case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION II

No. 03:05-MD-527 RM (MDL 1700)

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CRITICAL FACTUAL & LEGAL ISSUES I. INTRODUCTION.
In 1985, a handful of transportation industry veterans formed Roadway Package System, or RPS, to compete in the small package pick-up and delivery business. They were convinced that the skillful use of technology, including bar-coding systems, computers and information management, could revolutionize the industry and enable them to compete head-to-head against the industry leaders. As committed as they were to cutting-edge technology, they were convinced that a critical element of the Company should be founded on one of the mainstays of the trucking and transportation industries for more than sixty years: delegating the pick-up, carriage, and delivery of customer packages to independent contractors. Doing so would create a motivated, entrepreneurial group of drivers who could provide a commitment to the growth of both their businesses and RPS’s, and a level of customer service that the Company’s competitors, who tended to rely on hourly employees and civil servants, would not be able to match.
Almost immediately, the founders’ instincts were proven right. Within ten years, the annual volume of business exceeded $1 billion. Several thousand pick-up and delivery routes (or “work areas”), with nation-wide coverage, were being serviced by contractors who owned their
CC1:718380.2

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 2 of 11
trucks and vans, hired and fired their own drivers, and effectively ran their own businesses. These contractors agreed that, even though they would bear the risk of financial loss if they failed, this model would reward them for their skill and hard work in ways that an employeremployee relationship would not.
In 1998, FedEx Corporation, the parent of the Federal Express overnight package service, also took notice of the success of this business and acquired the company. In 2000, FedEx Corporation extended the “FedEx” brand by renaming the package company “FedEx Ground.” Later that year, FedEx Ground launched FedEx Home Delivery to help catalog and online retailers reach their residential customers. From those modest beginnings twenty years ago, independent contractors are now servicing more than 18,000 FedEx Ground routes across North America. Given this large number of routes, naturally there are wide differences within the contractor population. Most independent contractors are attracted to the personal and scheduling freedom that owning a business can afford. Some operate just one route, while others operate multiple routes—farming out the driving and delivery functions to their employees—and generate substantial, six-figure revenues. Some contractors have recognized additional advantages by incorporating their business. Routes are often bought and sold for significant amounts on secondary markets, including eBay, and Internet sites have sprung up to meet the contractors’ business and other needs.
Over the years, inquiries have been made, and proceedings conducted, to confirm that FedEx Ground is adhering to the legal requirements related to its independent contractor business model. Individual contractors—in many cases, those who were not successful in operating their businesses—have sought “employee” status, for example, to sue the Company for employment discrimination. Although there have been some exceptions, the Equal Employment
2

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 3 of 11
Opportunity Commission and other federal and state agencies have repeatedly determined that FedEx Ground contractors are not employees.
In addition, ten years ago the Internal Revenue Service conducted a comprehensive review of the Company’s independent contractor agreements and concluded in January 1995 that: “We have reviewed the 1994 [Operating] Agreement and based upon a thorough consideration of all the representations made by you and your counsel, we conclude that operations conducted in accordance with the terms of the 1994 Agreement are not inconsistent with an independent contractor relationship with the Owner-Operator.” As a result of the IRS determination, the Company agreed to treat the contractors as self-employed persons for purposes of federal employment taxes. Overall, in more than 100 administrative and civil proceedings, FedEx Ground’s operations and contractor relationships have been reviewed and upheld as satisfying applicable tests for determining that those who service FedEx Ground routes are independent contractors and not employees.
Against that backdrop, the cases before this Court have been filed by a tiny fraction of contractors who apparently desire the fixed compensation and comparative lack of flexibility afforded to employees rather than the opportunities, flexibility, and ownership afforded to independent contractors. There are a total of 84 named plaintiffs in the presently-coordinated cases. Only fourteen of them are current FedEx Ground contractors. Indeed, the majority of current FedEx Ground contractors have a strong interest in continuing to operate with the independent contractor model. These contractors take pride in their businesses and want to preserve their right to maintain and grow them, not only for the near-term benefit of increased revenues and profits, but to enhance the equity value of their routes over the long-term. These
3

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 4 of 11
lawsuits challenge the rights of those contractors to do so—and at the same time threaten FedEx Ground’s rights to operate and expand the business for the parties’ mutual advantage. II. THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY’S RELIANCE ON AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR MODEL IS LONG-STANDING AND LAWFUL. The issue of the status of owner-operators in the trucking industry is not new. In 1947, the United States Supreme Court decided two landmark companion cases, Harrison v. Greyvan Lines and United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 714 (1977). In Greyvan Lines, the government argued that the owner-operators were employees based on many of the same factors that plaintiffs argue here. Like plaintiffs here, the government argued that the Greyvan owner-operators should be classified as employees because they could be required to follow a manual of instructions, had to wear a uniform, had to paint “Greyvan Lines” on the sides of their trucks, and had to take a short course in the company’s method of doing business. In Silk, the company claimed that owneroperators of coal trucks used for local deliveries were contractors because they furnished their own equipment, worked largely on their own schedules, and were free from the company’s direction and control. The Supreme Court found that the owner-operators in both cases were independent contractors. Critically, the Supreme Court found that the contractors’ investment in their own equipment and opportunity for profit and loss outweighed the alleged elements of “control.” Since then, many courts have found that owner-operators in the trucking business were independent contractors, not employees. E.g., Merchants Home Delivery Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 580 F.2d 966 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding independent contractor status for local deliverymen based on entrepreneurial characteristics, investment in own equipment, responsibility to maintain equipment, right to hire assistants, and fact that two of six operators owned more than one vehicle, despite contractors not having proprietary interest in their territories). See also North American Van Lines v. NLRB, 869 F.2d 596 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (finding independent contractor
4

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 5 of 11
status based on factors including drivers’ equity interest in vehicles, entrepreneurial risk assumed by drivers, lack of withholding of driver taxes, and payment based on the job performed and not the amount of time worked) and Lerma v. United States 716 F. Supp. 1294 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (finding independent contractor status based on factors including contractor’s ownership of vehicles and lack of withholding of taxes). III. THE PRESENT LITIGATION, AND ITS CATALYST: ESTRADA V. RPS.
As would be expected in any delivery network of the size and scope of FedEx Ground, not every independent contractor has succeeded. The varying levels of business skill and experience of those who have come into the FedEx Ground environment have led to some disappointments. In 1999, three California ex-contractors sued RPS, claiming that, although they had signed contracts with the Company that defined their responsibilities and created an independent contractor relationship, the Company exercised a level of control over their day-today activities sufficient to require their reclassification as employees for California law purposes. The case is known as Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case BC 210130). Plaintiffs sought class action status for their claim to reimbursement of job-related expenses under California Labor Code section 2802. In 2001, that single claim was certified for class treatment on behalf of full-time, single work area (“SWA”) contractors. The trial court ruled that those who operated multiple routes were not potential employees and would be excluded from the class. In 2004 the case proceeded to a bench trial on the issue of whether the SWA contractors who chose to participate in the case (less than half of those eligible did) were independent contractors or employees for purposes of the California Labor Code and, if the latter, whether the Company had failed to reimburse the drivers for certain business-related expenses. In July 2004, the trial judge concluded that the class members were employees, and proceeded to trial phases focused on reimbursement and equitable relief,
5

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 6 of 11
where the matter now stands. Most of these coordinated cases were filed in the wake of the Estrada decision. Many of the complaints reference and incorporate the court’s decision. FedEx Ground does not believe the trial court’s decision has much (if any) force with respect to these proceedings, and FedEx Ground will appeal the decision once it becomes final. In any event, under California law, the Estrada trial court decision is entitled to no preclusive effect from this Court until the appellate process has been concluded.
These coordinated cases will raise a variety of factual and legal questions, but at the outset, three issues will be of paramount importance:
First, a predicate element of each claim in each complaint is whether each plaintiff (named or absent) should be re-classified as an employee and not treated as an independent contractor. Absent such a showing, each claim fails. Thus, one series of factual issues will concern whether, as to each contractor, FedEx Ground has failed to follow the terms of the operating agreement or otherwise failed to treat that owner-operator as an independent contractor. FedEx Ground will demonstrate that it has followed the terms of the operating agreement and has treated each owner-operator as an independent contractor.
Second, whether any independent contractor should instead be classified as an employee for purposes of a particular claim or legal right will depend on the “test” for determining such status under applicable law. There are several. In other words, there is not one, nationally recognized or applied standard for evaluating whether someone should be classified as an employee versus an independent contractor for all purposes under the laws of all states. Some tests are established under common law, some by statute. Although many of the relevant factors are similar, in any particular case, the differences between these tests may be significant.
6

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 7 of 11
Third, for the foregoing two reasons, and others, FedEx Ground disagrees that these cases are suitable for treatment on a class-wide basis. FedEx Ground will show that the question of whether there has been some exception to the operating agreement or extra-contractual practices inconsistent with independent contractor status is not amenable to class treatment. While FedEx Ground expects plaintiffs to rely heavily on the fact of class certification in the Estrada case, FedEx Ground respectfully submits that a review of the trial court’s decision in that case demonstrates that class treatment actually is not appropriate for the adjudication of these claims. IV. FEDEX CORPORATION AND FEDEX EXPRESS
FedEx Corporation, the parent company of FedEx Ground, has been named a codefendant in seven of the coordinated actions. FedEx Express, the overnight air express delivery company that is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of FedEx Corporation, has been named a codefendant in two of them. No plaintiff has alleged specific factual allegations against either entity, and they are included in the actions either under an erroneous understanding of the corporate structure of FedEx Ground or as part of an imprecise theory of indirect employer liability. Motions to dismiss are pending in all but one of those actions.
FedEx Corporation and FedEx Express believe that the issue of their joinder should be decided at the outset. Neither party is a legitimate defendant in these cases, and neither should be subjected to the unnecessary costs and burdens of a multidistrict litigation. If plaintiffs will not agree to voluntarily dismiss FedEx Corporation and FedEx Express (most of the actions were stayed before oppositions to the motions to dismiss would have been filed), then these codefendants will seek a prompt briefing schedule on the matter. V. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
FedEx Ground is committed to continuing to do business using an independent contractor model, and has represented to the thousands of owner-operators who have entered into contracts
7

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 8 of 11

with the Company that their desire to be treated as independent contractors will be respected. Nonetheless, FedEx Ground (and the other FedEx entities, should they remain parties to the litigation) are prepared to engage in good faith discussions regarding a non-litigated resolution of the cases, with the assistance of a neutral party. FedEx Ground believes that such discussions would be more productive if they were to occur after discovery has been concluded.
* * * * Inasmuch as the Court has asked the parties for only a brief introduction to the case at this time, FedEx Ground looks forward to providing more information to the Court on these issues, and others, at the September 26, 2005 pretrial conference—and thereafter. To that end, we have attached to this summary a chart providing the status of Related Cases pending in state and federal court.

Dated: September 20, 2005

Respectfully submitted,
John H. Beisner Robert M. Schwartz O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-4001
Thomas J. Brunner Alison G. Fox BAKER & DANIELS 205 West Jefferson Blvd., Suite 250 South Bend, IN 46601

By__s/Thomas J. Brunner
Thomas J. Brunner Counsel for Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

8

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 9 of 11 Edward J. Efkeman Federal Express Corporation 3620 Hacks Cross Rd., Bldg. B – 3rd Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38125 By___s/Edward J. Efkeman Edward J. Efkeman Counsel for Defendants FedEx Corporation and FedEx Express
9

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 10 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 20th day of September, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Statement of Facts and Critical Factual & Legal Issues was served by facsimile and by U.S. Mail on the following:

George A. Barton Law Offices of George A. Barton, PC 800 W. 47th Street, Suite 700 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 300-6250 Fax: (816) 300-6259
Kevin M. Costello Levow & Costello Cherry Hill Plaza Suite 200 1415 Marlton Pike East Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 Tel: (856) 428-5055 Fax: (856) 429-7726
Clayton D. Halunen Halunen & Associates 220 South 6th Street Suite 2000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: 612-605-4098 Fax: 612-605-4099
Robert Ira Harwood Wechsler Harwood LLP 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel:(212) 935-7400 Fax:(212) 753-3630
Dmitri Iglitzin Schwerin Campbell Barnard 18 West Mercer Street, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: (206) 285.2828 Fax: (206) 378.4132

Shannon Liss-Riordan Alfred Gordon Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg, & LissRiordan 18 Tremont Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Tel: 617-367-7200 Fax: 617-367-4820
Robert E. McDaniel The McDaniel Law Offices 4 Bicentennial Square Concord, NH 03301 Tel: (603) 224-4333 Fax: (603) 224-4994
Beth A. Ross Leonard Carder, LLP 1330 Broadway Avenue Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (415) 771-6400 Fax: (415) 771-7010
Dan S. Smith Dan Solomon Smith, LLC 339 Main Street Suite 2D Orange, NJ 07050 Tel: (973) 674-7200 Fax: (973) 674-6676
Richard Tanenbaum, Esq. The Law Offices of Richard Tanenbaum 1131 McDonald Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11230 Tel: (718) 252-3366 Fax: (718) 252-9280

10

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6 filed 09/20/2005 page 11 of 11

Donald R. Taylor Taylor & Dunham, L.L.P. 327 Congress Avenue, Suite 600 Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: 512-473-2257 Fax: 512-478-4409
Edith A. Thomas The Law Offices of Edith A. Thomas 214 North Ridge Drive Suite B Fallbrook, CA 92028 Fax: 760 728-9518

Matthew T. Tobin - 605-338-4162 Johnson, Heidepriem, Miner, Marlow & Janklow, L.L.P. Falls Center - 431 N. Phillips Avenue, Suite 400 P.O. Box 1107 Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1107 Telephone: 605-338-4304 Fax: 605-338-4162

DC1:640854.1 CC1:718380.2

By__s/Thomas J. Brunner
BAKER & DANIELS 205 West Jefferson Blvd., Suite 250 South Bend, IN 46601

2

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6-2 filed 09/20/2005 page 1 of 9 ATTACHMENT A

PENDING RELATED CASES AND MOTIONS

Below is a compilation of cases pending in federal and state courts challenging the status of FedEx Ground package and delivery contractors, and a short summary of their status.

Cases Pending in Federal Court

Section 1:

Cases Transferred to this Court Pursuant to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s August 10, 2005, Order (alphabetically)

Case Name Alexander, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 120

Court/Judge Northern District of Indiana

Current Status/Pending Motions MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings from the Northern District of California.

Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Case Status: Prior to transfer, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand case to state court, and stayed proceedings pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Anfinson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Schnebeck, Pilakowski, John Does 1-10

Northern District of Indiana
Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings from the Western District of Washington.
Case Status: Prior to transfer, transferor court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand pending.

Bunger, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

Northern District of MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings

Indiana

from the District of South Dakota.

Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Case Status: After FedEx Ground’s answer to the complaint was filed, transferor court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6-2 filed 09/20/2005 page 2 of 9

Case Name Capers, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Gaskins, Rettinger, Gelhausen, Collins, DiMaio, FedEx Corp., John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10

Court/Judge Northern District of Indiana
Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Current Status/Pending Motions MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings from the District of New Jersey.
Case Status: Prior to transfer, transferor court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. Discovery on the independent contractor status issue completed prior to the transferor court’s issuance of a stay pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Craig, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Northern District of MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings

Indiana

from the District of Kansas.

Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Case Status: Prior to transfer, case was in preliminary discovery stage. Depositions of named plaintiffs and exchange of written discovery completed. During the discovery phase, the transferor court stayed the case pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Gregory v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Northern District of MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings

Indiana

from the Eastern District of Virginia.

Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Case Status: Prior to transfer, limited discovery took place: named Plaintiff’s deposition taken, Plaintiff provided limited written discovery, and initial disclosures completed. Case was stayed in January 2005, pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Extend Deadlines pending.

Gennell, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

Northern District of Indiana
Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings from the District of New Hampshire.
Case Status: After FedEx Ground’s answer to the complaint was filed, court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

2

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6-2 filed 09/20/2005 page 3 of 9

Case Name Griffin, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 1-20

Court/Judge Northern District of Indiana
Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Current Status/Pending Motions MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings from the Northern District of Illinois.
Case Status: After Defendants responded to the complaint, transferor court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: FedEx Corp. Motion to Dismiss pending.

Humphreys, et. al v. Federal Express Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

Northern District of MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings

Indiana

from the Western District of Texas.

Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Case Status: After Defendants responded to the complaint, transferor court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: FedEx Express Motion to Dismiss pending.

Johnson, et al. v. FedEx Home Delivery, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Northern District of MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings

Indiana

from the Eastern District of New York.

Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Case Status: After FedEx Ground responded to the complaint, transferor court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Kilmartin v. Federal Express Incorporated, Federal Express (Cranbury Location), John Does 1-5 and John Does 6-10

Northern District of Indiana
Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings from the District of New Jersey.
Case Status: After FedEx Ground responded to the complaint, transferor court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Lee, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 1-20

Northern District of Indiana
Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings from the District of Minnesota.
Case Status: After Defendants responded to the complaint, transferor court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: FedEx Corp. Motion to Dismiss pending.

3

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6-2 filed 09/20/2005 page 4 of 9

Case Name Lester, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

Court/Judge Northern District of Indiana
Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Current Status/Pending Motions MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings from the Eastern District of Michigan.
Case Status: Case stayed by transferor court prior to discovery pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: FedEx Express Motion to Dismiss, and Joint Motion to Extend Stay and Vacate Case Management Status and Scheduling Conference pending.

Louzau, et al. v. FedEx Ground Northern District of MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings

Package System, Inc.

Indiana

from the Southern District of New York.

Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

Case Status: Case stayed by transferor court prior to discovery pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: FedEx Ground’s Motion for Clarification and/or Motion to Extend Stay pending.

Sheehan, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

Northern District of Indiana
Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

MDL Status: Transferred to MDL proceedings from the District of Massachusetts.
Case Status: After FedEx Ground responded to the complaint, transferor court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the motion to transfer for MDL proceedings.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Section 2: “Tag-Along” Actions (alphabetically)

Case Name Bertram, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., d/b/a FedEx Home Delivery, and their respective health benefit and pension plans, DOES 1-20

Court/Judge Western District of Kentucky
Chief Judge John G. Heyburn II

Current Status/Pending Motions MDL Status: Tag-along status reported to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Conditional Transfer Order not yet issued.
Case Status: Answer due on October 10, 2005.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

4

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6-2 filed 09/20/2005 page 5 of 9

Case Name Carlson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Court/Judge Middle District of Florida

Judge Susan C Bucklew

Current Status/Pending Motions MDL Status: Tag-along status reported to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Conditional Transfer Order not yet issued.
Case Status: Case removed to federal court and answered on July 25, 2005. No further proceedings have taken place.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Carraher, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Middle District of Florida
Judge James D. Whittemore

MDL Status: Tag-along status reported to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Conditional Transfer Order not yet issued.
Case Status: Service has not yet been effected.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Cooke v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

District of South Carolina
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie

MDL Status: Tag-along status reported to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Conditional Transfer Order not yet issued.
Case Status: Answer due on October 3, 2005.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Fleming, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 1-5

Northern District of Mississippi
Judge W. Allen Pepper

MDL Status: Conditional Transfer Order issued and not contested.1 Case to be transferred to MDL proceedings.
Case Status: Prior to transfer, responses to Complaint filed. No subsequent proceedings.

Pending Motions: FedEx Corp. Motion to Dismiss pending.

Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Western District of Pennsylvania
Judge Thomas Hardiman

MDL Status: Conditional Transfer Order issued on August 30, 2005, and not contested. Case to be transferred to MDL proceedings.
Case Status: Case removed to federal court and answered.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

1

FedEx Ground has received a Notice of Opposition to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s

August 30, 2005 Conditional Transfer Order from counsel in one action, Perry v. FedEx Ground, et al. (D. Mass.).

On September 19, 2005, an attorney for FedEx Ground contacted the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s

Clerk’s Office and confirmed that the Panel had received only Perry’s Notice of Opposition. Accordingly, the other

actions subject to the August 30, 2005 Conditional Transfer Order are in the process of being transferred to the

Northern District of Indiana for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

5

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6-2 filed 09/20/2005 page 6 of 9

Case Name Johnson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, and their respective health and benefit plans, Does 1-20

Court/Judge Southern District of Iowa
Judge Robert W. Pratt

Current Status/Pending Motions MDL Status: Tag-along status reported to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Conditional transfer order issued on September 16, 2005. Plaintiff’s Notice of Opposition due on or about October 3, 2005.

Case Status: FedEx Ground’s Answer to the Complaint was filed on September 14, 2005.

Pending Motions: No pending motions

Larson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Eastern District of Wisconsin
Judge Lynn Adelman

MDL Status: Conditional Transfer Order issued on August 30, 2005, and not contested. Case to be transferred to MDL proceedings.
Case Status: After FedEx Ground responded to the complaint, the parties stipulated to a stay of proceedings. No further proceedings have taken place.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Perry, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

Northern District of Indiana
Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

MDL Status: Conditional Transfer Order issued on August 30, 2005. Plaintiffs filed Notice of Opposition on September 14, 2005. Opposition brief due September 29, 2005.
Case Status: Answer due on September 28, 2005.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Riewe, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Respective Health Plans Does 120

Northern District of Indiana
Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.

MDL Status: Notice filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of this potential tag-along action. Conditional transfer order not yet issued. Plaintiffs have filed a notice with Chief Judge Miller indicating they would not oppose coordinated treatment of this case.

Case Status: FedEx Ground answered the complaint. No subsequent proceedings.

Pending Motions: FedEx Corp. Motion to Dismiss pending.

