deductions a motor carrier can make from a trucker?s escrow fund.

?The C.R. England leases have language that says the company can use escrow funds to satisfy any obligation,? Cohen said.

?OOIDA contends that does not comply with the regs ... if they say they can deduct for everything, in reality they specify nothing. One of the rulings that the court made in the C.R. England case was that it was going to adopt OOIDA?s position on escrow funds.?

? By Coral Beach. staff editor

What is interesting is some of the recent rulings around lease disclosures and escrow funds. The exposure of the practice of undisclosed excessive charges that rob drivers of their hard earned cash.

This particular part of the case has been in the courts for sometime and now is coming to a head with the ruling. Not much to appeal since the ruling followed previously held case law.

[Roco]

Glad to' see that Post The Court And CR England' makes for good ..
Reading thats for sure! To the former CR England Drivers.
Thumbs Up. CR England Sell Out! Roco :lol:

[dollarshort]

Seems to me that they are always in court :?:

[Crackaces]

Originally Posted by dollarshort

Seems to me that they are always in court :?:

Numerous lawsuits have been filed against CR England. What is new involves applying established consumer lending and leasing case law (and the original laws) to Commercial Leases involving consumers. You see there is the law and then the law can be extended through interpretation of the courts. This is known as case law.

Note: It took cases against Ugly Duckling, and places like Drive-time (Ugly Duckling with a new name) for laws to apply to the predatory leasing / financing of cars. It still does happen but the disclosures are much more prevalent. Well it seems that it took a few years for the courts to decide that these laws apply to the leasing class 8 trucks to truck drivers.

In the same way it is much different for me to lease a car from Lexus than say Drivetime .. it is a much different experience to lease a truck from say Paccar than say CR England. So .. this case takes the case laws created from the "Drivetime" (many other predatory companies were involved I like to pick on Drivetime) experiences and now the ruling is that these laws apply.

OK so now that the law is applicable to the CR England experience that is CR England should have disclosed all fees applicable to the escrow.. the question is -- were laws violated? If so then what is the compensation?

This will continue for quite sometime. But ... the first step has been won. The case law applies.

[Useless]

Crackaces,

Please accept my highest compliments for the quality of the postings that you have presented. I've read your other postimgs, and they have all been most insightful, and of the highest quality; however, IMHO, your last posting was the finest one you have ever written.
:rock:

Your insight and analysis is a gift to all of us.

Peace,
Useless

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.