6

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6-2 filed 09/20/2005 page 7 of 9

Case Name Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Court/Judge District of Oregon
Judge Ancer L. Haggerty

Current Status/Pending Motions MDL Status: Conditional Transfer Order issued on August 30, 2005, and not contested. Case to be transferred to MDL proceedings.
Case Status: FedEx Ground answered the complaint. No subsequent proceedings.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Smith, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Respective Health Plans Does 1-20

Western District of Tennessee
Judge Bernice B. Donald

MDL Status: Conditional Transfer Order issued on August 30, 2005, and not contested. Case to be transferred to MDL proceedings.
Case Status: FedEx Ground answered the complaint. No subsequent proceedings.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Tierney, et al. v. FedEx Ground District of Rhode

Package System, Inc.

Island

Judge William E. Smith

MDL Status: Conditional Transfer Order issued on August 30, 2005, and not contested. Case to be transferred to MDL proceedings.
Case Status: FedEx Ground answered the complaint. Afterwards, FedEx Ground filed a Motion to Stay and Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend Complaint.

Pending Motions: FedEx Ground’s Motion to Stay and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint pending.

Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

District of New Jersey
Judge Joseph E. Irenas

MDL Status: Conditional Transfer Order issued on August 30, 2005, and not contested. Case to be transferred to MDL proceedings.
Case Status: FedEx Ground answered the complaint. Afterwards, FedEx Ground filed a Motion to Stay.

Pending Motions: FedEx Ground’s Motion to Stay pending.

Willis v. FedEx Ground Package Eastern District of

System, Inc., FedEx Corp.

Pennsylvania

Judge John P. Fullam

MDL Status: Conditional Transfer Order issued on August 30, 2005, and not contested. Case to be transferred to MDL proceedings.
Case Status: Responses to Complaint due September 26, 2005.

Pending Motions: No pending motions.

7

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6-2 filed 09/20/2005 page 8 of 9

Case Name Woomer v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Zabrocki v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Court/Judge Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Thomas Hardiman
Western District of Wisconsin
Judge John C. Shabaz

Current Status/Pending Motions MDL Status: Tag-along status reported to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Conditional Transfer Order not yet issued.
Case Status: Case removed to federal court and answered on September 12, 2005. No subsequent proceedings.
Pending Motions: No pending motions.
MDL Status: Tag-along status reported to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Conditional transfer order issued on September 16, 2005. Plaintiff’s Notice of Opposition due on or about October 3, 2005.
Case Status: Service has not yet been effected.
Pending Motions: No motions pending.

Section 3: Other Federal Cases

Case Name Vargas v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 1-10

Court/Judge Central District of California
Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler

Current Status/Pending Motions MDL Status: Not part of MDL proceedings.
Case Status: Discovery phase.
Pending Motions: No pending motions.

Cases Pending in State Court

Case Name Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc..

Court/Judge Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County

Judge Howard Schwab

Tolen v. FedEx Ground Package Superior Court of

System, Inc.

California, Shasta

County

Judge Jack Halpin

Current Status/Pending Motions Case Status: In accounting and equitable relief phases of the case.
Pending Motions: Motion for equitable relief pending.
Case Status: In initial stages (case filed in August 2005).
Pending Motions: No pending motions.

8

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 6-2 filed 09/20/2005 page 9 of 9
DC1:640126.3
9

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 18 filed 09/21/05 page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ROGER RIEWE, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

vs.

)

)

FEDEX CORPORATION, et al.,

)

)

Defendants )

CAUSE NO. 3:05-CV-390RM

O R D E R

The court now ORDERS this cause consolidated with this court’s cause

number 3:05cv527RM (MDL-1700). Because both causes pend in the same

district, no order from the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation is needed to

accomplish the consolidation. The clerk shall enter this order in 3:05-CV-527RM,

as well.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: September 21, 2005

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Chief Judge United States District Court
cc:

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN
ACER1'1FIED TRUE COPY

document 35

filed 10/1G~1."T1/-0~,J5UlDfJRCpIIAaLCgTPeALN1IETLoIGfOAN1TION

lDosOcr SEP 1·6 2005

DOCKET NO. 1700

t/l ·;: . Sf£.,
l'qli

/;

p~ FILED
W~'S OFFICE

IJCIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRlIifCto%,.~0'S1IT;f?r/!1it,,f.:1. iC, (l)lj"/L.flR.ti.COl N

~------~------~~--~
RE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT CTICES LITIGATION (NO. II)

Tim Johnson v. FedEx Ground System, Inc., et al., S.D. Iowa, C.A. No. 4:05-477 Darren Zabrocki v. FedEx Ground System, Inc., et al., W.D. Wisconsin,
C.A. No. 3:05-504

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CT0-2)

On August 10, 2005, the Panel transferred 15 civil actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Robert L. Miller, Jr.

It appears that the actions on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact which are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Indiana and assigned to Judge Miller.

Pursuant to Rule 7.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), these actions are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Northern District oflndiana for the reasons stated in the order of August 10,2005, _ _F.Supp.2d_ _ (J.P.M.L. 2005), and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert L. Miller, Jr..

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed fifteen (15) days from the entry thereof and if any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk ofthe Panel within this fifteen (15) day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

Inasmuch as no objection is pending at this time, the stay is lifted.
OCT - 4 2005
CLERK'S OFFICE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

FOR THE PANEL:
.~ ~./3..dL_ Michael J. eck Clerk of the Panel

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 1 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

____________________________________)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO

)

ALL ACTIONS

)

____________________________________)

Case No. 03:05-MD-527 RM (MDL 1700)
CHIEF JUDGE MILLER MAGISTRATE JUDGE NUECHTERLEIN

PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly submit the following proposed Case Management Order. Despite the parties’ diligent efforts, they were unable to reach agreement on a small number of issues. In order to clarify the parties’ respective positions with respect to these alternative proposals, the parties have discussed submitting brief statements of position not exceeding six pages to this Court on or before Monday, November 14, 2005, in order to provide the Court with an understanding of the parties’ positions and make the November 28, 2005 status conference on the Case Management Order more productive.

Dated: November 7, 2005
BDDB01 4225580v1

Respectfully submitted,
By:__s/Robert I. Harwood________________ Robert I. Harwood WECHSLER HARWOOD LLP 488 Madison Avenue Suite 801 New York, NY 10022
Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 2 of 31
By:__s/Thomas J. Brunner________________ Thomas J. Brunner BAKER & DANIELS LLP 205 West Jefferson Blvd., Suite 250 South Bend, IN 46601 John H. Beisner O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-4001 Defendants’ Liaison and Co-Lead Counsel
2
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 3 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

____________________________________)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO

)

ALL ACTIONS

)

____________________________________)

Case No. 03:05-MD-527 RM (MDL 1700)
CHIEF JUDGE MILLER MAGISTRATE JUDGE NUECHTERLEIN

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the following Case Management Order shall govern all proceedings in this matter:
I. PRETRIAL CONSOLIDATION AND COORDINATION A. Consolidated Cases
By order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”), the cases listed in Exhibit A of this Order have been transferred to this forum for coordinated pretrial proceedings. B. Applicability of Order
The terms of this Order shall apply automatically to the actions listed in Exhibit A and to all other cases that become a part of this proceeding by virtue of being instituted in, removed to, or transferred to this Court (including cases transferred pursuant to: (a) Local Rules; (b) 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); or (c) 28 U.S.C. § 1407)). This Order also vacates any prior scheduling order issued by a federal court prior to transfer of a case to MDL 1700. The local rules of a

3
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 4 of 31
federal transferor court will not be binding on the parties once a case has been transferred to MDL-1700, so long as the case remains before this transferee court. C. Dissemination of Order
1. Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel (as designated below) shall within five (5) days of the date of this Order send (by overnight delivery) a copy of this Order to all plaintiffs’ counsel in all actions to which this Order applies. Defendants’ Liaison Counsel (as designated below) shall within five (5) days of the date of this Order send (by overnight delivery) a copy of this Order to counsel for any defendants in any newly filed action that are not defendants in any action listed in Exhibit A.
2. Upon subsequently learning that this Order is or may be applicable to any other action, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel shall immediately send (by overnight delivery) a copy of this Order to counsel in that action, and send to defendants a copy of the proof of service.
D. Future Transfers of Tag-Along Actions Tag-along actions that are transferred to these MDL proceedings shall
automatically be made part of these coordinated proceedings upon transfer to this Court. Prior rulings on common issues issued by this Court in these proceedings shall be automatically deemed to have been made in such newly-transferred cases. Discovery already taken at the time of transfer shall be made available in the tag-along actions. Except for good reason shown, any tag-along actions transferred to this Court will be expected to adhere to the schedule established by this Case Management Order.
II. CASE IDENTIFICATION A. Master Docket and Individual Cases
The clerk of court will maintain a master docket case file under the style “FedEx
4
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 5 of 31

Ground Package System, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, Case No. 3:05-md-527.” Papers applicable to any of the MDL cases shall be filed only in “FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, Case No. 3:05-md-527.” All of the MDL cases shall nevertheless retain a separate identity and case number (i.e., the number assigned when the case was filed in or removed or transferred to this court). When a filing, by its terms, applies to all of the MDL cases, this shall be indicated by the words: “This Document Relates to All Cases.” A filing that applies to fewer than all of the MDL cases shall bear the words: “This Document Relates to [here insert original case number[s] to which the paper applies].” B. Captions
All orders, pleadings, motions, and other documents filed in this proceeding shall bear a caption in the following format:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

____________________________________)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO

)

[ACTIONS]

)

____________________________________)

Case No. 03:05-MD-527 RM (MDL 1700)
CHIEF JUDGE MILLER MAGISTRATE JUDGE NUECHTERLEIN

C. Identical Filings Any filing in any of these actions that is substantially identical to any other filing in
another of these actions shall be sufficient if it incorporates by reference the filing to which it is substantially identical. If an argument is incorporated by reference, the Court will presume the argument is intended to apply without change if not specifically addressed or modified by the filing party.
5
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 6 of 31
D. Mandatory Use of CM/ECF System
All filing and docketing will be done electronically through the CM/ECF system. The
court will use CM/ECF to correspond with counsel on case related matters. Counsel should
follow the instructions and rules contained in this Court’s CM/ECF Procedures Manual. Those
who will be responsible for electronic filing and docketing must fully understand the CM/ECF
system and be familiar with the court’s practices and procedures.
E. Courtesy Paper Copies of Longer Submissions
Counsel are asked to submit to the judge or judges considering a particular issue two
courtesy paper copies of any memorandum or other document exceeding 25 pages. The courtesy
copies should be sent directly to the judge’s chambers.
III. ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL A. Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel
1. Plaintiffs’ counsel hereby agree to the appointment of the following law firms as
Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel with the responsibilities hereinafter described:
Lynn Rossman Faris LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1330 Broadway Avenue, Suite 1450
Oakland, CA 94612 Tel.: (510) 272-0169
Susan E. Ellingstad LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel.: (612) 339-6900
Robert I. Harwood WECHSLER HARWOOD LLP 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10022 Tel.: (212) 935-7400
6
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 7 of 31
2. Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel shall be generally responsible for coordinating activities of plaintiffs during pre-trial proceedings and shall:
a) Determine (after consultation with other co-counsel as appropriate) and present (in briefs, oral argument, or such other fashion as may be appropriate), personally or by a designee, to the Court and opposing parties the position of the plaintiffs in all matters arising during pre-trial proceedings;
b) Delegate specific tasks to other counsel in a manner to ensure that pretrial preparation for plaintiffs is conducted effectively, efficiently, and economically;
c) Enter into stipulations with opposing counsel necessary for the conduct of the litigation;
d) Prepare and distribute to the parties periodic status reports; e) Maintain adequate time and disbursement records covering services and expenditures of plaintiffs’ counsel; f) Monitor the activities of co-counsel to ensure that schedules are met and unnecessary expenditures of time and funds are avoided; g) Maintain complete files with copies of all documents served upon them and shall make such files available to all Plaintiffs’ counsel; h) Maintain and make available to all counsel and the Court an up-to-date service list; i) Receive and, as appropriate, distribute to co-counsel orders from the Court, and documents from opposing parties and counsel; j) Accept service and distribute to the appropriate plaintiffs’ counsel all notices, orders, pleadings, motions, discovery and memoranda;
7
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 8 of 31
k) Represent plaintiffs in all mediation proceedings and settlement negotiations; and
l) Perform such other duties as may be incidental to proper coordination of plaintiffs’ pretrial activities or authorized by further Order of this Court. 3. In addition, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel shall coordinate activities to avoid duplication and inefficiency in the filing, serving and/or implementation of pleadings, other court papers, discovery papers, and discovery practice. 4. Defendants’ counsel may rely upon all agreements made with Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel, and such agreements shall be binding on all plaintiffs whose cases are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, to the extent that the agreements are made on their behalf. 5. Defendants’ stipulation to this Case Management Order is not an indication that defendants participated in, agree with or take any position with respect to Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel’s decisions concerning the allocation of responsibilities among plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ counsel.
B. Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel 1. Plaintiffs’ counsel hereby designate the following law firm to act as liaison
counsel: John Hamilton
HAMILTON LAW FIRM 300 North Michigan Street
Suite 454 South Bend, Indiana 46601
Tel.: (574) 289-9987
2. Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel is charged with the following duties and responsibilities for the duration of this litigation:
8
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 9 of 31
a) Receive orders, notices, correspondence, and telephone calls from the
Court and the Clerk of the Court on Plaintiffs’ behalf;
b) Receive orders and notices from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation; and
c) Coordinate and assist with electronic filing and docketing of pleadings,
briefs, motions and hearings.
3. Defendants’ stipulation to this Case Management Order is not an indication that
Defendants participated in, agree with or take any position with respect to Plaintiffs’ Liaison
Counsel’s decisions concerning the allocation of responsibilities among Plaintiffs and/or
Plaintiffs’ counsel.
C. Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
1. Plaintiffs’ counsel hereby designate the following firms, along with co-lead
counsel, to serve as members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”):
Jerald R. Cureton CURETON CAPLAN, P.C.
950 B Chester Avenue Delran, New Jersey 08075
Tel.: (856) 824-1001
Jordan M. Lewis SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER, DUFFY & FOSTER, P.A.
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel.: (215) 814-9322
J. Gordon Rudd ZIMMERMAN REED 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel.: (612) 341-0400
9
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 10 of 31
2. Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, in consultation with Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel, shall be responsible for:
a) Assisting with the coordination of the activities of plaintiffs during pretrial proceedings;
b) Monitoring the activities of co-counsel to assure that schedules are met and unnecessary expenditures of time and expense are avoided;
c) Performing such other duties as may be incidental to proper coordination of plaintiffs’ pretrial activities or authorized by further order of the Court. 3. Defendants’ stipulation to this Case Management Order is not an indication that defendants participated in, agree with or take any position with respect to Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee’s decisions concerning the allocation of responsibilities among Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel. D. Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel
1. John H. Beisner and Robert M. Schwartz of O’Melveny & Myers LLP (Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, California, respectively) shall be Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel. Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel shall discharge the following duties:
(a) To be lead spokespersons before the Court for defendants;
(b) To coordinate, determine, and present (in briefs, oral argument or such other fashion as may be appropriate) the positions of the defendants on all matters arising during all pretrial proceedings;
(c) To coordinate for defendants the initiation and conduct of discovery consistent with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and (2) and (g), including the preparation of joint interrogatories and requests for production of documents and the
10
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 11 of 31

examination of witnesses in depositions;

(d) To direct and coordinate the work of all defendants’ counsel and to make assignments of work to be performed in the prosecution of the case in a manner to assure that pretrial preparation is conducted effectively, efficiently and economically;

(e) To monitor the activities of defendants’ counsel to assure that schedules are met and that unnecessary expenditures of time and expenses are avoided;

(f) conduct of the litigation;

To enter into stipulations with opposing counsel necessary for the

(g) To communicate with all defendants’ counsel information concerning the status of any developments in this proceeding;

provisions;

(h) To call meetings of other defendants’ counsel to effectuate these

(i) To receive orders and notices from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to Rule 8(e) of the Panel’s Rules of Procedure, on behalf of defendants, and to prepare and transmit copies of orders and notices to defendants;

(j) To serve as counsel for defendants upon whom all notices, orders, pleadings, motions, discovery and memoranda are to be served; and

(k) To perform such other duties as may be incidental to proper coordination of defendants’ pretrial and trial activities or authorized by further order of the Court.

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel may rely upon all agreements made with Defendants’
Co-Lead Counsel, and such agreements shall be binding on all defendants whose cases are
11
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 12 of 31
subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, to the extent that the agreements are made on their behalf. 3. Plaintiffs’ stipulation to this Case Management Order is not an indication
that plaintiffs participated in, agree with or take any position with respect to Defendants’ Lead Counsel’s decisions concerning the allocation of responsibilities among defendants and/or defendants’ counsel. E. Defendants’ Liaison Counsel
1. Thomas J. Brunner of Baker & Daniels LLP, South Bend, Indiana shall serve as Defendants’ Liaison Counsel. Counsel for each defendant in this proceeding shall note their appearances with the Court. The Defendants’ Liaison Counsel shall discharge the following duties:
(a) To maintain and distribute to defendants’ counsel and to Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel an up-to-date service list as to defendants;
(b) To receive orders and notices from the Court on behalf of all defendants and to prepare and transmit copies of orders and notices to all defendants;
(c) To receive materials filed by plaintiffs and to distribute such materials to all defendants;
(d) To maintain complete files, with copies of all documents served upon them, and to make those files available to defendants; and
(e) To perform other such duties as necessary. 2. Plaintiffs’ stipulation to this Case Management Order is not an indication that plaintiffs participated in, agree with or take any position with respect to Defendants’ Liaison Counsel’s decisions concerning the allocation of responsibilities among defendants and/or
12
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 13 of 31
defendants’ counsel.
F. Admissions to Practice No parties to any of these actions shall be required to obtain local counsel in this
district and the requirements of Rules 83.5(c) and 83.5(d) of the Northern District of Indiana’s Local Rules are waived as to any attorney appearing in these actions who is duly admitted to practice before any United States Court.
IV. COORDINATION WITH STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS A. Identification of State Court Cases
To facilitate this effort to achieve any appropriate informal coordination among this proceeding and any parallel state court cases, Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and Defendants’ Liaison Counsel are requested jointly to provide this Court within ten (10) days after the issuance of this Order a list of all parallel state court cases of which they are aware and to supplement the list as appropriate.
V. SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS A. Orders
The Clerk shall serve each Order that applies to all cases in the MDL proceeding electronically to all counsel who have registered for Electronic Service, and shall serve each Order that applies only to particular cases electronically to all counsel in those cases and to Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel. B. Discovery Requests and Responses
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d), discovery requests and responses will not be filed with the Court, except when specifically ordered by the Court or to the extent they are presented in connection with a motion.
13
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 14 of 31

VI. EARLY DISCOVERY AND BIFURCATION A. Bifurcation of Liability and Damages

The proceedings in the coordinated actions shall be bifurcated between liability and

damages.

B. Discovery Guidelines

1. Cooperation

The parties are expected to work cooperatively and in good faith to limit the costs of

discovery.

2. Production

All document production is to be in electronic format, with both sides sharing the costs of

processing and producing discovery in electronic format. The parties agree to meet and confer to

discuss issues related to the format of electronic document production in an attempt to reach

agreement.

C. Early Disclosures

The parties have agreed to the initial phases of discovery, set forth below:

1. General Non-Testimonial Discovery

Defendants shall produce electronically all versions of updated manuals, policies and

procedures, training materials and recruitment materials maintained by FedEx Ground and

FedEx Home Delivery on their company intranets, to be completed no later than December 1,

2005. 2.

Estrada Discovery

By January 8, 2006, defendants shall provide to plaintiffs portions of the discovery

produced in Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior

Court Case BC 210130). This production shall include: any general materials produced, such as

14
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 15 of 31
policies, procedures, training or recruiting materials; deposition and trial transcripts; and trial exhibits. The parties agree to submit a joint stipulation to the Estrada court requesting the release of the trial transcript and exhibits by mid-November, 2005. The documents produced shall be subject to the Protective Order entered in this case. Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel Faris will be responsible for ensuring that personal information contained in such production is adequately protected.
3. Initial Disclosures Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be provided to each side’s respective Co-Lead Counsel no later than January 8, 2006.
4. Initial Production Plaintiffs shall produce all documents identified in their initial disclosures no later than January 8, 2006. Defendants shall produce all documents identified in their initial disclosures not otherwise called for in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 herein, no later than January 8, 2006.
5. Terminal-Specific Non-Testimonial Discovery Defendants shall make good faith effort to produce a substantial amount of terminalspecific documents regarding all named plaintiffs in the cases listed in Exhibit A, consisting of individual driver Department of Transportation files, “Business Discussion,” files, “Unit History” files, and “Contractor Business Plans,” by February 15, 2006, with the remaining documents produced by March 15, 2006.
VII. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS A. Pending Motions
The Motion to Amend the Complaint pending in Tierney is hereby granted and the
15
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 16 of 31
amended complaint shall be deemed filed as of the date of this Order. All other motions pending in these cases that were filed in their transferor courts are hereby withdrawn without prejudice, and may be refiled pursuant to the deadlines set forth in this Order. B. Amended Complaints
1. The Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel shall file any amended complaints on or before January 8, 2006. Such amended pleadings shall supersede any complaint pending in such action prior to transfer to this Court as part of MDL No. 1700.
2. Nothing in this section shall be read to limit plaintiffs’ ability to move to amend their complaints pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at a later date. C. Motions to Remand
Any motion to remand shall be made no later than December 15, 2005, [Defendants’ Proposal: with opposition briefs to be due on January 12, 2006 and reply briefs to be due on January 26, 2006.] [Plaintiffs’ Proposal: with opposition and reply papers being served and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.] D. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Motions
Should any defendant decide to file a motion to dismiss any or all portions of a complaint or amended complaint to which defendants have not yet filed a responsive pleading, or move for judgment on the pleadings, such motions shall be filed by February 8, 2006. This provision does not preclude the filing of other Rule 12 motions. Plaintiffs’ responses to any Rule 12 motions shall be filed and served no later than March 8, 2006, and defendants’ replies (if any) shall be filed and served no later than March 23, 2006. E. Pleadings
Except for good cause shown, no additional named plaintiffs or other parties may be
16
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 17 of 31
added to existing actions after March 30, 2006. F. Document Confidentiality Order
A motion for entry of an order preserving the confidentiality of confidential documents will be submitted by the parties.
VIII. CLASS CERTIFICATION The parties will have until [Defendants’ Proposal: June 1, 2006][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: May 1, 2006] to conduct non-expert discovery designed to create an evidentiary record upon which plaintiffs’ class certification motions can be briefed and decided as to all cases pending in this MDL proceeding. Plaintiffs shall identify all experts and witnesses upon whom they rely in support of their motions for class certification (including the information contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) as to experts) and file any expert reports or affidavits upon which they rely in support of their class certification motions by [Defendants’ Proposal: June 1, 2006][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: May 1, 2006]. Defendants shall have until [Defendants’ Proposal: June 30, 2006][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: May 21, 2006] to depose Plaintiffs’ class certification expert(s). Defendants shall also have until [Defendants’ Proposal: June 30, 2006][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: May 15, 2006] to identify all experts and witnesses upon whom they will rely in opposing plaintiffs’ class certification motion (including the information contemplated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) as to experts), and file any expert reports or affidavits upon which they rely in opposing plaintiffs’ class certification. Plaintiffs shall have until [Defendants’ Proposal: August 1, 2006][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: June 7, 2006] to depose Defendants’ class certification expert(s). Plaintiffs shall file their motions to certify proposed classes in this MDL proceeding in three phases. Each phase shall be comprised, so near as mathematically possible, of 1/3 of the cases for which class certification will be sought. The first phase of motions shall be filed by
17
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 18 of 31
[Defendants’ Proposal: August 17, 2006][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: June 21, 2006]. The second phase of motions shall be filed by [Defendants’ Proposal: September 7, 2006.][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: July 14, 2006] The final phase of motions shall be filed by [Defendants’ Proposal: September 28, 2006][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: August 7, 2006]. The staggering of class certification briefing is in recognition of the large amount of labor that will be required to adequately address the issues pertinent to each case, and is not intended to dictate the order in which the court reviews the motions. [Defendants’ Proposal: Plaintiffs shall identify to defendants which cases will comprise each phase at least 30 days in advance of filing their motions for class certification for that particular phase.] [Plaintiffs’ Proposal: Plaintiffs shall identify to defendants which cases will comprise each phase at least 3 days in advance of filing their motions for class certification for that particular phase.] To the extent that additional cases are filed for which Plaintiffs will seek class certification, the parties may petition the court for leave to amend the above schedule.
For each brief, Plaintiffs shall be permitted [Defendants’ Proposal: 50][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: 30] pages for a memorandum setting forth support for class certification in the cases pending in this MDL proceeding for which such certification is sought.
For each phase, Defendants shall have 45 days from Plaintiffs’ deadline to file briefing setting forth their arguments in opposition to plaintiffs’ motions, and the evidentiary basis thereof. Defendants’ opposition briefs shall be limited to [Defendants’ Proposal: 75][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: 50] pages per brief.
For each phase, Plaintiffs may file reply memoranda in support of their class certification motions within 30 days of the deadline for Defendants’ opposition briefs. The reply memoranda shall be limited to [Defendants’ Proposal: 25][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: 40] pages each and shall be
18
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 19 of 31
confined to responding to arguments made in Defendants’ opposition memoranda. After the filing of all briefing concerning plaintiffs’ class certification motions, the Court
shall schedule a hearing on the class certification motions. IX. DISCOVERY
Discovery for purposes of class certification and discovery for purposes of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims will take place concurrently. Discovery for purposes of class certification shall conclude by May 1, 2006. Prior to May 1, 2006, the parties are expected to give priority to discovery requests pertaining to class certification. Merits discovery shall conclude by January 31, 2007. A. Non-Testimonial Discovery
Prior to February 15, 2006, the parties will confine themselves to non-testimonial discovery (e.g., document requests, interrogatories, requests for admissions).
[Defendants’ Proposal: Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel, on behalf of defendants in this proceeding, may serve on each plaintiff interrogatories (not exceeding 15 in number) and requests for admissions (not exceeding 5 in number, not including requests for document authentication or admissibility). Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel, on behalf of plaintiffs in this proceeding, are entitled to serve on FedEx Ground 100 interrogatories and 50 requests for admission.]
[Plaintiffs’ Proposal: Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel, on behalf of defendants in this proceeding, may serve on each plaintiff interrogatories (not exceeding 10 in number) and requests for admissions (not exceeding 5 in number, not including requests for document authentication or admissibility). Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel may serve on each defendant interrogatories (not exceeding 10 in number) and requests for admissions (not exceeding 5 in
19
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 20 of 31
number, not including requests for document authentication or admissibility), on behalf of each plaintiff.]
The Court expects that in formulating discovery requests, the parties will take account of the discovery taken in previous cases and will avoid duplicative discovery.
The party served shall answer and/or object to the interrogatories and requests for admission in accordance with a schedule that should be negotiated among the parties following service of the interrogatories and requests for admission. B. Testimonial Discovery
Deposition notices for corporate designees will describe “with reasonable particularity the matters” on which the examination is requested. If more than one subject area is covered by any 30(b)(6) notice, each such subject area will count as one deposition for purposes of the limitations placed on depositions for the case, despite the fact that they are contained in one deposition notice. The witness produced to respond to the notice will have appropriate knowledge of the subject matter and be properly prepared to answer questions about that issue. If the witness produced does not have sufficient knowledge of the issue, regardless of the number of witnesses that must be produced to properly address the matter noticed, the deposition will be considered one deposition for purposes of the limitations on depositions.
[Defendants’ Proposal: Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel shall, on behalf of all Defendants, be entitled to depose each Named Plaintiff (currently 148) and take an additional 25 depositions. Counsel for plaintiffs shall be entitled to take 50 depositions.][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: Plaintiffs and Defendants’ counsel shall each be entitled to take 100 depositions.] Each deposition shall not exceed 7 hours in length.
20
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 21 of 31
X. SUMMARY JUDGMENT/EXPERT WITNESSES Summary judgment generally shall be divided into two phases: summary judgment or adjudication on issues relating to independent contractor/employment status and summary judgment or adjudication as to other issues. [Defendants’ Proposal: Nothing in this phasing shall limit the ability of any party to move for summary judgment as to any issue at an appropriate time, nor dictate the order in which this Court shall address such dispositive motions.] [Plaintiffs’ Proposal: No other summary judgment motions may be filed without leave of Court.]
1. Summary Judgment/Adjudication on Issues Relating to Independent Contractor/Employment Status
Movants shall identify all experts and witnesses upon whom they will rely in the summary judgment phase of proceedings relating to independent contractor/employment status (including the information contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) as to experts) and file any expert reports or affidavits upon which they rely in that phase of proceedings no later than February 15, 2007. Opponents shall have until March 15, 2007 to depose such expert(s). Opponents shall identify all experts and witnesses upon whom they will rely in the summary judgment phase of the proceedings (including the information contemplated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) as to experts), and file any expert reports or affidavits upon which they rely in that phase of proceedings no later than March 31, 2007. Depositions of such expert(s) must take place no later than May 1, 2007.
Movants shall have until May 31, 2007 to file motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication, including memoranda in support thereof. Memoranda in support of such motions shall not exceed 30 pages. Opponents shall have until July 14, 2007 to file memoranda in opposition to such motions. Memoranda in opposition to such motions shall not exceed 50
21
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 22 of 31
pages. Movants shall have until August 15, 2007 to file replies to the memoranda in opposition to such motions. Reply memoranda in support of such motions shall not exceed [Defendants’ Proposal: 20][Plaintiffs’ Proposal: 40] pages. Reply briefs shall be limited to arguments made in the opposition briefing.
The parties shall not rely on any experts in the summary judgment/summary adjudication stage of the case that are not identified in accordance with the schedule above.
2. Additional Summary Judgment Briefing The parties shall meet and confer as to an appropriate schedule for summary judgment/summary adjudication motions on grounds other than employment status.
XI. NUMBERING OF DOCUMENTS The parties shall develop and use a system for identifying, by unique number or symbol, each document produced or referred to during the course of litigation. Each producing party shall give each page of any document it produces a unique number, using a consistent numbering system that identifies the producing party. All reasonable efforts should be made to avoid having the same page assigned more than one identifying number except when there is a need to account for different copies of the same document or page (for example, because of special notations being placed on the document). With respect to documents previously produced in Estrada, they shall be renumbered for purposes of this litigation, so long as the number associated with their initial production remains visible. In the event that documents produced by persons or entities who are not parties to this action are not, when produced, identified by a unique numbering system, the party at whose request production was made shall be responsible for numbering the documents in accordance with the above terms.
22
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 23 of 31
XII. DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATION Any party that produces documents and records in discovery that were either authored by that party or are shown on the document as having been received by that party shall, by doing so, admit that such documents and records are authentic, unless a party otherwise so specifies on a document-by-document basis, within 30 days of such production. However, such admission shall not be binding on another party.
XIII. OTHER MATTERS A. Rules Applicable to Discovery
1. Local Rules The foregoing requirements shall take precedence over any conflicting provisions of the Local Rules of this Court.
2. Pending Requests All pending discovery requests in any of the constituent actions to this proceeding shall be deemed withdrawn without prejudice to being re-served in accordance with the provisions of this Order. B. Rules Applicable to Depositions Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel (or their designees) shall attempt to establish by mutual agreement a schedule for depositions that reflects a sequencing that is consistent with (a) the availability of documents from among those produced by the parties and third parties, (b) the objective of avoiding the need to subject any person to repeated depositions, and (c) efficiency. Disputes concerning the timing and scheduling of depositions may be presented to the Court. The Court expects that the use of formal notices of depositions or subpoenas with respect to party witnesses will be unnecessary in this case – that is, party
23
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 24 of 31
witnesses will be produced in accordance with whatever schedule is developed. The parties shall coordinate the scheduling of third-party witnesses. Absent the parties’ agreement to the contrary, or for good cause shown to the Court, depositions shall take place in the city where the deponent resides.
1. Supplemental Depositions The court anticipates that no witness will be deposed on the same subject more than once in this litigation. If a party seeks to take a second deposition of a witness, it shall provide the opposing party its basis for an exception to the rule along with a list of the subject matters as to which interrogation is sought. Second depositions on new subject matter shall be permitted by consent of the parties or upon order of this court authorizing such deposition based upon a showing of good cause. An individual designated and tendered by the defendants in response to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice may be re-deposed at a later time upon notice by plaintiffs on new subject matter, and such deposition may proceed without plaintiffs obtaining leave of court. However, such deposition would count against the deposition limits set forth above.
2. Deposition Disputes During depositions, disputes that arise that cannot be resolved by agreement and that, if not immediately resolved, will significantly disrupt the discovery schedule or require a rescheduling of the deposition, may be presented to the Court by telephone. The presentation of the issue and the Court’s ruling will be recorded as part of the deposition. The undersigned will exercise by telephone the authority granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(b) to act as district judge in the district in which the deposition is taken.
24
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 25 of 31
C. RULES CONCERNING PRIVILEGE ISSUES 1. Generally
A party who, relying on any privilege or the work product doctrine, does not produce all documents that would have been produced but for the claim of privilege or work-product, must state that it is invoking a privilege. A party who invokes a privilege must specify which privilege or doctrine it is invoking.
2. Exempted Documents Documents that were created or generated subsequent to the filing of the constituent actions to this proceeding, or the filing of other actions asserting allegations similar to those asserted in the constituent actions, and which concern or relate to the defense of a specific lawsuit and are privileged as communications or work product relating to these actions, need not be identified under this section. D. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Prior to briefing on summary judgment issues, the parties shall confer as to the appropriateness of alternative dispute resolution. If the parties agree to a course of alternative dispute resolution at that time, the parties will petition the court to amend the deadlines of this Case Management Order as they pertain to summary judgment. SO ORDERED: ENTERED: ___________________
Christopher A. Nuechterlein UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 26 of 31

EXHIBIT A

Case Name

Original Court

Alexander, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 1-20

Northern District of California

Anfinson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Schnebeck, Pilakowski, John Does 1-10

Western District of Washington

Bertram, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., d/b/a FedEx Home Delivery, and their respective health benefit and pension plans, DOES 1-20

Western District of Kentucky

Bunger, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx District of South Dakota Home Delivery

Capers, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.,

District of New Jersey

Gaskins, Rettinger, Gelhausen, Collins, DiMaio, FedEx Corp.,

John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10

Carlson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Middle District of Florida

Carraher, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Middle District of Florida

Cooke v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

District of South Carolina

Craig, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

District of Kansas

Fleming, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 1-5

Northern District of Mississippi

Gennell, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

District of New Hampshire

Gregory v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Eastern District of Virginia

Griffin, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 1-20

Northern District of Illinois

Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Western District of Pennsylvania

Humphreys, et. al v. Federal Express Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

Western District of Texas

Johnson, et al. v. FedEx Home Delivery, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Eastern District of New York

BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 27 of 31

Case Name

Original Court

Johnson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Southern District of Iowa Delivery, and their respective health and benefit plans, Does 1-20

Kilmartin v. Federal Express Incorporated, Federal Express District of New Jersey (Cranbury Location), John Does 1-5 and John Does 6-10

Larson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Eastern District of Wisconsin

Lee, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 1-20

District of Minnesota

Lester, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

Eastern District of Michigan

Louzau, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Southern District of New York

Riewe, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Respective Health Plans Does 120

Northern District of Indiana

Sheehan, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx District of Massachusetts Home Delivery

Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

District of Oregon

Smith, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Respective Health Plans Does 1-20

Western District of Tennessee

Tierney, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

District of Rhode Island

Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

District of New Jersey

Willis v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Corp. Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Woomer v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Western District of Pennsylvania

Zabrocki v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Western District of Wisconsin

2
BDDB01 4225580v1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 28 of 31

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 7th day of November, 2005, I filed the foregoing Proposed Case Management Order with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system.

Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court's electronic

filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

George A. Barton Email: gbarton@birch.net

Robert I. Harwood rharwood@whesq.com

Evelyn L. Becker PHV Email: ebecker@omm.com

Tom A. Jerman Email: tjerman@omm.com

Jerald R. Cureton Email: jcureton@curetoncaplan.com

Jordan M. Lewis Email: jordanlewis@sbgdf.com

Edward John Efkeman Email: eefkeman@fedex.com

Gary F. Lynch Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

Susan E. Ellingstad E-mail: seellingstad@locklaw.com

Daniel O. Myers Email: dmyers@rpwb.com

Lynn R. Faris lfaris@leonardcarder.com

Richard T. Phillips Email: flip@smithphillips.com

Wood R. Foster Jr. Email: woodfoster@sbgdf.com

Anne T. Regan Email: atr@zimmreed.com

Philip Stephen Fuoco Email: pfuoco@msn.com

Robert M. Schwartz PHV Email: rschwartz@omm.com

Clayton D. Halunen Halunen@youhaverights.info

Edith A. Thomas Email: edithomas1@aol.com

John C. Hamilton Email: jch@hamiltonfirm.com, hamiltonfirm@sbcglobal.net

Joni M. Thome Email: thome@youhaverights.inco

Matthew T. Tobin Email: matt@jhmmj.com

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 29 of 31

I further certify that I have mailed the foregoing document by U.S. Mail on the following parties of record:

John H. Beisner PHV O'Melveny & Myers LLP 1625 Eye St. NW, Ste. 10 Washington, DC 2006-4001 Telephone: 202-383-5378 Facsimile: 202-383-5414
Joree Brownlow Law Office of Joree G. Brownlow 1444 Gillham Dr., Ste. 200 Bartlett, TN 38134 Telephone: 901-266-9902 Facsimile: 901-266-5985
R. Bruce Carlson Carlson Lynch Ltd. 231 Melville Lane P. O. Box 367 Sewickley, PA 15143 Telephone: 412-749-1677 Facsimile: 412-749-1686
Kevin M. Costello Levow & Costello Cherry Hill Plaza Suite 200 1415 Route 70 East Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034 Tel: (856) 428-5055 Fax: (856) 429-7726
James R. Mulroy II William T. Fiala Lewis, Fisher, Henderson & Claxton LLP 6410 Poplar Ave., Ste. 300 Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: 901-767-6160
R. Christopher Gilreath Gilreath & Associates 6256 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: 901-680-9777

Eric E. Hobbs Eric M. Rumbaugh PHN Michael Best Friedrich LLP 100 E. Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202-4108 Telephone: 414-271-6560 Fax: 414-277-0656
Dmitri Iglitzin Schwerin Campbell Barnard LLP 18 West Mercer St., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98119 Tel: (206) 285.2828 Fax: (206) 378.4132
Karen P. Kruse PHV Jackson Lewis LLP - SEA/WA One Union Square 600 University Street, Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98101
Steve D. Larson Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter P.C. 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: 503-227-1600 Facsimile: 503-227-6840
Donald B. Lewis Law Offices of Donald B. Lewis 5 Cynwyd Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 610-668-0331
Shannon Liss-Riordan Alfred Gordon Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg, & LissRiordan 18 Tremont Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 500 Boston, MA 02108 Tel: 617-367-7200 Fax: 617-367-4820

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 30 of 31

Carla D. Macaluso Jackson Lewis LLP 220 Headquarters Plaza 7th Floor East Tower Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: 973-538-6890 Facsimile: 973-540-9015
Paula R. Markowitz Markowitz & Richman 1100 North American Building 121 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: 215-875-3100
Robert E. McDaniel The McDaniel Law Offices 4 Bicentennial Square Concord, NH 03301 Tel: (603) 224-4333 Fax: (603) 224-4994
Kenneth E. Milam Watkins & Eager P. O. Box 650 Jackson, MS 39205-0650 Telephone: 601-948-6470
James R. Mulroy II Lewis Fisher Henderson & Claxton LLP 100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401
Alan M. Purdie Gore, Kilpatrick, Purdie, Metz & Adcock 402 Legacy Park P.O. Drawer 2900 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: 601-957-1595
Anne T. Regan J. Gordon Rudd Zimmerman & Reed 651 Nicollett Mall, Ste. 501 Minneapolis, MN 55401

Richard R. Roberts Federal Express Corporation 3620 Hacks Cross Rd. Building B, 3rd Floor Memphis, TN 38125 Telephone: 901-224-9500
Aaron Roblan Jackson Lewis One Union Square 600 University St., Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-405-0404 Facsimile: 206-405-4450
Beth A. Ross Leonard Carder, LLP 1330 Broadway Ave., Ste. 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (415) 771-6400 Fax: (415) 771-7010
Dan S. Smith Dan Solomon Smith, LLC 339 Main St., Suite 2D Orange, NJ 07050 Tel: (973) 674-7200 Fax: (973) 674-6676
Cheryl M. Stanton Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC 10 Madison Ave., Ste. 402 Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: 973-656-1600
Patricia A. Sullivan John D. Doran Edwards & Angell, LLP 2800 Financial Plaza Providence, RI 02903

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 45 filed 11/07/05 page 31 of 31

Richard Tanenbaum, Esq. The Law Offices of Richard Tanenbaum 1131 McDonald Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11230 Tel: (718) 252-3366 Fax: (718) 252-9280
Donald R. Taylor Taylor & Dunham, L.L.P. 327 Congress Avenue, Suite 600 Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: 512-473-2257 Fax: 512-478-4409
Peter N. Wasylyk Law Offices of Peter N. Wasylyk 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908
Michael J. Watton Watton Law Group 225 East Michigan St., Ste. 550 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: 414-273-6858 Facsimile: 414-273-6894
Dennis M. Brennan 215 West Marion Street South Bend, IN 46601

Hoyt Rowell, III Daniel O. Myers Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman
LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg A Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Kevin J. Driscoll Jack D. Hilmes Finley Alt Smith Scharnberg Craig Hilmes & Gafney PC 699 Walnut St., 1900 Hub Tower Des Moines, IA 50309-3773 Charles N. Nauen Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Michael R. Reck Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn 666 Walnut St., Ste. 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-3989

By: s/Thomas J. Brunner
BAKER & DANIELS LLP 205 West Jefferson Blvd., Suite 250 South Bend, IN 46601

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

)

CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

)

(MDL-1700)

)

)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO

)

ALL CASES

INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

On October 24, 2005, this Court conducted a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) preliminary pretrial

conference. Due to the parties’ representation that given more time, they would be able to reach

an agreement related to deadlines and limitations on discovery, class certification, and document

numbering issues, this Court afforded parties until November 7, 2005, to meet and confer with

regards to these issues. This Court then continued the Rule 16(b) preliminary pretrial conference

to November 28, 2005. Despite parties’ initial disagreement over the deadlines and limitations

on discovery and class certification issues, there were numerous areas upon which parties

agreed. Therefore, this Court now enters its initial scheduling order which encompasses those

deadlines upon which parties agree. While not specifically incorporated in this order, the court’s

August 30, 2005 practice and procedure order remains in full force and effect regarding the

filings, attorney admissions, and CM/ECF issues.

I. PRETRIAL CONSOLIDATION AND COORDINATION

A. Consolidated Cases

By order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”), the cases listed

in Exhibit A of this Order have been transferred to this forum for coordinated pretrial

proceedings.

B. Applicability of Order

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 2 of 17
The terms of this Order shall apply automatically to the actions listed in Exhibit A and to all other cases that become a part of this proceeding by virtue of being instituted in, removed to, or transferred to this Court (including cases transferred pursuant to: (a) Local Rules; (b) 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); or (c) 28 U.S.C. § 1407)). This Order also vacates any prior scheduling order issued by any other federal court prior to transfer of a case to MDL 1700. The local rules of a federal transferor court will not be binding on the parties after a case has been transferred to MDL-1700, so long as the case remains before this transferee court.
C. Dissemination of Order Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel (as designated below) shall within five (5) days of the date of this Order send (by overnight delivery) a copy of this Order to all plaintiffs’ counsel in all actions to which this Order applies. Defendants’ Liaison Counsel (as designated below) shall within five (5) days of the date of this Order send (by overnight delivery) a copy of this Order to counsel for any defendants in any newly filed action that are not defendants in any action listed in Exhibit A. Upon subsequently learning that this Order is or may be applicable to any other action, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel shall immediately send (by overnight delivery) a copy of this Order to counsel in that action, and send to defendants a copy of the proof of service. D. Future Transfers of Tag-Along Actions Subsequent actions that are transferred to these MDL proceedings, “tag-alongs”, shall automatically be made part of these coordinated proceedings upon transfer to this Court. Prior rulings on common issues issued by this Court in these proceedings shall be automatically deemed to have been made in such newly-transferred cases. Discovery already taken at the time
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 3 of 17
of transfer shall be made available in the tag-along actions. Except for good reason shown, any
tag-along actions transferred to this Court will be expected to adhere to the schedule established
by this Case Management Order.
II. ORGANIZATION OF COUNSEL
A. Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel
Plaintiffs’ counsel hereby agree to the appointment of the following law firms as
Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel with the responsibilities hereinafter described:
Lynn Rossman Faris LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1330 Broadway Avenue, Suite 1450
Oakland, CA 94612 Tel.: (510) 272-0169
Susan E. Ellingstad LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel.: (612) 339-6900
Robert I. Harwood WECHSLER HARWOOD LLP 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10022 Tel.: (212) 935-7400
Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel shall be generally responsible for coordinating
activities of plaintiffs, after appropriate consultation with co-counsel, during pre-trial
proceedings and shall:
1). Determine for the Court and opposing parties the position of the plaintiffs
in all matters arising during pre-trial proceedings;
2). Delegate specific tasks to other counsel in a manner to ensure that pretrial
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 4 of 17
preparation for plaintiffs is conducted effectively, efficiently, and economically; 3). Enter into stipulations with opposing counsel necessary for the conduct of
the litigation; 4). Prepare and distribute to the parties periodic status reports; 5). Maintain adequate time and disbursement records covering services and
expenditures of plaintiffs’ counsel; 6). Monitor the activities of co-counsel to ensure that schedules are met and
unnecessary expenditures of time and funds are avoided; 7). Maintain complete files with copies of all documents served upon them
and shall make such files available to all Plaintiffs’ counsel; 8). Maintain and make available to all counsel and the Court an up-to-date
service list; 9). Receive and, as appropriate, distribute to co-counsel orders from the
Court, and documents from opposing parties and counsel; 10). Represent plaintiffs in all mediation proceedings and settlement
negotiations; and 11). Perform such other duties as may be incidental to proper coordination of
plaintiffs’ pretrial activities or authorized by further Order of this Court. In addition, Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel shall coordinate activities to avoid duplication
and inefficiency in the filing, serving and/or implementation of pleadings, other court papers, discovery papers, and discovery practice.
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 5 of 17
Defendants’ counsel may rely upon all agreements made with Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel, and such agreements shall be binding on all plaintiffs whose cases are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, to the extent that the agreements are made on their behalf. Defendants’ stipulation to this Case Management Order is not an indication that defendants participated in, agree with or take any position with respect to Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel’s decisions concerning the allocation of responsibilities among plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ counsel.
B. Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel Plaintiffs’ counsel hereby designate the following law firm to act as liaison counsel:
John Hamilton HAMILTON LAW FIRM 300 North Michigan Street
Suite 454 South Bend, Indiana 46601
Tel.: (574) 289-9987 Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel is charged with the following duties and responsibilities for the duration of this litigation:
1). Receive orders, notices, correspondence, and telephone calls from the Court and the Clerk of the Court on Plaintiffs’ behalf;
2). Receive orders and notices from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation; and
3). Coordinate and assist with electronic filing and docketing of pleadings, briefs, motions and hearings.
Defendants’ stipulation to this Case Management Order is not an indication that Defendants participated in, agree with or take any position with respect to Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel’s decisions concerning the allocation of responsibilities among Plaintiffs and/or
5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 6 of 17
Plaintiffs’ counsel.
C. Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
Plaintiffs’ counsel hereby designate the following firms, along with co-lead counsel, to
serve as members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”):
Jerald R. Cureton CURETON CAPLAN, P.C.
950 B Chester Avenue Delran, New Jersey 08075
Tel.: (856) 824-1001
Jordan M. Lewis SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER, DUFFY & FOSTER, P.A.
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel.: (215) 814-9322
J. Gordon Rudd ZIMMERMAN REED 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel.: (612) 341-0400
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, in consultation with Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel, shall be
responsible for:
1). Assisting with the coordination of the activities of plaintiffs during pretrial
proceedings;
2). Monitoring the activities of co-counsel to assure that schedules are met
and unnecessary expenditures of time and expense are avoided;
3). Performing such other duties as may be incidental to proper coordination
of plaintiffs’ pretrial activities or authorized by further order of the Court.
Defendants’ stipulation to this Case Management Order is not an indication that
6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 7 of 17
defendants participated in, agree with or take any position with respect to Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee’s decisions concerning the allocation of responsibilities among Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel.
D. Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel John H. Beisner and Robert M. Schwartz of O’Melveny & Myers LLP (Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, California, respectively) shall be Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel. Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel shall discharge the following duties:
1). To be lead counsel for defendants; 2). To coordinate, determine, and present the positions of the defendants on all matters arising during all pretrial proceedings; 3). To coordinate for defendants the initiation and conduct of discovery consistent with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and (2) and (g), including the preparation of joint interrogatories and requests for production of documents and the examination of witnesses in depositions; 4). To direct and coordinate the work of all defendants’ counsel and to make assignments of work to be performed in the prosecution of the case in a manner to assure that pretrial preparation is conducted effectively, efficiently and economically; 5). To monitor the activities of defendants’ counsel to assure that schedules are met and that unnecessary expenditures of time and expenses are avoided; 6). To enter into stipulations with opposing counsel necessary for the conduct of the litigation; 7). To communicate with all defendants’ counsel information concerning the
7

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 8 of 17
status of any developments in this proceeding; 8). To call meetings of other defendants’ counsel to effectuate these
provisions; 9). To receive orders and notices from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, pursuant to Rule 8(e) of the Panel’s Rules of Procedure, on behalf of defendants, and to prepare and transmit copies of orders and notices to defendants; and
10). To perform such other duties as may be incidental to proper coordination of defendants’ pretrial and trial activities or authorized by further order of the Court.
Plaintiffs’ counsel may rely upon all agreements made with Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel, and such agreements shall be binding on all defendants whose cases are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, to the extent that the agreements are made on their behalf. Plaintiffs’ stipulation to this Case Management Order is not an indication that plaintiffs participated in, agree with or take any position with respect to Defendants’ Lead Counsel’s decisions concerning the allocation of responsibilities among defendants and/or defendants’ counsel.
E. Defendants’ Liaison Counsel Thomas J. Brunner of Baker & Daniels LLP, South Bend, Indiana shall serve as Defendants’ Liaison Counsel. Counsel for each defendant in this proceeding shall note their appearances with the Court. The Defendants’ Liaison Counsel shall discharge the following duties:
1). To maintain and distribute to defendants’ counsel and to Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel an up-to-date service list as to defendants;
2). To receive orders and notices from the Court on behalf of all defendants
8

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 9 of 17
and to prepare and transmit copies of orders and notices to all defendants; 3). To receive materials filed by plaintiffs and to distribute such materials to
all defendants; 4). To maintain complete files, with copies of all documents served upon
them, and to make those files available to defendants; and 5). To perform other such duties as necessary.
Defendants’ Liaison Counsel is hereby designated as the counsel for defendants upon whom all notices, orders, pleadings, motions, discovery and memoranda are to be served, except for case-specific matters, which shall be served on Defendants’ Liaison Counsel, as well as on Co-Lead Counsel and on the attorneys of record in that particular case.
Plaintiffs’ stipulation to this Case Management Order is not an indication that plaintiffs participated in, agree with or take any position with respect to Defendants’ Liaison Counsel’s decisions concerning the allocation of responsibilities among defendants and/or defendants’ counsel.
III. COORDINATION WITH STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS To facilitate this effort to achieve any appropriate informal coordination among this proceeding and any parallel state court cases, Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and Defendants’ Liaison Counsel are requested jointly to provide this Court within ten (10) days after the issuance of this Order a list of all parallel state court cases of which they are aware and to supplement the list as appropriate.
9

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 10 of 17
IV. SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS A. Orders The Clerk shall serve each Order that applies to all cases in the MDL proceeding electronically to all counsel who have registered for Electronic Service, and shall serve each Order that applies only to particular cases electronically to all counsel in those cases and to Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and Defendants’ Liaison Counsel. B. Pleadings, Motions, and Other Documents Motions claiming default or seeking other penalties or sanctions against a party for failure to take some action within a time period measured from the date of service of a document must be served on Co-Lead Counsel and on counsel of record for that party. Case specific filings (i.e., papers that affect only a particular party or a particular case – for example, a motion seeking to dismiss a party in a case or to remand a case to state court) must be served on counsel in that specific case and Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel. C. Discovery Requests and Responses Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d), discovery requests and responses will not be filed with the Court, except when specifically ordered by the Court or to the extent they are presented in connection with a motion.
V. EARLY DISCOVERY AND BIFURCATION A. Bifurcation of Liability and Damages The proceedings in the coordinated actions shall be bifurcated between liability and damages. B. Discovery Guidelines
10

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 11 of 17
1. Cooperation The parties are expected to work cooperatively and in good faith to limit the costs of discovery.
2. Production All document production is to be in electronic format, with both sides sharing the costs of processing and producing discovery in electronic format. The parties agree to meet and confer to discuss issues related to the format of electronic document production in an attempt to reach agreement. C. Early Disclosures The parties have agreed to the initial phases of discovery, set forth below:
1. General Non-Testimonial Discovery Defendants shall produce electronically all versions of updated manuals, policies and procedures, training materials and recruitment materials maintained by FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery on their company intranets, to be completed no later than December 1, 2005.
2. Estrada Discovery By January 8, 2006, defendants shall provide to plaintiffs portions of the discovery produced in Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case BC 210130). This production shall include: any general materials produced, such as policies, procedures, training or recruiting materials; deposition and trial transcripts; and trial exhibits. The parties agree to submit a joint stipulation to the Estrada court requesting the release of the trial transcript and exhibits by mid-November, 2005. The documents produced
11

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 12 of 17
shall be subject to the Protective Order entered in this case. Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel Faris will be responsible for ensuring that personal information contained in such production is adequately protected.
3. Initial Disclosures Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be provided to each side’s respective Co-Lead Counsel no later than January 8, 2006.
4. Initial Production Plaintiffs shall produce all documents identified in their initial disclosures no later than January 8, 2006. Defendants’ shall produce all documents identified in their initial disclosures not otherwise called for in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 herein, no later than January 8, 2006.
5. Terminal-Specific Non-Testimonial Discovery Defendants shall make good faith effort to produce a substantial amount of terminal specific documents regarding all named plaintiffs in the cases listed in Exhibit A, consisting of individual driver Department of Transportation files, “Business Discussion,” files, “Unit History” files, and “Contractor Business Plans,” by February 15, 2006, with the remaining documents produced by March 15, 2006.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS AND DEADLINES A. Pending Motions All motions pending in these cases that were filed in their transferor courts are hereby withdrawn without prejudice upon the consent of the parties. The motions may be refiled pursuant to the deadlines established in this order. Therefore, all pending motions originating in a transferor court are now DENIED AS MOOT.
12

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 13 of 17
B. Amended Pleadings Parties may file any amended pleadings without leave of court by January 8, 2006. After January 8, 2006, parties may amend their pleadings, but only upon motion and leave of court. C. Motions to Remand Any motion to remand shall be filed no later than December 15, 2005. In accordance with N.D. L.R. 7.1(a) an adverse party shall have fifteen days after service of a motion in which to serve and file a response, and the moving party shall have seven days after service of a response in which to serve and file a reply. D. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Motions Should any Defendant decide to file a motion to dismiss any or all portions of a complaint or amended complaint, or move for judgment on the pleadings, such motions shall be filed by April 15, 2006. In accordance with N.D. L.R. 7.1(a) an adverse party shall have fifteen days after service of a motion in which to serve and file a response, and the moving party shall have seven days after service of a response in which to serve and file a reply. E. Discovery Limitations and Class Certification Deadlines Upon completion of the Rule 16(b) preliminary pretrial conference, this Court will enter a scheduling order that will control the course of this litigation as it relates to discovery and class certification issues.
VII. ANCILLARY MATTERS This initial scheduling order addresses the various scheduling issues that parties have agreed upon. Although parties have now twice been ordered by this Court to meet and confer to
13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 14 of 17 reach an agreement on all scheduling issues, there are numerous issues on which the parties have not been able to reach an agreement. Therefore, this matter was continued to November 28, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. (South Bend time) at which time this Court will specifically address the following scheduling issues: 1) Class certification- including related discovery issues and the timing of motions; 2) Discovery- including relevant limitations, possible sequencing, and deadlines; 3) Expert witnesses- deadlines for disclosing potential expert witnesses and for serving the expert witness reports; and 4) Numbering of Documents. At the conclusion of the continued 16(b) preliminary pretrial conference, this Court will issue a scheduling order which fully sets forth the limitations and deadlines on these remaining issues. SO ORDERED. Dated this 15th Day of November, 2005. s/Christopher A. Nuechterlein Christopher A. Nuechterlein United States Magistrate Judge
14

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 15 of 17

EXHIBIT A

Case Name

Original Court

Alexander, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 120

Northern District of California

Anfinson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Schnebeck, Pilakowski, John Does 1-10

Western District of Washington

Bertram, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., d/b/a FedEx Home Delivery, and their respective health benefit and pension plans, DOES 1-20

Western District of Kentucky

Bunger, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

District of South Dakota

Capers, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Gaskins, Rettinger, Gelhausen, Collins, DiMaio, FedEx Corp., John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10

District of New Jersey

Carlson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Middle District of Florida

Carraher, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Middle District of Florida

Cooke v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. District of South Carolina

Craig, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

District of Kansas

Fleming, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 1-5

Northern District of Mississippi

Gregory v. FedEx Ground Package System, Eastern District of Virginia Inc.

Gennell, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

District of New Hampshire

15

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 16 of 17

Griffin, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Northern District of Illinois Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Does 1-20

Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Western District of Pennsylvania

Humphreys, et. al v. Federal Express Corp., FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

Western District of Texas

Johnson, et al. v. FedEx Home Delivery, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Eastern District of New York

Johnson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, and their respective health and benefit plans, Does 120

Southern District of Iowa

Kilmartin v. Federal Express Incorporated, Federal Express (Cranbury Location), John Does 1-5 and John Does 6-10

District of New Jersey

Larson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Eastern District of Wisconsin

Lee, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground

District of Minnesota

Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery,

Does 1-20

Lester, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., FedEx Eastern District of Michigan Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

Louzau, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Southern District of New York

Riewe, et al. v. FedEx Corp., FedEx Ground Northern District of Indiana Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Respective Health Plans Does 1- 20

Sheehan, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery

District of Massachusetts

Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, District of Oregon Inc.

Smith, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Home Delivery, Respective Health Plans Does 1-20

Western District of Tennessee

16

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 52 filed 11/15/05 page 17 of 17

Tierney, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Willis v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Corp.
Woomer v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Zabrocki v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

District of Rhode Island District of New Jersey Eastern District of Pennsylvania Western District of Pennsylvania Western District of Wisconsin

17

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 58 filed 11/29/05 page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

)

CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

)

(MDL-1700)

)

)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO

)

ALL CASES

SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING ORDER

On October 24, 2005, this Court conducted an interim pretrial conference and on

November 15, 2005, issued its initial scheduling order which established various deadlines. On

November 28, 2005, this Court conducted a telephonic Rule 16(b) preliminary pretrial

conference at which time it addressed the remaining deadlines and discovery limitations.

Therefore, this Court now enters the following supplemental scheduling order governing the

proceedings in this case.

I.

AMENDMENTS TO THE INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

A. Motions to Remand

Any motion to remand shall be made no later than December 15, 2005. Due to the

upcoming holiday season, response briefs shall be filed by January 6, 2006, and reply briefs

shall be filed by January 18, 2006.

B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Motions

Should any defendant decide to file a motion to dismiss any or all portions of a complaint

or amended complaint to which defendants have not yet filed a responsive pleading, or move for

judgment on the pleadings, such motions shall be filed by February 8, 2006.

II. CLASS CERTIFICATION

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 58 filed 11/29/05 page 2 of 9
A. Non-Expert Discovery The parties will have until June 1, 2006, to conduct non-expert discovery designed to create an evidentiary record upon which plaintiffs’ class certification motions can be briefed and decided as to all cases pending in this MDL proceeding. B. Expert Discovery In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and (b), and this Court’s November 15, 2005 initial scheduling order, all parties shall disclose all experts and witnesses upon whom they will rely upon for the motions for class certification by January 8, 2006. In addition, Plaintiff shall serve their expert reports or affidavits upon which they rely in support of their class certification motions by June 1, 2006. Defendants shall have until June 30, 2006, to depose Plaintiffs’ class certification experts. Defendants have until June 30, 2006, to serve any expert reports or affidavits upon which they rely in opposing plaintiffs’ class certification. Plaintiffs shall have until August 1, 2006, to depose Defendants’ class certification experts. C. Staging Because of the large amount of labor that will be required to adequately address the issues pertinent to each case, the parties agree that the staggering of class certification is the most efficient way for the court to review the motions. Therefore, Plaintiffs shall file their motions to certify proposed classes in this MDL proceeding in three phases. Each phase shall be comprised, so near as mathematically possible, of 1/3 of the cases for which class certification will be sought. The first phase of motions shall be filed by August 8, 2006. The second
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 58 filed 11/29/05 page 3 of 9
phase of motions shall be filed by September 1, 2006. The final phase of motions shall be filed by September 22, 2006. Plaintiffs shall identify to Defendants which cases will comprise each phase at least seven days in advance of filing their motion for class certification for that particular phase.
For each phase, Defendants shall have 45 days from Plaintiffs’ deadline to file briefing setting forth their arguments in opposition to plaintiffs’ motions, and the evidentiary basis thereof. Plaintiffs will then have 30 days thereafter to file any reply memoranda in support of their class certification motions.
For each brief, Plaintiffs shall be permitted 20 pages for a memorandum setting forth support for class certification in the cases pending in this MDL proceeding for which such certification is sought. Defendants’ opposition shall be limited to 30 pages per brief. The reply memoranda shall be limited to 20 pages each and shall be confined to responding to arguments made in Defendants’ opposition memoranda. III. DISCOVERY
Discovery for purposes of class certification and discovery for purposes of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims will take place concurrently. Consequently, all discovery relating to independent contractor/employment status and summary judgment shall be completed by August 1, 2006.
A. Non-Testimonial Discovery Prior to February 15, 2006, the parties will confine themselves to non-testimonial discovery (e.g., document requests, interrogatories, requests for admissions).
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 58 filed 11/29/05 page 4 of 9
Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel, on behalf of defendants in this proceeding, may serve on each plaintiff interrogatories (not exceeding 10 in number) and requests for admissions (not exceeding 5 in number, not including requests for document authentication or admissibility). Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel may serve on each defendant interrogatories (not exceeding 10 in number) and requests for admissions (not exceeding 5 in number, not including requests for document authentication or admissibility), on behalf of each plaintiff.
The Court expects that in formulating discovery requests, the parties will take account of the discovery taken in previous cases and will avoid duplicative discovery.
B. Testimonial Discovery Deposition notices for corporate designees will describe “with reasonable particularity the matters” on which the examination is requested. If more than one subject area is covered by any 30(b)(6) notice, each such subject area will count as one deposition for purposes of the limitations placed on depositions for the case, despite the fact that they are contained in one deposition notice. The witness produced to respond to the notice will have appropriate knowledge of the subject matter and be properly prepared to answer questions about that issue. If the witness produced does not have sufficient knowledge of the issue, regardless of the number of witnesses that must be produced to properly address the matter noticed, the deposition will be considered one deposition for purposes of the limitations on depositions. Counsel for Plaintiffs are entitled to take 75 depositions. Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel shall, on behalf of all Defendants, be entitled to depose each Named Plaintiff (currently 148) and take an additional 25 depositions. No more than 50 of Defendant’s depositions may last the
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 58 filed 11/29/05 page 5 of 9
full eight hours. Unless by agreement of counsel, the remaining depositions will be limited to four hours. III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT/EXPERT WITNESSES
Summary judgment generally shall be divided into two phases: summary judgment or adjudication on issues relating to independent contractor/employment status and summary judgment or adjudication as to other issues. No other summary judgment motions may be filed without leave of Court.
A. Summary Judgment/Adjudication on Issues Relating to Independent Contractor/Employment Status
In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and (b), and this Court’s November 15, 2005 initial scheduling order, all parties shall disclose all experts and witnesses upon whom they will rely in the summary judgment phase of proceedings relating to independent contractor/employment status by January 8, 2006. Movants shall serve any expert reports or affidavits upon which they rely in that phase of proceedings no later than June 1, 2006. Opponents shall have until June 30, 2006, to depose such expert(s). Opponents shall serve any expert reports or affidavits upon which they rely in that phase of proceedings no later than June 30, 2006. Depositions of such experts must take place no later than August 1, 2006.
Movants shall have until September 1, 2006, to file motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication, including memoranda in support thereof. Opponents shall have until October 16, 2006, to file memoranda in opposition to such motions. Movants shall have until November 15, 2006, to file replies to the memoranda in opposition to such motions.
Memoranda in support of motions for summary judgment shall not exceed 30 pages. Memoranda in opposition to such motions shall not exceed 25 pages. Reply memoranda in
5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 58 filed 11/29/05 page 6 of 9
support of such motions shall not exceed 20 pages. Reply briefs shall be limited to arguments made in the opposition briefing.
B. Additional Summary Judgment Briefing The parties shall meet and confer as to an appropriate schedule for summary judgment/summary adjudication motions on grounds other than employment status. IV. NUMBERING OF DOCUMENTS The parties shall develop and use a system for identifying, by unique number or symbol, each document produced or referred to during the course of litigation. Each producing party shall give each page of any document it produces a unique number, using a consistent numbering system that identifies the producing party. All reasonable efforts should be made to avoid having the same page assigned more than one identifying number except when there is a need to account for different copies of the same document or page (for example, because of special notations being placed on the document). With respect to documents previously produced in Estrada, they shall be renumbered for purposes of this litigation, so long as the number associated with their initial production remains visible. In the event that documents produced by persons or entities who are not parties to this action are not, when produced, identified by a unique numbering system, the party at whose request production was made shall be responsible for numbering the documents in accordance with the above terms.
V. DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATION Any party that produces documents and records in discovery that were either authored by
6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 58 filed 11/29/05 page 7 of 9
that party or are shown on the document as having been received by that party shall, by doing so, admit that such documents and records are authentic, unless a party otherwise so specifies on a document-by-document basis, within 30 days of such production. However, such admission shall not be binding on another party. VII. OTHER MATTERS
A. Rules Applicable to Discovery 1. Local Rules
This Court’s local rules shall control this action. However, if any provision in this order is contrary to the local rules, this Order takes precedence.
2. Pending Requests All pending discovery requests in any of the constituent actions to this proceeding shall be deemed withdrawn without prejudice to being re-served in accordance with the provisions of this Order. B. Rules Applicable to Depositions Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Co-Lead Counsel (or their designees) shall attempt to establish by mutual agreement a schedule for depositions that reflects a sequencing that is consistent with (a) the availability of documents from among those produced by the parties and third parties, (b) the objective of avoiding the need to subject any person to repeated depositions, and (c) efficiency. Disputes concerning the timing and scheduling of depositions may be presented to the Court. The Court expects that the use of formal notices of depositions or subpoenas with respect to party witnesses will be unnecessary in this case – that is, party witnesses will be produced in accordance with whatever schedule is developed. The parties shall
7

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 58 filed 11/29/05 page 8 of 9
coordinate the scheduling of third-party witnesses. Absent the parties’ agreement to the contrary, or for good cause shown to the Court, depositions shall take place in the city where the deponent resides.
The court anticipates that no witness will be deposed on the same subject more than once in this litigation. If a party seeks to take a second deposition of a witness, it shall provide the opposing party its basis for an exception to the rule along with a list of the subject matters as to which interrogation is sought. Second depositions on new subject matter shall be permitted by consent of the parties or upon order of this court authorizing such deposition based upon a showing of good cause. An individual designated and tendered by the defendants in response to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice may be re-deposed at a later time upon notice by plaintiffs on new subject matter, and such deposition may proceed without plaintiffs obtaining leave of court. However, such deposition would count against the deposition limits set forth above.
C. Rules Concerning Privilege Issues 1. Generally
A party who, relying on any privilege or the work product doctrine, does not produce all documents that would have been produced but for the claim of privilege or work-product, must state that it is invoking a privilege. A party who invokes a privilege must specify which privilege or doctrine it is invoking.
2. Exempted Documents Documents that were created or generated subsequent to the filing of the constituent actions to this proceeding, or the filing of other actions asserting allegations similar to those asserted in the constituent actions, and which concern or relate to the defense of a specific
8

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 58 filed 11/29/05 page 9 of 9 lawsuit and are privileged as communications or work product relating to these actions, need not be identified under this section.
D. Alternative Dispute Resolution Prior to briefing on summary judgment issues, the parties shall confer with the court as to the appropriateness of alternative dispute resolution. Whether the deadlines of this Case Management Order should be modified to allow for alternative dispute resolution will be addressed at the conference with counsel. SO ORDERED. Dated this 29th Day of November, 2005.
s/Christopher A. Nuechterlein Christopher A. Nuechterlein United States Magistrate Judge
9

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

----------------------------------------------------- )

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

)

----------------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

Carlene M. Craig, et al. v. FedEx

)

Ground Package System, Inc., et al.

)

Civil No. 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN (KS) )

)

----------------------------------------------------- )

Cause No. 3:05-MD-527-RM (MDL 1700)

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, for their third amended class action complaint

against the Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., allege:

PARTIES

1. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., and its division, FedEx Home

Delivery (“FHD”) (collectively, “FedEx Ground,” or “Defendant” or “FEG”) is a corporation

incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the State of

Pennsylvania. At all relevant times, Defendant FedEx Ground served as the sponsor, within the

meaning of ERISA §§ 3(16), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(16), and administrator of several employee

benefit pension and welfare plans established under ERISA, including, but not limited to,

Defendants FEDEX Ground Package System, Inc. and Certain Affiliates Wealth Accumulation

401(k) Plan; Group Life and Supplemental Life Plan For Employees Of FedEx Ground Package

System, Inc.; Ground Benefits Plus Short-Term Disability Plan; Group Long Term Disability

Plan For The Employees of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.; FedEx Ground Package

352121-5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 2 of 28
System, Inc. Medical, Dental And Vision Care Plan; and the Dependent Care Account Of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (collectively, the “Plan Defendants”).
2. Plaintiff Carlene M. Craig is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 10879 90th Rd., Oskaloosa, KS 66066. During the period 1998-2002, Plaintiff Craig was an employee or former employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
3. Plaintiff Janie L. Foster is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 509 N. 4th Street, Carbondale, KS 66414. During the period January 2000-2002, Plaintiff Foster was an employee or former employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
4. Plaintiff Leo Rittenhouse is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 23333 S. Croco Rd., Vassar, KS 66543. During the period 1994-1999, Plaintiff Rittenhouse was an employee or former employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
5. Plaintiff Jeff Bramlage is a citizen and resident of the state of Kansas, residing at 7330 SW 61st, Topeka, KS 66610. During the period October 1996-1999, Plaintiff Bramlage was an employee or former employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
6. Plaintiff Lawrence Liable is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 2038 Old Highway 50, Waverly, KS 66871. During the period of 2003, Plaintiff Liable was an employee or former employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.

352121-5

2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 3 of 28
7. Plaintiff Kent Whistler is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 1616 S.W. Clay, Topeka, KS 66604. During the period November 1998-December 2001, Plaintiff Whistler was an employee or former employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
8. Plaintiff Mike Moore is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 1924 Ohio, Lawrence, KS 66046. During the period of 2003, Plaintiff Moore was an employee or former employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
9. Plaintiff Keith Berry is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 2112 SE Colorado, Topeka, KS 66605. During the period January 2002-2004 with FedEx Ground and September 2001 through present with FedEx Home Delivery, Plaintiff Berry was an employee or former employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
10. Plaintiff Mathew Cook is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 1403 Mundell Drive, Mulvane, KS 67110. During the period May 2000 through present, Plaintiff Cook was an employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
11. Plaintiff Heidi Law is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 4960 S. Synaca, Lot 43, Wichita, KS 67217. During the period September 2003 through present, Plaintiff Law was an employee of Defendant FedEx Home Delivery and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
12. Plaintiff Sylvia O’Brien is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 2146 N. Keith, Wichita, KS 67212. During the period October 2004 through present, Plaintiff

352121-5

3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 4 of 28
O’Brien was an employee of Defendant FedEx Home Delivery and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
13. Plaintiff Neal Bergkamp is a citizen and resident of the State of Kansas, residing at 8416 South Ridge Road, Clearwater, KS 67026. During the period November 1992 through present, Plaintiff Bergkamp was an employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans.
14. Plaintiff Dominic R. Lupo is a resident of Racine, Wisconsin and is currently a driver for FedEx Ground. Plaintiff Lupo is an employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans. Plaintiff Lupo joins this Complaint for purposes of Count V.
15. Plaintiff Ronald Perry is a resident of North Dartmouth, Massachusetts. Plaintiff Perry worked as a FedEx Home Delivery driver from May 2002 until June 2003. Plaintiff Perry an employee or former employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans. Plaintiff Perry joins this Complaint for purposes of Count V.
16. Plaintiff Alan Pacheco is a resident of Fall River, Massachusetts. Plaintiff Pacheco worked as a FedEx Home Delivery driver from March 2001 until July 2003. Plaintiff Pacheco an employee or former employee of Defendant FedEx Ground and a participant, within the meaning of ERISA § 3(7), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7), in the Plans. Plaintiff Pacheco joins this Complaint for purposes of Count V.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This action for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief is brought pursuant to Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §

352121-5

4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 5 of 28
1132, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and Kansas law. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Venue lies in the Northern District of Indiana pursuant to the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation by Transfer Order of August 10, 2005.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 18. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes defined herein were at all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint the employees, in fact, of FedEx Ground. 19. This action arises from FedEx Ground’s violation of the statutory requirements of K.S.A. 44-314, 315, 316 and 319 of the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA) and Kansas common law by requiring the Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated to pay for various employment-related expenses, including but not limited to the following:
a) purchase or rent of their vehicle to perform pick-up and delivery service; b) operating expenses for that vehicle such as fuel, oil, tires, business, taxes,
cleaning, insurance, and registration; c) maintenance of that vehicle, d) marking of the vehicle with logos, colors, numbers, marks, and insignia; e) payments to the Contractor Performance Escrow Account; f) licensing of that vehicle; g) purchase, rent or cleaning of uniforms; h) purchase or other payments for use of communications equipment such as
scanners; i) liability insurance premiums and payments; and j) workers compensation premiums and payments.

352121-5

5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 6 of 28

20. FedEx Ground has also violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(6), because the Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated were denied any pension, health, disability, group insurance, dependent care and/or other benefits due to FedEx Ground wrongfully classifying them as independent contractors rather than as employees.
21. The court has subject matter jurisdiction under ERISA because the Class Members are participants of a plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1). A participant is “any employee or former employee of an employer who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7).
22. Although FedEx Ground has purported to characterize the Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated as independent contractors, Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated have been, or continue to be in fact employees of FedEx Ground.
23. The status of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated as current or former employees of FedEx Ground is demonstrated by a variety of requirements which FedEx Ground has consistently imposed on the Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated, all of which demonstrate that FedEx Ground has exercised substantial and continuing control over the method and manner of performance of labor and services by Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for the work that they have done for FedEx Ground. FedEx Ground’s imposition of control of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated is illustrated by, but not limited to, the following, in that FedEx Ground required Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated in their performance of their duties to:
a) wear only clothes which are approved by FedEx Ground; b) wear only clothes that bear FedEx Ground’s colors and logos; c) have FedEx Ground logo on their personal trucks;

352121-5

6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 7 of 28
d) adhere to FedEx Ground’s rules, regulations, policies and procedures; e) lease vans that had to meet FedEx Ground’s required specifications; f) complete forms prepared by FedEx Ground; g) pick-up and deliver FedEx Ground’s customers packages at certain times; h) have their delivery routes re-configured by FedEx Ground at anytime; i) work only for FedEx Ground during their regular working hours, and not
to work for other delivery companies; j) not allowed to reject packages which FedEx Ground asked them to
deliver; k) let FedEx Ground employees accompany the drivers on their routes in
order to offer suggestions for improving customer service; and l) report to work at a certain time if they wished to have FedEx Ground’s
package handlers load their vehicles for their daily deliveries. 24. The drivers here do not operate independent businesses, but perform functions that are an essential part of FedEx Ground’s normal operations. They do business in the company’s name with assistance and guidance from it; they do not ordinarily engage in outside business; they constitute an integral part of the company’s business under its substantial control; they have no substantial proprietary interest beyond their investment in their trucks; and they have no significant entrepreneurial opportunity for gain or loss. They simply shifted certain capital costs to the drivers without providing them the independence to engage in entrepreneurial opportunities. 25. Throughout the time that Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated were employed by FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground consistently had the right to control, and in fact did exercise substantial control over the manner in which Plaintiffs and others similarly situated performed their labor and services for FedEx Ground. FedEx Ground was therefore legally

352121-5

7

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 8 of 28

required to adhere to the relevant statutory provisions of the Kansas Wage Payment Act and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
26. Although FedEx Ground was legally required to adhere to the relevant statutory
provisions of the Kansas Wage Payment Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
FedEx Ground repeatedly violated the provisions of those statutory provisions, by:
(a) requiring Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to pay for various costs and expenses which were employment related, in which, pursuant to the Kansas Wage Payment Act, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated should not have been required to pay; and,
(b) failing to provide other employment related benefits to these Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, that were legally required by Fed Ex Ground to pay to these Plaintiffs and other similarly situated because their status in fact was that of employees of FedEx Ground.
27. Under the Kansas Wage Payment Act, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are
entitled to reimbursement of the total amount of costs and expenses, which they were improperly
required to pay by FedEx Ground, in which FedEx Ground should have instead paid for them,
because they were employees in fact of FedEx Ground.
28. In addition, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are entitled to payment of
penalties and interests as provided by KSA 44-314 (b) and K.S.A. 44-315 (b), and interest
pursuant to K.S.A. 16-210.
29. Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are entitled to damages equivalent to
any pension, employment, or vacation benefits they should have received under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act from FedEx Ground, due to FedEx Ground wrongfully
classifying them as independent contractors rather than as employees.
30. As a condition of employment, each FedEx Ground pick-up and delivery driver
(referred to by Defendant as a “P&D contractor”) must sign a “Pick-Up and Delivery Contractor
Operating Agreement” and Addenda thereto (referred to hereinafter as combined as “OA” or the

352121-5

8

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 9 of 28
“Operating Agreement” or the “Agreement”) as a mandatory condition of employment. The date, time and place of execution of each driver’s Operating Agreement is within the knowledge of Defendant as each Agreement is maintained in the driver files described above, in the regular course of business. The Operating Agreement between each member of the Plaintiff Class and Defendant is the same in all material respects. The Operating Agreement between Plaintiffs and FedEx Ground and between Plaintiffs and FHD contain all of the same identical material terms with only a few, minor and insubstantial differences. These operating agreements were designed to conceal the true nature of the relationship between FedEx Ground and its drivers: that of employer and employee.
31. The Operating Agreement contains various statements purporting to classify Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members as independent contractors. At the same time, the Operating Agreement retains to the company, inter alia, the right to approve or disapprove any vehicle used to provide service, the right to approve or disapprove any driver or helper who provides service, the right to approve or disapprove the purchase or sale of any vehicle, the right to assign pickup and delivery stops to each driver, the right to temporarily or permanently transfer portions of any route to another with or without compensation, the right to determine when a driver has “too few” or “too many” packages to deliver on a given day, the right to inspect vehicles and drivers for compliance with Company-promulgated appearance standards, the right to terminate the contract upon thirty days notice or whenever the company unilaterally determines that any provision of the contract has been “violated” amounting to the right to terminate at will, the right to require the use of communication equipment and the wearing of Company uniforms, the right to take a vehicle out of service, the right to review and evaluate “customer service” and to set and change standards of such service, the right to require drivers to

352121-5

9

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 10 of 28
perform service at “times” requested by customers and determined by Defendant, the right to withhold pay for certain specified expenses, the right to require purchase of specified insurance and numerous other purchases by drivers, the right to require completion of specified paperwork, and other rights reserved to Defendant.
32. The Operating Agreement is and at all relevant times has been a contract of adhesion, drafted exclusively by Defendant and/or its legal counsel, with no negotiation with drivers, who are required to sign the Agreement as a condition of employment. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members are required to sign the form contract as is, without any changes made to the terms contained therein. Each year, drivers are required to sign additional Addenda which are likewise not subject to negotiation and are unilaterally drafted adhesion contract provisions. The Agreement is, and at all material times has been unlawful, unconscionable and fraudulent in form and effect.
33. Defendant has created and regularly updated a large number of written policies and procedures outside of the Operating Agreement that drivers are never given, but nonetheless are required to follow in their work. Defendant's written policies are contained in the FedEx Ground Manual, Operations Management Handbook, Settlement Manual and numerous other written and extra-contractual policies that are actively concealed from drivers and which Defendant fails to disclose and/or provide to drivers that govern the relationship between Defendant and the drivers. The other written handbooks and manuals and additional extracontractual sources include, but are not limited, to written rules on “contractor” termination, directives and training provided to terminal managers, written rules on driver appearance (with illustrative poster), written and oral complaint procedures, memorandum and directives to terminal management and other rules concealed from and not provided to the drivers. When

352121-5

10

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 11 of 28
drivers do not follow an FEG or FHD rule, whether disclosed or undisclosed, known or unknown, they are subject to various types of punishment, some financial and some disciplinary, up to and including contract termination and/or non-renewal. Defendant documents such socalled violations of such rules on forms referred to as “Business Discussion Notes” and retains these documents in secret driver files called “DOT” files, along with myriad other documents which are likewise concealed from and not disclosed to the drivers.
34. Defendant’s right of control over Plaintiff Class Members is also retained and/or exercised by Defendant as demonstrated by concealed and/or undisclosed extra- contractual sources such as Company written rules and policies described above and unwritten practices which supplement and fill gaps in the written contract.
35. Despite Defendant's control over virtually all material aspects of the employment relationship, and despite the unequivocal command of applicable statutes and case law to the effect that workers such as Plaintiffs are entitled to the protections due employees under the Kansas law, and despite the finding of the Los Angeles Superior Court in Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. (Case # BC 210130) that these drivers are employees, Defendant continues to misclassify their drivers as independent contractors. As a result, these drivers are deprived of the rights and protections guaranteed by Kansas law to employees, and they are deprived of employer-financed workers compensation coverage and unemployment insurance benefits. Furthermore, the terms and conditions of their employment contract require these drivers to purchase, operate and maintain expensive trucks for Defendant's exclusive benefit and to work under other unlawful conditions. Defendant’s mischaracterization of their drivers as independent contractors, the concealment and/or non-disclosure of the true nature of the relationship between Defendant and its drivers and the attendant deprivation of substantial rights

352121-5

11

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 12 of 28
and benefits of employment are part of an on-going unlawful and fraudulent business practice by
Defendant which this court should enjoin.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
36. Plaintiffs and the Classes defined below incorporate by reference herein the
allegations of paragraphs 1 through 31 of this complaint.
37. For purposes of Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action, as
set forth below, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class defined in paragraph 34 below
(the “State Class”), bring this Class action lawsuit under the KWPA and common law, pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
38. The Plaintiff State Class in this action is defined as:
a) Each Pick Up and Delivery Contractor who at any time between February 10, 1997 and February 11, 2003 performed services for FedEx Ground and/or its successors in the State of Kansas as a Pick-up and Delivery Contractor driving full-time (meaning exclusive of time off for vacation and/or illness) in an area dispatched from a Kansas- based terminal pursuant to the terms of the Pick Up and Delivery Contractor Operating Agreement;
b) Excluded from the Class are the following categories of persons or entities:
1. temporary drivers working directly for Defendant and/or its successors, as well as those provided through temporary employee agencies;
2. drivers who work or worked directly for a Pick-Up and Delivery Contractor and who have not entered into a Pick-Up and Delivery Contractor Operating Agreement with Defendant and /or its successors; and
3. line-haul drivers who have performed service for Defendant and/or its successors.
39. Maintenance of this case as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure is appropriate given the simplicity and commonality of the pertinent issues.

352121-5

12

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 13 of 28
40. FedEx Ground’s liability can be established with proof of a set of facts common to all of the Class Members. The issues are “common” to all Class Members because FedEx Ground’s policies are uniformly applied to all Kansas stores in the FedEx Ground System.
41. All Class Members have sustained economic damages resulting from FedEx Ground’s violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act and Kansas common law.
42. The questions of law and or fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members, therefore a class action and collective action are superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
43. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class because the claims of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class Members, and because the representative Plaintiffs are represented by legal counsel who are experienced at class action litigation.
44. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiffs estimate the total number of Class Members is in excess of 300 persons, thus satisfying the “numerosity” requirement. Joinder of all Class Members is impracticable.
45. In addition, the prosecution of separate actions by or against the individual members of the Class would create a risk of:
a) inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members of the Class, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for FedEx Ground and other similarly situated companies; and
b) adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudication, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.

352121-5

13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 14 of 28
46. The members of the defined Class have not shown any interests as of yet in individually pursuing the prosecution of the defense in separate actions.
47. There is no other lawsuit pending in the state of Kansas apparent to the knowledge of Plaintiffs, relating to the claims at issue, by any other Class Member.
48. It is clearly desirable to concentrate the litigation and the claims of these named Plaintiffs and the members of the Class in one forum, so that the claims can be adjudicated efficiently in one action.
49. Class certification is proper under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the KWPA and Kansas common law because a Class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this action.
50. There are no significant difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of this Class action by this Court.
51. For purposes of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action, as set forth below, Plaintiffs seek to certify a national Class of all drivers, who absent their mischaracterization as independent contractors, were eligible for but did not receive benefits from ERISA benefit plans maintained by Defendant and Plan Defendants (the “ERISA Class”).
52. The members of the ERISA Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number of ERISA Class Members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs believe there are, at a minimum, thousands of members of the ERISA Class throughout the United States, based upon the number of drivers who were improperly Classified as independent contractors.

352121-5

14

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 15 of 28
53. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the ERISA Class and predominate over any questions affecting solely individual members of the ERISA Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are whether:
54. ERISA Class Members were improperly Classified as independent contractors; 55. ERISA Class Members are entitled to their pension, health, disability, group insurance, and dependent care plan benefits because they were, in fact, employees; and 56. ERISA Class Members are entitled to damages and declaratory relief. 57. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the ERISA Class, as Plaintiffs and members of the ERISA Class sustained injury arising out of Defendants' violation of ERISA as complained of herein. 58. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the ERISA Class. Plaintiffs have retained competent counsel. Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with those of the ERISA Class. 59. Prosecution of separate actions by members of the ERISA Class would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, or adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. 60. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy since joinder of all members of the ERISA Class is impracticable. Furthermore, because the injury suffered by the individual ERISA Class Members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it impracticable

352121-5

15

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 16 of 28
for the ERISA Class Members individually to redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF KANSAS WAGE PAYMENT ACT (KWPA) 61. Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference herein all preceding allegations of this Complaint. 62. Plaintiffs and the Class were wrongfully classified by FedEx Ground as independent contractors, rather than employees, under the Kansas Wage payment Act (KWPA). 63. Under the KWPA, as employees Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to the repayment of the total of all costs and expenses they paid during which time they were employees of FedEx Ground and payment of overtime wages for the relevant period of time for which they may lawfully recover.
COUNT II RESCISSION OF OPERATING AGREEMENT 64. Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference herein all preceding allegations of this complaint. 65. Despite the express terms of the Operating Agreement, Plaintiffs’ relationship with Defendant satisfies every aspect of the test for employment, and not for independent contractor status. 66. Defendant controls virtually every aspect of the Plaintiffs’ work and earnings, as set forth in the general allegations hereof. 67. Despite this control and the actual status of the drivers as employees, Defendant mischaracterizes the Plaintiffs as independent contractors. As a result, these drivers must pay substantial sums of their own money for work-related expenses, including but not limited to the

352121-5

16

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 17 of 28
purchase or lease of vehicles meeting company specifications, and all costs of operating, insuring and maintaining those vehicles.
68. The Operating Agreement illegally and unfairly advantages Defendant by mischaracterizing the status of the Plaintiffs in that Defendant evades employment related obligations, such as social security contributions, workers’ compensation coverage, and state disability and unemployment compensation, illegally shifting the expense of workers’ compensation coverage and other expenses to Plaintiffs.
69. The Operating Agreement between Defendant and each Plaintiff and member of the Class is void as against public policy and therefore unenforceable, as failing to recognize the employment status of the Plaintiffs and the Class Members, and therefore denying them the legally cognizable benefits of employment.
70. The Operating Agreement between Defendant and each Plaintiff is an unconscionable contract of adhesion, which is unenforceable as contrary to the public interest, policy and law.
71. The Operating Agreement illegally shifts the burden of certain costs that an employer must pay.
72. While acting on the direct instruction of Defendant and discharging their duties for Defendant, Plaintiffs and the Class Members incurred expenses for, inter alia, the purchase or lease, maintenance, operating costs and adornment of vehicles; insurance; and uniforms. Plaintiffs and the Class Members incurred these substantial expenses as a direct result of performing their job duties.

352121-5

17

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 18 of 28
73. By misclassifying its employees as “independent contractors,” and further by contractually requiring those employees to pay Defendant’s own expenses, Defendant has been unjustly enriched.
74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Defendant has received substantial benefits to which it had no entitlement, at Plaintiffs and the Class Members’ expense, including lost profits, self-employment taxes, premiums for insurance to replace workers compensation and disability benefits, business expenses, compensation of replacement workers, and other expenses.
75. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for all of the business expenses they were illegally required by Defendant to bear, for all of the employment taxes, unemployment compensation and workers compensation the Defendant should have but did not pay, and Plaintiffs are entitled to the quantum meruit value of their services as employees.
COUNT III FRAUD
76. Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference herein all preceding allegations of this complaint.
77. Plaintiffs and the Class they represent were purportedly hired by Defendant to work as “independent contractors” pursuant to the terms of the OA described above. In fact, Defendant knew or should have known, at all times, that the “independent contractor” classification in the Operating Agreement was improper and that Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated were “employees” entitled to the benefits and protections of all laws enacted for employees. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and on that basis allege, that through the OA Defendant intentionally misled Plaintiffs and the Class they represent as to their employment status, or made such representations to Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members recklessly and/or

352121-5

18

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 19 of 28
negligently, and deliberately concealed from and/or failed to disclose to the pick-up and delivery drivers the extra contractual sources (including but not limited to the FedEx Ground Manual, Operation Management Handbook, Settlement Manual, and other policies and secret driver files described above) that defined the employment relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant, all for the purpose of realizing unjust profits from Plaintiffs’ work and/or to avoid paying for its operating costs and payroll taxes to increase its competitiveness.
78. At all material times, Defendant either knew, or should have known, that the material representation made to Plaintiffs in the OA concerning their employment status, and the concealment and/or non-disclosure of material facts to Plaintiffs concerning their employment status and Plaintiffs’ corresponding obligation to assume responsibility for all of their “own” employment-related expenses including but not limited to purchasing or leasing, operating and maintaining expensive trucks were false and fraudulent.
79. At all material times, Defendant intended to and did induce Plaintiffs and the Class they represent to reasonably and justifiably rely to their detriment on the false and fraudulent representations made to them by Defendant in the OA concerning their employment status and obligation to assume responsibility for all of employment related expenses including but not limited to purchasing or leasing, operating and maintaining expensive trucks and suffered damage as a direct and proximate result.
80. By its aforesaid conduct, Defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud and malice in violating Plaintiff rights and protections guaranteed by Kansas and other applicable law.

352121-5

19

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 20 of 28

COUNT IV DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

81. Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference herein all preceding allegations

of this complaint Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully

set forth herein, and further allege:

82. An actual controversy has arisen between the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class

Members, on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand, relating to the following matters:

a. Whether Defendant has unlawfully misclassified Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members as independent contractors, and have thus denied Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members of the common benefits of employee status, such as

i.

wages;

ii. holiday pay;

iii. workers’ compensation;

iv. unemployment insurance;

v. contributions to Defendants’ retirement plan;

income tax withholding;

vi. meal, break and rest periods.

b. What amounts Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members are entitled to receive in compensation and benefits.

c. What amounts Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members are entitled to receive in interest on unpaid compensation due and owing.

d. What amounts Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members are entitled to receive from Defendant in statutory penalties and interest.

83. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members further seek entry of a declaratory

judgment in their favor which declares Defendant’s practices as heretofore alleged to be

unlawful and which provides for recovery of all sums determined by this Court to be owed by

Defendant to the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members.

352121-5

20

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 21 of 28
COUNT V VIOLATIONS OF THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT
84. Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference herein all preceding allegations of this complaint.
85. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B), Plaintiffs are entitled to clarify and enforce their rights and those rights held by absent Class Members pertaining to all benefits owed under the Plans.
86. Plaintiffs have either attempted to exhaust administrative remedies but were prevented by Defendants from exhausting such remedies, or exhaustion would be futile wherein Defendants have adjudged Plaintiffs and the ERISA Class Members to be independent contractors rather than employees.
87. By wrongfully classifying Plaintiffs and the ERISA Class Members as ineligible under the Plans, Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, the terms of the Plans and Plaintiffs’ rights thereunder.
88. Plaintiffs and the ERISA Class Members are correctly classified as employees and have the right to payment of benefits pursuant to the Defendants’ ERISA benefit plans. Accordingly under 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B), Plaintiffs and the ERISA Class Members are entitled to declaratory relief and to pension, health, disability, group insurance, dependent care, and/or other benefits that were not paid as a result of their improper classification.
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant FedEx Ground as follows: a. For an order by the Court certifying the First, Second Third and Fourth
Causes of Action as a statewide Class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23;

352121-5

21

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 22 of 28
b. For an order by the Court certifying the Fifth Cause of Action as a national Class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23;
c. As to the Fifth Cause of Action, for a declaration that Plaintiffs and all members of the ERISA Class were participants and entitled to benefits under the ERISA plans maintained by the Defendants.
d. As to the Fifth Cause of Action, for an order that requires Defendants to pay or otherwise credit Plaintiffs and the ERISA Class Members for all ERISA benefits to which they are entitled.
e. For an award Plaintiffs prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein as allowed by ERISA § 502(g)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) and other applicable law.
f. Injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant from requiring payment and requiring repayment of any costs and expenses paid by Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated;
g. Actual damages to Plaintiffs and the Class to the full extent;
h. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class for all penalties and liquidated damages allowed by law;
i. Award of prejudgment interest to Plaintiffs and the Class;
j. Rescinding the Operating Agreement, and awarding restitution compensating for the reasonable value of the benefit provided to Defendant;
k. Declaring that the Defendant’s acts described in this Complaint constitute violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act and Kansas common law;
l. Award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
m. Attorney fees and costs as provided by law; and,
n. Such other further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

352121-5

22

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 23 of 28

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs, for themselves and the Class, demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Dated: June 26, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.

_s/Susan E. Ellingstad_______________________ Susan E. Ellingstad 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981

Lynn Rossman Faris LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 272-0169 Fax: (510) 272-0174

Robert I. Harwood WECHSLER HARWOOD LLP 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 935-7400 Fax: (212) 753-3630

PLAINTIFFS’ CO-LEAD COUNSEL

George A. Barton (KS Fed Bar No. 70547) LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON, P.C. 700 Plaza Center Building 800 West 47th Street Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 300-6250 Fax: (816) 300-6259

Larry L. Luttjohann (KS # 6724) 112 SW. 8th Avenue Topeka, KS 66603 Tel: (785) 232-6769 Fax: (785) 235-5850

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

352121-5

23

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 24 of 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Susan E. Ellingstad, hereby certify that on June 26, 2006, I electronically filed the

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of

such filings to the following:

George A Barton

gbarton@birch.net

Evelyn L Becker

ebecker@omm.com

Darcie R. Brault

dbrault@dibandfagan.com

Thomas J Brunner Jr

Tom.Brunner@bakerd.com; Alicia.cummins@bakerd.com; Melissa.bozzuto@bakerd.com; michelle.george@bakerd.com

Jerald R Cureton

jcureton@curetoncaplan.com

Edward J Efkeman

eefkeman@fedex.com

Barry S. Fagan

bfagan@dibandfagan.com

Lynn R Faris

lfaris@leonardcarder.com; lbadar@leonardcarder.com; efink@leonardcarder.com; kzerger@leonardcarder.com

Robert K. Firsten

rfirsten@firstenlaw.com

Wood R Foster Jr

woodfoster@sbgdf.com; heidifurlong@sbgdf.com

Alison G Fox

Alison.Fox@bakerd.com; heather.morley@bakerd.com; Melissa.bozzuto@bakerd.com; michelle.george@bakerd.com

Philip Stephen Fuoco

pfuoco@msn.com

Martin S Garfinkel

garfinkel@sgb-law.com; rwhite@sgb-law.com; bloch@sgb-law.com

R. Christopher Gilreath chrisgil@sidgilreath.com

Clayton D Halunen

Halunen@youhaverights.info

John C Hamilton

jch@hamiltonfirm.com; hamiltonfirm@sbcglobal.net

352121-5

24

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 25 of 28

Robert I Harwood Dmitri Iglitzin Tom A Jerman Steve D. Larson Jordan M Lewis Shannon Liss-Riordan Gary F Lynch Daniel O Myers
Richard T Phillips D. Lucetta Pope
Charles Victor Pyle III
Anne T Regan Robert G Rikard J Gordon Rudd Robert M Schwartz R Jay Taylor Jr. Joni M Thome Matthew T Tobin Michael J Watton

rharwood@whesq.com
iglitzin@workerlaw.com
tjerman@omm.com
slarson@ssbls.com; dcerdas@ssbls.com
jordanlewis@sbgdf.com
sliss@prle.com; blarmier@prle.com; syoung@prle.com
glynch@carlsonlynch.com
dmyers@rpwb.com; wking@rpwb.com; sgiddens@rpwb.com; mbrown@rpwb.com
flip@smithphillips.com; tresahharden@smithphillips.com
Lucetta.Pope@bakerd.com; Alicia.cummins@bakerd.com; Melissa.bozzuto@bakerd.com; michelle.george@bakerd.com
victor.pyle@ogletreedeakins.com; Meredith.smith@ogletreedeakins.com; ted.speth@ogletreedeakins.com; Linda.lyday@ogletreedeakins.com
atr@zimmreed.com; kmh@zimmreed.com
rrikard@attorneyssc.com
jgr@zimmreed.com
rschwartz@omm.com
jtaylor@scopelitis.com; lnewton@scopelitis.com
Thome@youhaverights.info
matt@jhmmj.com
jdrewicz@Wattongroup.com

352121-5

25

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 26 of 28

I also certify that on June 26, 2006, I mailed by United States Postal Service the foregoing document to the following non CM/ECF participants:

John H. Beisner O’MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-4001
R Bruce Carlson CARLSON LYNCH LTD 231 Melville Lane PO Box 367 Sewickley, PA 15143
Eric E Hobbs Eric H Rumbaugh MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP 100 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202-4108
Robert E McDaniel THE MCDANIEL LAW OFFICES 4 Bicentennial Square Concord, NH 03301 (New address: 755 North Main Street Laconia, NH 03246)
Paula R Markowitz MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN 1100 North American Building 121 S Broad St Philadelphia, PA 19107

Joree Brownlow LAW OFFICE OF JOREE G BROWNLOW 1444 Gillham Drive Suite 200 Bartlett, TN 38134
Jack D Hilmes Kevin J Driscoll FINLEY ALT SMITH SCHARNBERT
CRAIG HILMES & GAFFNEY PC 699 Walnut Street 1900 Hub Tower Des Moines, IA 50309
Donald B Lewis 5 Cynwyd Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Carla D Macaluso JACKSON LEWIS LLP 220 Headquarters Plaza 7th Floor East Tower Morristown, NJ 07960
Kenneth E Milam WATKINS & EAGER PO Box 650 Jackson, MS 39205-0650

James R Mulroy II William T Fiala LEWIS FISHER HENDERSON
CLAXTON & MULROY 6410 Poplar Ave Suite 300 Memphis, TN 38119

Joseph A. Osefchen LAW FIRM OF PHILIP STEPHEN FUOCO 24 Wilkins Place Haddonfield, NJ 08033

352121-5

26

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 27 of 28

Alan M Purdie GORE KILPATRICK PURDIE
METZ & ADCOCK PO Drawer 2900 402 Legacy Park Ridgeland, MS 39157
Richard R Roberts FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 3620 Hacks Cross Road Building B - Third Floor Memphis, TN 38125-8800
Michael R Reck BELIN LAMSON MCCORMICK
ZUMBACH FLYNN 666 Walnut Street Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-3989
Cheryl M Stanton OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
SMOAK & STEWART PC 10 Madison Avenue Suite 402 Morristown, NJ 07960
Richard Tanenbaum 1131 McDonald Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11230
Peter N Wasylyk LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908

Aaron Roblan Karen P Kruse JACKSON LEWIS LLP One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101
Beth A Ross LEONARD CARDER LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612
Dan S Smith DAN SOLOMON SMITH LLC 339 Main Street Suite 2D Orange, NJ 07050
Patricia A Sullivan EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER
& DODGE LLP 2800 Financial Plaza Providence, RI 02903
Donald R Taylor TAYLOR & DUNHAM 327 Congress Ave Suite 600 Austin, TX 78701
Charles W Whetstone Jr. Cheryl F Perkins WHETSTONE MYERS PERKINS
AND YOUNG LLC PO Box 8086 Columbia, SC 29202

352121-5

27

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 299 filed 06/26/06 page 28 of 28

Dated: June 26, 2006

Respectfully submitted, LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.

__ s/Susan E. Ellingstad_____________________ Susan E. Ellingstad 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981

352121-5

28

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 300 filed 06/22/06 page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2tm6 JUH 22 PH 12: 0?

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

srnw ,, ,

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

Case No. 03:05-MD-511U.~s:oN/c$m\tf~JU~DkWJ!G8,UCRLTERk

SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL 1700)

OF INDIANA fSTittcr

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

CHIEF JUDGE MILLER

)

___________________________))

CHIEF JUDGE MILLER MAGISTRATE JUDGE NUECHTERLEIN

MOTION TO WITHDRAW Comes now attorney Richard R. Roberts, counsel for Defendant Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx Express"), and does hereby file this Motion to Withdraw. Upon consultation and mutual agreement with Defendant, Mr. Roberts seeks to withdraw from representation of Defendant in this matter. Edward J. Efkeman remains Lead Co-Counsel for FedEx Express and FedEx Corporation ("FedEx Corp") in this matter.

_/i_, Dated: June

2006

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
ltiiK.;5:f~
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 3620 Hacks Cross Road Building B, 2nd Floor Memphis, Tennessee 38125 901-434-8575 901-434-4523 (fax)
Counsel for FedEx Corporation and Federal Express Corporation

1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 300 filed 06/22/06 page 2 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certifY that a copy of the fore~g Motion to Withdraw has been served by

United States mail and electronic mail this

day of June, 2006 on those on the attached

list.

Richard R. Roberts

2

"•
'
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 300 filed 06/22/06 page 3 of 6
PANEL ATTORNEY SERVICE LIST

George A. Barton Law Offices of George A. Barton, P.C. 800 West 47th St., Ste. 700 Kansas City, MO 64112
Evelyn L. Becker John H. Beisner, PHV O'Melveny & Myers, LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-4001
Clayton D. Halunen Ha1unen & Associates 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 2000 Minneapolis, 1viN 55402
Dmitri Iglitzin Schwerin, Campbell & Barnard, LLP 18 West Mercer St., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98119-3971
Carla D. Macaluso Jackson Lewis, LLP 220 Headquarters Plaza 7th Floor, East Tower Morristown, NJ 07960
Aaron Roblan Jackson Lewis One Union Sq. 600 University St., Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98101
DanS. Smith Dan Solomon Smith, LLC 339 Main St., Ste. 2D Orange, NJ 07050
Richard Tanenbaum 1131 McDonald Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11230

Majorie G. Basile Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, P.L.C. 150 W. Jefferson Ave., Ste. 2500 Detroit, MI 48226
Kevin M. Costello Levow & Costello Cherry Hill Plaza Suite 200, 1415 Marlboro Pike East Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Robert I. Harwood Wechsler, Harwood, LLP 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10022
Shannon Liss-Riordan Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & LissRiordan 18 Tremont St., Ste. 500 Boston, MA 02108
Robert E. McDaniel McDaniel Law Offices 4 Bicentennial Sq. Concord,NH 03301
Beth A. Ross Leonard Carder, LLP 1330 Broadway Ave., Ste. 1450 Oakland, CA 94612
Cheryl M. Stanton Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 10 Madison Ave., Ste. 402 Morristown, NJ 07960
Donald R. Taylor Taylor & Dunham 327 Congress Ave., Ste. 600 Austin, TX 78701

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 300 filed 06/22/06 page 4 of 6

Edith A. Thomas Law Office of Edith A. Thomas 214 North Ridge Dr., Ste. B Fallbrook, CA 92028
Joree Brownlow Law Office of Joree G. Brownlow 1444 Gillham Drive, Suite 200 Bartlett, TN 38134
James R. Mulroy, II William T. Fiala • Lewis, Fisher, Henderosn & Claxton, LLP 6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 300 Memphis, TN 38119

Matthew T. Tobin Johnson, Heidepriem, Miner, Marlow & Janklow P.O. Box 1107 Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1107
R. Bruce Carlson Carlson Lynch Ltd. 231 Melville Lane P.O. Box 367 Sewickley, PA 15143
R. Christopoher Gilreath Gilreath & Associates 6256 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38119

Eric E. Hobbs Eric M. Rumbaugh PHN Michael Best Friedrich LLP 100 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 300 Milwaukee, WI 53202-4108

Karen P. Kruse PHV Jackson Lewis LLP One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101

Steve D. Larson Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter PC 209 S.W. Oak St., Fifth Floor Portland, OR 97204

Donald B. Lewis Law Offices of Donald B. Lewis 5 Cynwyd Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

Paula R. Markowitz Markowitz & Richman 1100 North American Building 121 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 191 07

Kenneth E. Milam Watkins & Eager P.O. Box 650 Jackson, MS 39205-0650

Alan M. Purdie Gore, Kilpatrick, Purdie, Metz & Adcock 402 Legacy Park P.O. Drawer 2900 Ridgeland, MS 39157

Anne T. Regan J. Gordon Rudd Zimmerman & Reed 651 Nicollett Mall, Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55401

Patricia A. Sullivan John D. Doran Edwards & Angell, LLP 2800 Financial Plaza Providence, RI 02903

PeterN. Wasylyk Law Offices of Peter N. Wasylyk 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 300 filed 06/22/06 page 5 of 6

Dennis M. Brennan

Michael J. Watton Watton Law Group

215 West Marion Street South Bend, IN 46601

225 East Michigan St., Suite 550

Milwaukee, WI 53202

Kevin J. Driscoll

Hoyt Rowell, ill Daniel 0. Myers Richardson Patrick Westbrook &
Brickman, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Building A

Jack D. Hilmes Finley Alt Smith Schamberg Craig Hilmes.
& Gafney, PC 699 Walnut Street, 1900 Hub Tower Des Moines, IA 50309-3773

Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

Michael R. Reck

Clarence N. Nauen Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLC 100 Washington Avenue., S., Suite 2200

Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn 666 Walnut St., Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-3989

Minneapolis, MN 55401

C. Victor Pyle, III

Cheryl F. Perkins Charles W. Whetstone, Jr. Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young, LLC
P.O. Box 8086

Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart 1320 Main St., Suite 600 Columbia, SC 29201

Columbia, SC 29202

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 300 filed 06/22/06 page 6 of 6

George A. Barton Email: gbarton@birch.net
Evelyn L. Becker Email: ebecker@omm.com
Jerald R. Cureton Email: jcureton@curetoncaplin.com
Edward J. Efkeman Email: eefkeman@fedex.com
Susan E. Ellingstad Email: seellingstad@locklaw.com
Lynn R. Faris Email: lfaris@leonardcarder.com
Wood R. Foster, Jr. Email: woodfoster@sbgdf.com
Philip S. Fuoco Email: pfuoco@msn.com
Clayton D. Halunen Email: halunen@youhaverights.info
John C. Hamilton Email: jch@hamiltonfirm.com
Matthew T. Tobin Email: matt@jhmmj .com

Robert I. Harwood Email: rharwood@whesq .com
Tom A. Jerman Email: tjerman@omm.com
Jordan M. Lewis Email: jordanlewis@sbgdf.com
Gary F. Lynch Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
Daniel 0. Myers Email: dmyers@rpwb.com
Richard T. Phillips Email: flip@smithphillips.com
Anne T. Regan Email: atr@zimmreed.com
Robert M. Schwartz PHV Email: rschwartz@omm.com
Edith A. Thomas edithomas 1@aol.com
Joni M. Thome Email: thome@youhaverights.info

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 334 filed 08/08/06 page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

]

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

]

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

]

PRACTICES LITIGATION

]

----------------------------------------------- ]

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

]

Robert Gennell, Jr., et al. v.

]

FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., et al. ]

Civil No. 3:05-CV-0534-RLM-CAN (NH) ]

Arthur Smith, et al. v.

]

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ]

Civil No. 3:05-CV-0600-RLM-CAN (TN) ]

Katrina Lee, et al. v.

]

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ]

Civil No. 3:05-CV-0533-RLM-CAN (MN) ]

Donald E. Carlson, et al. v.

]

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ]

Civil No. 3:05-CV-0664-RLM-CAN (FL) ]

Theodore Fleming, Jr., et al. v.

]

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ]

Civil No. 3:05-CV-0593-RLM-CAN (MS) ]

_____________________________________ ]

Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RM (MDL-1700)

OPINION and ORDER

The defendants in Gennell, Smith, Lee, Carlson, and Fleming move to

dismiss portions of the plaintiffs’ complaints because the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 preempts certain state law claims; and even if the

plaintiffs’ claims were converted to ERISA claims, the plaintiffs have failed to

allege participant status, failed to exhaust the required administrative remedies,

and to the extent the ERISA claims are brought under § 502(a)(1)(B), the plaintiffs

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 334 filed 08/08/06 page 2 of 3
didn’t bring the claims within the applicable statute of limitations.1 In opposing
the motions, the plaintiffs assert the claims at issue can and should be construed
as valid state law claims because the plaintiffs affirmatively limit the scope of their
complaints to seek relief only provided for by these state laws.
The defendants’ argument that certain allegations and prayers for relief
contained in the plaintiffs’ complaints are preemptive is unpersuasive at this time.
The plaintiffs’ responses unequivocally abandon their potential ERISA claims and
any relief that could derive from such ERISA claims.2 Any finding of preemption
would require analysis of some factual connection between the state law claims
for relief, which by themselves do not require preemption, and an ERISA-related
plan. See Sembos v. Philips Components, 376 F.3d 696, 703-704 (7th Cir. 2004)
(stating that a “state law claim ‘relates’ to an employee benefit plan if it has a
connection with or reference to such a plan” and whether state law claims are
preempted by ERISA § 514(a) is a difficult question often turning on factual
1 While the motions to dismiss in Smith, Lee, Carlson, and Fleming are not yet ripe, the arguments upon which the defendants rely are substantially similar to those asserted in Gennell, and so the court addresses those motions without further briefing. See FED. R. CIV. P. 1 (Emphasizing the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”).
2 The plaintiffs explicitly abandon any assertion of an ERISA claim in these actions in lieu of advancing such rights as putative class members in Craig, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-CV-530. Plaintiffs’ Opp. Memorandum in 3:05-CV-534 at p.1 (“[P]laintiffs are not specifically seeking redress for any claims to benefits under any plan covered by ERISA in the context of their action,[and] any rights they may have in this regard will be decided in the context of adjudication of the nationwide ERISA class claim in Craig.”); Plaintiffs’ Opp. Memorandum in 3:05-CV-600, 3:05-CV-533, 3:05-CV-664 at p.2. (“Plaintiffs agree that claims asserting damages for benefits owed under ERISA-mandated plans will not be adjudicated in Smith, Lee, or Carlson. Indeed, no claim under ERISA has been asserted in Smith, Lee, or Carlson.”); and Plaintiffs’ Opp. Memorandum in 3:05-CV-593 at p.2 (“Indeed, no claim under ERISA has been asserted in Fleming.”).
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 334 filed 08/08/06 page 3 of 3

connections to an ERISA-related plan.); see also Jass v. Prudential Health Care

Plan, Inc., 88 F.3d 1482, 1492-1495 (7th Cir. 1996) (highlighting the importance

of establishing a factual connection between a plaintiff’s state law claims and an

ERISA plan when a court engages in conflict preemption analysis). This

connection should not exist under the plaintiffs’ now limited state law claims for

relief, so the court declines to find the claims at issue preempted by ERISA.

With no grounds for dismissal at issue other than those raised under

ERISA, the court DENIES the defendants’ motions to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 266, 286,

& 310].

SO ORDERED.

DATED:

August 8, 2006

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Chief Judge United States District Court

3

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 1 of 14

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

ALL ACTIONS

)

)

_____________________________________ )

Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RM (MDL-1700)

OPINION and ORDER

On September 6, 2006, Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein denied the

defendants’ motion to compel the production of the plaintiffs’ tax returns and

related financial information.1 The matter is before the court on the defendants’

objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of their motion to compel, and for the

reasons that follow, the court sustains their objection in part and grants the

motion to compel in part.

The court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s discovery-related decision under

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a) which provides, “[t]he district judge to whom the case is

assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion

1 The defendants seek the production of “[a]ll documents that you submitted to any tax authority, or that you used to support any portion of any submission to any tax authority, during the period you contracted with Defendants, including, but not limited to, complete copies of all federal and state tax returns, and all invoices, receipts, cancelled checks, correspondence or worksheets used to prepare your tax returns (Request No. 2),” “[a]ll documents relating to or reflecting any expenses that you have incurred in your capacity as a driver with Defendants (Request No. 14),” and “[a]ll documents sent to or received from you (sic) accountant or financial advisor relating to income or expenses associated with your relationship with Defendants (Request No. 18).”

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 2 of 14
of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). This means that “the district court can overturn the magistrate judge's ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id.
A party may “obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). For discovery purposes, the concept of relevancy is construed broadly to encompass "any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Chavez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 206 F.R.D. 615, 619 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)).
“Although there is a strong public policy in favor of disclosure of relevant materials, Rule 26(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empowers district courts to limit the scope of discovery if ‘the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.’ ” Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002). In ruling on a motion to compel, “a district court should independently determine the proper course of discovery
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 3 of 14
based upon the arguments of the parties.” Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 496 (7th Cir. 1996).
The parties dispute the extent to which the court should apply a heightened standard to the discoverability of tax returns. The defendants say the magistrate judge incorrectly required them to demonstrate “a compelling need to obtain information.” The court doesn’t agree; the September 6 order doesn’t require such a showing. The order states that tax returns generally are discoverable “where a litigant tenders an issue as to the amount of his income,” but because such financial information has “some character of confidentiality [ ] [its] production is not routinely required ... therefore, tax returns must be relevant and material to the matters in issue.” See Shaver v. Yacht Outward Bound, 71 F.R.D. 561, 564 (N.D. Ill. 1976).
The magistrate judge’s reading of Shaver v. Yacht Outward Bound is consistent with the court of appeals position on the discoverability of tax returns, so he stated the law correctly. See Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 74-75 (7th Cir. 1992) (noting that several courts, including Shaver v. Yacht Outward Bound, have recognized a public policy against routine disclosure of tax records, but holding that a plaintiff who puts the level and sources of his income at issue can be compelled to produce such records). In applying this standard however, the magistrate judge didn’t agree with the defendants that the tax returns were relevant to the matters at issue.
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 4 of 14
The parties agree the over-arching issue in this litigation is the classification of certain package delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. Because the discovery process was bifurcated on the issues of liability and damages––and then expanded to include material regarding damages if the material was (1) related to class certification and (2) the party seeking discovery wasn’t attempting to secure vast documentation––the plaintiffs’ tax records must be relevant and material to either the defendants’ potential liability or class certification. The magistrate judge determined that the plaintiffs’ tax returns weren’t sufficiently relevant to liability or class certification, and so the request was outside the scope of the limited discovery phase.
The defendants say the tax returns are relevant to liability because (1) each plaintiff’s individual tax return is a virtual admission of his or her status as an independent contractor, (2) the plaintiffs’ treatment for tax purposes is indicative of their independent contractor status, and (3) the tax returns as a whole provide a “snap shot” of the manner in which the plaintiffs ran their businesses.
The court agrees with the magistrate judge that each plaintiff’s tax return doesn’t amount to an “admission” that he or she is or was an independent contractor. A party's tax and benefit treatment can be a “virtual admission” by the hiring party as to the hired party's status, see Farlow v. Wachovia Bank of North Carolina, N.A., 259 F.3d 309, 315 (4th Cir. 2001), but where the hired party is provided with the tax form by their employer, the employee’s subjective understanding as to his or her employment status isn’t dispositive. See, e.g.,
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 5 of 14
Robicheaux v. Radcliff Material, Inc., 697 F.2d 662, 667 (5th Cir. 1983) (“An employee is not permitted to waive employee status,” so “the fact that the plaintiff welders in this case signed contracts stating that they were independent contractors, while relevant, is not dispositive.”); Usery v. Pilgrim Equipment Co., Inc.,527 F.2d 1308, 1315 (5th Cir. 1976); Baker v. Barnard Const. Co. Inc., 860 F. Supp. 766, 772 (D. N.M. 1994).
Yet a hired party’s treatment for tax purposes can be a factor relevant in determining their employment status under the common law agency test applied in ERISA cases.2 See Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323 (1992) (determining employment status under the common law agency test for purposes of an ERISA claim); Mazzei v. Rock N Around Trucking, Inc., 246 F.3d 956, 964-965 (7th Cir. 2001); E.E.O.C. v. North Knox School Corp., 154 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir. 1998). Courts that have considered a party’s tax treatment have considered whether the party filed a form 1099 or form W-2. See Mazzei v. Rock N Around Trucking 246 F.3d at 964-965; E.E.O.C. v. North Knox School Corp., 154 F.3d at 750. The plaintiffs admit they filed their tax returns as “selfemployed,” so they contend that any additional information contained in the tax returns is irrelevant. The magistrate judge agreed stating, “this Court fails to see what other information may be gleaned from the tax returns that reflects whether Plaintiffs were employees.” This court agrees that any additional information
2 The plaintiffs in this MDL are potential claimants in the putative nationwide ERISA class set for in the Third Amended Class Complaint in Craig, et al., FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., et al., document number 299, ¶ 51.
5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 6 of 14
contained in the tax returns isn’t material in determining the plaintiffs’ employment status for purposes of their ERISA claims since the additional information contained in the tax returns hasn’t been put at issue under the common law agency test.
Still, several complaints in this case allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, so the court will also likely consider the economic reality of the parties’ relationship to determine whether the plaintiffs were or are employees. Secretary of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1534 (7th Cir. 1987) (determining employment status under the economic realities test for purpose of a FLSA claim); Watson v. Drummond Co., Inc., 436 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Given the substantial similarity between the definitions of ‘employer’ in the EPPA and in the FMLA and the FLSA, we find the economic reality test appropriate here as well.”); Nichols v. All Points Transport Corp. of Michigan, Inc., 364 F. Supp.2d 621, 630 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (the court found that “the FMLA incorporates, by reference, the definition of ‘employee’ found in the FLSA,” and so it applied the “economic realities test” for determining whether workers are “employees” covered by FMLA).3 The Magistrate Judge found that the “profits, income, and expenses . . . have little bearing on the liability issue of whether Plaintiffs were employees.” To extent the
3The defendants also argue that the court will utilize the economic realities test to determine if the plaintiffs are employees for purposes of claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Perry complaint also alleges a claim under FMLA, the court declines to determine at this time which test should be applied to a claim under the ADA.
6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 7 of 14
Magistrate Judge found that the information contained in the tax returns wasn’t
relevant to determining the economic reality of the plaintiffs’ working relationship
with FedEx, the court parts with the magistrate judge on this point.4
Courts consider six factors under the economic realities test in determining
whether the hired party is economically dependent upon the business to which he
or she renders service or is in business for him or herself. Secretary of Labor, U.S.
Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d at 1534.5 The defendants say the
information contained in the plaintiffs’ tax returns is relevant to showing the
second prong: the plaintiffs’ “opportunity for profit or loss depending upon his [or
her] managerial skill.” Id. They argue the “wide range in profits or losses among
the Plaintiffs,” which can be gleaned from the tax returns, shows the plaintiffs had
the opportunity to maximize their profits through controlling costs and the use of
their own initiative and judgment.6 The court agrees.
4 See Secretary of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1534, 1539-1540 (7th Cir. 1987)(Easterbrook, J., concurring) for the difference between the common law agency test, and the economic realities test applied in remedial legislation such as the FLSA.
5 “Among the criteria courts have considered are the following six: (1) the nature and degree of the alleged employer's control as to the manner in which the work is to be performed; (2) the alleged employee's opportunity for profit or loss depending upon his managerial skill; (3) the alleged employee's investment in equipment or materials required for his task, or his employment of workers; (4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill; (5) the degree of permanency and duration of the working relationship; (6) the extent to which the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer's business.” Id.
6 They say the information will show: (1) the structure of the plaintiffs’ businesses, (2) the nature and amount of business expenses incurred, (3) the extent to which the business employed workers, (4) the degree of independence and entrepreneurial discretion exercised, (5) the extent to which the plaintiffs took advantage of tax benefits available exclusive to business and not to employees, and (6) other sources of income.
7

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 8 of 14
Under the “opportunity for profit or loss” prong, the court looks at whether the plaintiffs have control over the essential determinants of profits in a business or have direct share in the success of the business; whether their earnings depend upon their judgment or initiative, or on the hiring party’s need for their work. Dole v. Snell, 875 F.2d 802, 810 (10th Cir. 1989). The plaintiffs say the information in their tax returns is irrelevant because it will at most demonstrate their opportunity to maximize profits by controlling cost, a factor which isn’t relevant in analyzing the economic realities of the parties’ relationship. See Baker v. Flint Engineering & Const. Co., 137 F.3d 1436, 1444 (10th Cir. 1998). The court doesn’t agree.
Our court of appeals hasn’t addressed the relevance of a hired party’s ability to maximize profits by controlling costs under the “opportunity for profit or loss” prong, but at least two other circuits have. The Fifth Circuit considers such information relevant because the focus under this prong is twofold: the court looks at the hiring party’s ability to dictate the hired party’ s opportunity for profit or loss, as well as the hired party’s ability to control profit or loss based on his or her skill, initiative, ability to cut costs, and understanding of the relevant industry. See Herman v. Express Sixty-Minutes Delivery Service, Inc., 161 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 1998). The Tenth Circuit has rejected this position, finding the type of “profit” associated with independent contractors isn’t determined by the hired party’s ability to control cost or find work with other companies, but is limited to the extent of their ability to render services in an independent
8

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 9 of 14
fashion––in the context of rig welders, this includes their ability to bid on projects at a flat rate, set their own hours or schedule, and complete projects as they see fit. Baker v. Flint Engineering & Const. Co., 137 F.3d at 1441–1444.
Economic dependence is the touchstone in determining economic reality, but “all the circumstances of the work activity” should be considered to determine “the nature of the working relationship . . ..” Secretary of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d at 1534; see also Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1988) (“The factors that have been identified by various courts in applying the economic reality test are not exclusive. Since the test concerns the totality of the circumstances, any relevant evidence may be considered, and mechanical application of the test is to be avoided.”). In the context of running a business, profit is the gain realized from that enterprise over and above its expenditures. Brock v. Lauritzen, 624 F. Supp. 966, 968 (E.D. Wis. 1985); see also BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1246 (8th ed. 2004) (profit is defined as “[t]he excess of revenues over expenditures in a business transaction”). A plaintiff’s ability to limit certain expenditures efficiently for purpose of realizing a profit can be part of the “managerial skill” associated with a person in business for him or herself. See, e.g., Secretary of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d at 1540 (Easterbrook, J., concurring). But the ability to increase income by controlling cost can also hold true for every worker, whether independent contractor or employee. See, e.g., Baker v. Barnard Const. Co. Inc., 860 F. Supp.
9

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 10 of 14
at 773-774 (noting that a mechanic that takes good care of his tools will have more money in his pocket than a careless worker).
A court ultimately must decide whether the divergence in profits as exhibited by the tax returns is the result of activities typical of a person running their own business or by activities that can be associated with all workers. See Dole v. Snell, 875 F.2d at 809-810; Baker v. Barnard Const. Co. Inc., 860 F. Supp. at 773-774; Nichols v. All Points Transport Corp. of Michigan, Inc., 364 F. Supp.2d 621, 633 (E.D. Mich. 2005). To the extent the plaintiffs’ tax returns can show some plaintiffs were able to maximize profits by controlling costs via workers and subcontractors, or by utilizing business-associated tax benefits, or through other sources of income, this financial information can be relevant for showing the plaintiffs’ earnings didn’t necessarily depend on the defendants, but upon their individual business judgment and initiative. See Herman v. Express SixtyMinutes, 161 F.3d at 304. It is unclear at this point the source behind the divergent earnings, but by claiming to be an employee under the FLSA and the FMLA, the plaintiffs have their income at issue, and because the parties dispute the nature of their business relationship, the court finds the information contained in the plaintiffs’ tax returns to be both relevant and material to the issues in this case. See, e.g., Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d at 75 (district court didn’t abuse its discretion by compelling the production of the plaintiff’s tax returns where he put the sources and amount of his income at issue by claiming to be a dealer under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law).
10

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 11 of 14
The defendants also say the plaintiffs’ tax returns are relevant to class certification. To maintain a class action, the named plaintiffs must demonstrate that they, and each class they wish to represent, meet the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23. First, the proposed class action must satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Second, the action must be maintainable under at least one of the three provisions under Rule 23(b).
The defendants contend the information contained in the plaintiffs’ tax returns is relevant to the factors enumerated in FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a). The magistrate judge denied the production of the tax returns, finding this information had little bearing on the Rule 23(a) elements and therefore didn’t warrant a vast discovery request at this stage of the bifurcated discovery process. The court agrees.
“A plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and his or her claims are based on the same legal theory.” Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d 584, 597 (7th Cir. 1993). The course of conduct that gives rise to the plaintiffs’ claims in this MDL is the classification of certain package delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. As previously discussed, the information in some of the plaintiffs’ tax returns is material to demonstrating employee status, but this information is primarily related to calculation of damages. It doesn’t impact the commonality of essential
11

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 12 of 14
characteristics that gives rise to the plaintiffs’ claims and therefore isn’t relevant to typicality. See Id. (It is only necessary for the claim of the class representative and the claims of the class at large to have the "same essential characteristics;" there may still be differences). The court agrees with the magistrate judge that the information in the tax returns isn’t relevant to the class certification to warrant such a discovery request at this stage.
The “adequacy of representation is composed of two parts: ‘the adequacy of the named plaintiff's counsel, and the adequacy of representation provided in protecting the different, separate, and distinct interest’ of the class members.” Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d at 598 (quoting Secretary of Labor v. Fitzsimmons, 805 F.2d 682, 697 (7th Cir. 1986)). “A class is not fairly and adequately represented if class members have antagonistic or conflicting claims.” Id. (quoting Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992)). The magistrate judge determined that this material wasn’t relevant to determining whether the class members have conflicting claims, and the defendants haven’t pointed to anything that suggests this conclusion is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The defendants also contend the information in the tax returns will show the determination of damages will be highly individualized and therefore demonstrative of the unmanageability of the putative classes under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b). The court doesn’t agree. While this information may be relevant for demonstrating individual issues in calculating the damages suffered, “it has been
12

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 13 of 14
commonly recognized that the necessity for calculation of damages on an individual basis should not preclude class determination when the common issues which determine liability predominate." See, e.g., Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 213 F.3d 124, 137 (3rd Cir. 2000) (although denying class certification because of the individual issues as to liability). Again, the operative facts common to all members of the proposed class as a result the defendants’ conduct and the significant legal issues that are common to the proposed class members predominate this litigation. The varying incomes and expenses of the drivers shed light on the issue of liability, but only on the very specific and narrow question of employee status for some plaintiffs. The magistrate judge determined the information in the plaintiffs’ tax returns related primarily to the calculation of damages and therefore wasn’t discoverable at this stage. The court finds nothing in this conclusion clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling [Doc. No. 369] is SUSTAINED IN PART and the defendants’ motion to compel [Doc. No. 306] is GRANTED IN PART. It is granted insofar as those plaintiffs that allege claims under the FLSA or the FMLA are compelled to the produce their tax returns and other related financial information.
SO ORDERED. Entered: December 14, 2006
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 451 filed 12/14/06 page 14 of 14 Chief Judge United States District Court
14

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

)

)

)

)

CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

)

(MDL-1700)

)

)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO

)

ALL CASES

OPINION AND ORDER

The discovery deadline for this case was January 31, 2007. Near the end of that deadline,

Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Fedex) and Plaintiffs filed a flurry of discovery

motions. For the following reasons, Fedex’s motion to compel teamsters information is

GRANTED IN PART [Doc. No. 433], Plaintiffs’ motion to quash is GRANTED [Doc. No.

471], Fedex’s motion to compel the Griffin deposition is GRANTED [Doc. No. 486], and

Fedex’s motion to compel the production of a document used to refresh recollection is

GRANTED [Doc. No. 488].

I.

PROCEDURE

On August 10, 2005, this multidistrict litigation case was transferred to the Northern

District of Indiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to perform consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs’ main contention for many of their claims is that Fedex was treating them as

independent contractors when they were actually employees. As a result, Plaintiffs seek a

number of remedies that revolve around this issue including injunctive relief and damages. On

November 15, 2005, this Court entered an initial scheduling order where, pursuant to the parties’

consent, discovery on liability and damages was bifurcated.

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 2 of 21
The current disputes are discovery disputes. On December 14, 2006, Fedex filed a motion to compel discovery regarding information related to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters). On December 29, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their reply in opposition to Fedex’s motion. On January 16, 2007, Fedex filed a reply in support of its motion.
On January 16, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion to quash a subpoena. Plaintiffs seek to stop Fedex from deposing several absent class members. On February 5, 2007, Fedex filed its response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion, and on February 12, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their response in support of their motion.
The final two discovery motions are motions to compel that were filed by Fedex on the same day, January 31, 2007, which also happened to be the discovery deadline. In the first motion Fedex seeks to compel Plaintiffs to produce an unnamed plaintiff for a deposition. However, that plaintiff was a named plaintiff at the time the motion was filed, and did not become an unnamed plaintiff until February 14, 2007. In the second motion, Fedex seeks to compel Plaintiffs to produce a document used to refresh the recollection of two named plaintiffs during their respective depositions.
On February 2, 2007, this Court issued an order that accelerated the response and reply deadlines to the final two motions to compel in an attempt to preserve all future previously established deadlines. As a result, Plaintiffs filed their responses in opposition to these motions on February 16, 2007, and Fedex filed its reply in support of its motions on February 21, 2007.
Because all these matters were fully ripe by February 21, 2007, this Court now enters its ruling on all these motions. This Court may rule on these motions pursuant to its referral order and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 3 of 21
II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(1) permits discovery into "any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Relevant information need not be admissible at trial so long as the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(1). For the purpose of discovery, relevancy will be construed broadly to encompass "any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Chavez v. Daimler Chrysler, 206 F.R.D. 615, 619 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351(1978)). This Court has broad discretion when deciding whether to compel discovery and may deny discovery to protect a party from oppression or undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Sattar v. Motorola, Inc., 138 F.3d 1164, 1171 (7th Cir. 1998) ("[D]istrict courts have broad discretion in matters related to discovery."); Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 495-96 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The district court exercises significant discretion in ruling on a motion to compel."). In ruling on a motion to compel, "a district court should independently determine the proper course of discovery based upon the arguments of the parties." Id. at 496.
All of these motions deal with discovery regarding class certification. Whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed as a class is relevant to the subject matter of litigation, and as a result, it is a proper subject of discovery. Plummer v. Chi. Journeyman Plumbers’ Local Union No. 130, U.A., 77 F.R.D. 399, 403 (D.C. Ill. 1977). A party can seek discovery regarding the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) requirements, which includes whether the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The considerations for adequacy of
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 4 of 21
representation are 1) whether the plaintiffs interests are not antagonistic to those of other members of the class that Plaintiffs represent, 2) that the representative has a sufficient interest in the outcome to ensure vigorous advocacy and 3) that the plaintiff’s attorneys are qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 199 F.R.D. 280, 288-89 (N.D. Ind. 2001) (rev’d on other grounds) (citing Sec’y of Labor v. Fitzsimmons, 805 F.2d 682, 297 (7th Cir. 1986)). No party can fairly and adequately represent the interests of the absent class if that party is motivated by an adverse interest to the class as a whole. Hansberry v. Lee 311 U.S. 32, 45 (1940). Only a conflict that goes to the very subject matter of the litigation will defeat a party’s claim of representative status, but unfortunately, where federal courts have found sufficient antagonism to defeat a claim of class representation is in many and varied contexts. 7A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d, § 1768 (3d ed. 2005).
B. Fedex’s Motion to Compel Teamsters’ Information Fedex seeks discovery related to the relationship between Plaintiffs and the Teamsters. Teamsters members have distributed written materials at Fedex ground terminals, which feature both the Teamsters’s anti-Fedex website and Plaintiffs’ litigation website. The Teamster’s website references the current pending litigation and encourages people associated with Fedex to send the Teamsters materials that will assist the litigation. See http://www.fedexwatch.com. Plaintiffs’ litigation website also refers visitors to the Teamster’s anti-Fedex website. See http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com. Fedex contends that this information indicates the Teamsters and Fedex are acting in concert. Fedex argues that the Teamsters are directing, at least in part, Plaintiffs how to run this
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 5 of 21
litigation for the sole benefit of the Teamsters. Specifically, the Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and declaratory relief that will have the effect of changing Fedex drivers to “employees” rather than “independent contractors” so that the Teamsters can increase their constituent base of package delivery drivers. Fedex contends that if Plaintiffs are being influenced by the Teamsters, it would constitute an antagonistic interest to the rest of the class. However, Fedex is not sure of the extent of the Teamster’s influence, and as a result, Fedex seeks to compel production of documents and a response to an interrogatory that cover communications between the Plaintiffs and the Teamsters.
Fedex must demonstrate that the information it seeks is relevant to be discoverable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Fedex has established that the Teamsters and the Plaintiffs are supporting each other to some extent based on the references to each other’s website and that the Teamsters distribution of written material at Fedex terminals. While this evidence does not prove that the Teamsters and Plaintiffs are acting in concert, it certainly suggests something more than casual association between them. If Plaintiffs are seeking relief specifically to benefit the Teamsters or at the direction of the Teamsters, this Court cannot say discovery directed at revealing the extent of the Teamster’s influence would not be relevant. Plaintiffs would be primarily seeking to advance the interests of the Teamsters above the class. If such an agreement exists, it suggests collusion between the Plaintiffs and the Teamsters, and it would potentially jeopardize the Plaintiffs’ ability to litigate to the utmost on the class’s behalf. See Eisen v. Carlisle and Jacquelin, 391 F.2d 555, 562 (2d Cir. 1968) (“[I]t is necessary to eliminate . . . the likelihood that the litigants are involved in a collusive suit or that plaintiff has interests antagonistic to those of the remainder of the class.”); Lirtzman v. Spiegel, Inc., 493 F. Supp.
5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 6 of 21
1029, 1032 (D.C. Ill. 1980);cf DeLoach v. Phillip Morris Companies, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 551, 556 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (finding plaintiffs were adequate representatives but discussing a conflict of interest as a relevant issue). See generally Hansberry, 311 U.S. at 45. For example, if the absent class desires a different form of relief, Plaintiffs may be compelled to pursue a different form of relief at the behest of the Teamsters interest instead. Simply put, if the Plaintiffs are subject to extraneous influence by the Teamsters, there is potential to jeopardize Plaintiffs role as adequate representatives. See e.g. Kamean v. Local 363, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 109 F.R.D. 391, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (“If . . . the class representatives are not motivated by the same interests and concerns as the absent class members, then there is no assurance that the important litigation decisions made will fairly and adequately vindicate the claims of the absent class members who will be bound by them.”). Consequently, Fedex’s request may lead to relevant evidence on a pertinent class certification issue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
Plaintiffs contend that because the evidence Fedex has presented about the Teamsters involvement would not be enough for the Plaintiffs not to be considered adequate representatives at the class certification stage, Fedex’s contention that the Teamsters are directing or influencing the Plaintiffs is merely speculative or conjectural. However, this argument is irrelevant at this stage of the litigation. While a possibility of a conflict would probably not render Plaintiffs’ inadequate representatives at class certification, a possibility of conflict is sufficient grounds for purposes of discovery. Unless, of course, the possibility is so speculative or remote that discovery constitutes merely a “fishing expedition.” This Court has already determined that Fedex has presented enough evidence that suggests the Plaintiffs and the Teamsters may be acting in concert. Consequently, if Plaintiffs can establish that union control or influence is
6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 7 of 21
rarely or never grounds for disqualification under the adequate representation prong of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) when a court is actually making its class certification, then this Court could determine that Fedex’s concerns are far too speculative to warrant a need for the requested discovery.1 See Eggleston, 657 F.2d at 904 (“[D]iscovery has limits and . . . these limits grow more formidable as the showing of need decreases.”). However, Plaintiffs have failed to make such a showing.
In an attempt to support their position, Plaintiffs cite to a variety of cases. Most of these cases do not stand for the proposition that union involvement is not relevant, but instead, these cases indicate that there was not enough evidence to make a determination that a union was influencing the lawsuit or pressuring the named Plaintiffs at the time the court was determining whether class certification was appropriate. See Shaffer v. Farm Fresh, Inc., 966 F.2d 142, 14648 (4th Cir. 1992) (indicating insufficient evidence to disqualify attorneys based on likely conflict of interest with union); Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 602, 610 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (indicating that Plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence that lawsuit was filed to pressure a unionization); Coffin v. Bowater Inc., 228 F.R.D. 397, 405 (D. Me. 2005) (indicating lack of evidence of union hostility so as to detrimentally affect the ability of the named Plaintiffs to pursue action on behalf of class); Trull v. Dayco Products, LLC 214 F.R.D. 394, 404 (W.D.N.C. 2003) (indicating a lack of evidence to suggest that union is actually controlling
1Plaintiffs could also prevail if they were to assert some privilege or that the discovery was some how inconsistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i), (iii). However, Plaintiffs make no claims that the requested discovery is privileged, unreasonably cumulative, or expensive.
7

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 8 of 21
litigation).2 At this time, this Court is not resolving whether or not Fedex has presented enough
evidence to make a determination about the adequacy of Plaintiffs as representatives of a class.
Instead, this Court’s only concern is whether Fedex seeks discovery that may lead to relevant
evidence regarding the adequacy of Plaintiffs as representatives. The caselaw cited by Plaintiffs
does not establish that influence by a union such as the Teamsters never or rarely constitutes an
antagonistic interest.
Plaintiffs also argue that Fedex is not entitled to the discovery it requests because they
have an ulterior motive for seeking that information. Specifically, Fedex seeks information
regarding the Teamsters to combat actions before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Even though there have been a number of actions between Fedex and the Teamsters before the
NLRB, this fact itself does not suggest that Fedex is seeking the discovery in this lawsuit to
combat future actions. Furthermore, the fact that Fedex has voiced its anit-union sentiment does
not suggest Fedex is seeking discovery from the Plaintiffs for an improper purpose. Fedex is a
large corporation that spans throughout the country, and the Teamsters is a labor union that does
likewise. Naturally, there will be strife between these two organizations. However, the
2The rest of the cases cited by Plaintiff also do not contradict Fedex’s request. Some of Plaintiffs cases stand for the proposition that union funding does not affect class certification. McClendon v. Continental Group, Inc., 113 F.R.D. 39, 43 (D.N.J. 1986) (indicating third party funding by a union for a class action does not in and of itself make the named plaintiffs antagonistic to the interests of the class). Others are simply not applicable. For example, in Sayre v. Abraham Lincoln Fed’l Saving & Loan Assn., 65 F.R.D. 379, 382 (E.D. Pa. 1974) the district court granted a protective order because the discovery sought would not constitute unethical conduct, which made it not relevant. That case is inapposite to this situation because Fedex is not arguing that the alleged conflict with the Teamsters will disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel for unethical conduct, but rather because Plaintiffs would be pursuing this litigation for different motives. Brown v. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co., 8 F.R.D. 107 (D.C.N.Y. 1948) is also not applicable because the objection sustained by the court was analyzed under the Fair Labor Standards Act rather than the adequate representation prong of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
8

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 9 of 21
existence of that strife alone, absent some other showing, does not suggest that Fedex’s current request is improper. Based on the record before it, this Court cannot find Fedex is seeking this information to satisfy an ulterior motive.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Fedex’s motion to compel was untimely because it was filed so near the close of discovery, and as a consequence, this Court should deny Fedex’s request. While Fedex’s motion to compel was filed late in discovery, this Court extended both the discovery deadline and the class briefing deadlines to alleviate time pressure concerns. Even though Fedex’s motion was filed late in discovery, this Court does not feel it is an “eleventh hour” filing so as to be denied under In re Sulfuric Acid Litigation, 231 F.R.D. 331, 332 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
While Fedex has shown this Court that information regarding communications between the Teamsters and the Plaintiffs is relevant, relevancy is not the only requirement to warrant disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) provides in part:
[t]he frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods . . . shall be limited by the court if it determines that . . . (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. The court may act upon its own initiative after reasonable notice. Fedex’s request for production seeks “[a]ny documents reflecting communications between plaintiffs or their counsel and the . . . Teamsters or any of its affiliates related to the lawsuits or Defendants.” (Defendant’s Exhibit A, Request No. 1). Interrogatory No. 12 seeks to have Plaintiffs describe “all communications between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters or any of its affiliates and any law firm or lawyer representing plaintiffs regarding Fedex, including
9

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 10 of 21
the date of each such communication and the identity of the individuals involved.” (Defendant’s Exhibit B, Interrogatory No. 12). While Fedex has shown this Court that some communications regarding the Teamsters and the Plaintiffs may be relevant, this does not mean all communications are relevant. Fedex’s requests are far too broad.
Fedex’s requests are neither limited in terms of time nor are they limited to specific categories. First, Fedex does not request communications beginning on the date this lawsuit was filed, shortly before this lawsuit was filed, or even in the past five years. Second, Fedex’s request is not properly limited to specific categories of information. This Court has found that communication between the Teamsters and the Plaintiffs regarding influence over this litigation or direction over this litigation is relevant, but Fedex’s request reaches information well beyond these categories because Fedex requests any communication. Because there are no time limitations or categorical limitations, Fedex’s requests will necessarily produce a large amount of discovery, some of which will not be relevant to the issues in this lawsuit.
The result of Fedex’s request is far too broad and burdensome given the size of this litigation. Any benefit that Fedex would receive from this discovery would be far outweighed by the burden it would place upon Plaintiffs to not only produce the discovery, but to also find the relevant discovery. See Sabratek Liquidating LLC v. KPMG LLP 2002 WL 31520993 at 4 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (indicating discovery request will not be allowed where it potentially results in large scale production). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, this Court may utilize its discretion to appropriately limit any discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C); Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002); Metalex Corp. v. Uniden Corp. of America, 863 F.2d
10

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 11 of 21
1331, 1336 (7th Cir. 1988). Therefore, this Court will exercise its discretion and narrow Fedex’s discovery request.
Having now concluded that communication between the Teamsters and Plaintiffs concerning this litigation is relevant, Fedex’s motion to compel production and a response to an interrogatory is now limited to these topics. Also, this Court will set a time limit of 3 months prior to the date Plaintiffs filed their first complaint. Fedex shall only be entitled to such communication that have taken place since this time.
In summary, Fedex has established that some of the communication between Plaintiffs and the Teamsters may be relevant for class certification. However, Fedex’s request is too broad to cover the respective categories of relevancy. Consequently, Fedex’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Fedex is only entitled to documents that reflect communication between Plaintiffs and the Teamsters concerning this litigation.3 C. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash and Fedex’s Motion to Compel a Deposition
On November 17, 2006, Fedex served document and deposition subpoenas to absent class members. Each of the absent class members was once a named plaintiff in different pending class actions that are before this Court. Plaintiffs move to quash the subpoenas served upon the now absent class members.
On January 31, 2007, Fedex filed a motion to compel the deposition of a named plaintiff. However, that named plaintiff became, at best, and absent class member on February 14, 2007, when this Court granted a motion to amend the complaint that removed the Plaintiff in question
3Fedex’s compelled response to its interrogatory is similarly limited to communication between the Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Teamsters concerning this litigation.
11

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 12 of 21
as a named plaintiff. Thus, in essence, Fedex’s motion to compel deals with compelling the deposition of another former named plaintiff.
While absent class members are generally given a “free ride” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, in appropriate cases absent class members may be required to submit to discovery requests. Brennan v. Midwestern United Life Ins. Co., 450 F.2d 999, 1005 (7th Cir. 1971). Before ordering such discovery, a court must be assured that the requested information is necessary for trial preparation and that the discovery devices are not used to take unfair advantage of the “absent” class members. Id. at 1006. Also, adequate notice must be given so that such persons are fully informed of the discovery order and the possible consequences of noncompliance. Id. Furthermore, with regards to depositions of absent class members, the burden confronting the party seeking the deposition testimony is more severe than if they were simply seeking interrogatories. Clark v. Universal Builders, Inc. 501 F.2d 324, 341 (7th Cir. 1974).
First, Fedex argues that the Clark and Brennan standards do not apply. Fedex argues that the under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv), the subpoena may only be quashed under the present circumstances if it presents an undue burden. Fedex contends that because a class has not been certified yet, the Clark and Brennan standards do not apply because that standard only deals with post class certification discovery issues rather than pre certification issues. This Court does not agree.
Even though a class has not been certified, the same principles that the 7th Circuit relied upon in creating the more stringent standard under Clark and Brennan still apply. Brennan specifically enforced a stricter standard of discovery with absent class members to avoid the risk that absent class members would not be misled or confused. 450 F.2d at 1005. Furthermore,
12

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 13 of 21
both Brennan and Clark expressed concern that seeking discovery from absent class members may be a tactic to take undue advantage of the class members or to reduce the number of claimants. Id.; Clark, 501 F.2d at 340. Even though a class has not been certified, those same fears from post class certification still apply during pre-certification. A party that opposes a future class certification may seek discovery from potential absent class members to take undue advantage of them or to try and reduce the size of the class. Furthermore, district courts in the 7th Circuit have applied the Clark and Brennan standard prior to class certification. See e.g. Feldman v. Motorola, Inc., 1992 WL 415382 at 6 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (discussing discovery as it relates to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) and named plaintiffs who became absent class members). Therefore, this Court believes the higher standard imposed by Clark and Brennan is applicable. Fedex seeks to depose three individuals, James Lester (Lester), Niles Pinkham (Pinkham), Michael Griffin (Griffin).
1. The depositions of Lester and Pinkham4 This Court is not persuaded that the depositions of Lester and Pinkham, as well as the request for production of documents, is necessary for trial preparation. Fedex contends that the discovery will be relevant to the issues of commonality, typicality, and whether Plaintiffs adequately represent the interests of the class. While this Court agrees the discovery will certainly be relevant to issues of class certification, Brennan requires that the discovery be necessary. Fedex has even stated that it can and will present evidence of non-Plaintiff contractors to rebut Plaintiffs allegations. Fedex has failed to articulate a need for the discovery.
4While Plaintiffs original motion indicated more unnamed Plaintiffs were at issue, Fedex represented in its reply that these two individuals were the only two remaining at issue.
13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 14 of 21
See Burlington N. Inc.v. Burlington N., Inc., 1980 WL 134 at 1 (N.D. Ill. 1980) (“The requisite inquiry is whether Burlington has manifested an actual need to obtain the information.”(emphasis added)). Fedex has failed to articulate any prejudice that will result if they are not to take the depositions. At best, Fedex merely argues that the discovery is relevant and it will be helpful, and because it is relevant and helpful, they are entitled to the discovery. Mere relevance and helpfulness do not constitute a need, especially when Clark indicates that the burden is more severe when deposition testimony from absent class members is sought, such as in the present case.
Finally, this Court notes that the parties are on the eve of beginning class certification briefing. Allowing more depositions at this point in the litigation may threaten the class certification deadlines. These timing concerns also are a consideration for this Court to require Fedex to make a stronger showing of need for the depositions and documents they seek from absent class members. The Plaintiffs motion to quash the subpoenas of putative class members is GRANTED. However, the situation of Griffin, the other absent class member who Fedex wishes to depose, is different than Lester and Pinkham.
2. The deposition of Griffin This Court is persuaded that the deposition of Griffin is necessary for trial preparation. The uniqueness of Griffin’s particular situation satisfies the Clark and Brennan standard. Griffin was involved in this litigation as a named plaintiff for over two years and he was suddenly dropped because the parties learned that Griffin did not have any employment relationship with Fedex. Despite this fact, he submitted prior discovery that was nearly identical to other named plaintiffs. As a consequence, Griffin’s situation and how he went from being a named plaintiff
14

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 15 of 21
with claims common and typical of other named plaintiffs to the antithesis is unique. Griffin is the only plaintiff that Fedex is aware of that has this type of situation, which is a person who believes he has an employment relationship with Fedex but actually does not have such a relationship. As a result, Griffin’s deposition may be Fedex’s only opportunity to obtain the information regarding such a situation. Fedex has shown a sufficient need for Griffine’s deposition.
The timing and circumstances of Griffin’s involvement in this litigation also warrants production of Griffin for a deposition. Unlike Lester and Pinkahm, Griffin was a named plaintiff at the time discovery closed. As a named Plaintiff, Griffin would have undoubtedly been forced to attend a deposition. In fact, Griffin was scheduled for a deposition that Fedex was prepared to conduct that was cancelled at the direction of Plaintiffs’ counsel because Griffin was going to be dropped as a named plaintiff. Plaintiffs did not move to drop Griffin till the day after the close of discovery, and he did not become an unnamed Plaintiff till two weeks after discovery closed. Now, Plaintiffs argue that Brennan and Clark prevents Fedex from deposing Griffin because he is, at best, an absent class member. Plaintiffs appear to have deliberately changed Griffin’s circumstances so as to hide behind the Brennan and Clark standards. Also, if Griffin’s situation is so drastically different in that he never had an employment relationship with Fedex, he may not even be an absent class member in this case, which completely alleviates the concerns from Brennan and Clark. While Griffin is not a named plaintiff, the circumstances also support this Court’s finding that Griffin’s deposition should go forward.
Finally, this Court notes that Fedex does not appear to be seeking the testimony of Griffin to harass absent class members, nor does the deposition Fedex seeks appear to be burdensome.
15

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 16 of 21
Seeking the deposition of one absent class member, who may not even be a class member, from potentially thousands hardly constitutes harassment. Furthermore, performing one deposition, which was already supposed to have been performed, cannot be considered a burden. Fedex’s motion to compel the deposition of Griffin is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs in response argue that any communications that will be the subject of Griffin’s deposition will be protected by the attorney client privilege. However, Plaintiffs do not claim that the attorney-client privilege prevents Fedex from deposing Griffin, instead Plaintiffs forecast that some of the questions Fedex may ask Griffin come under the purview of the attorney-client privilege. This Court, at this time, can only speculate whether the attorney-client privilege will block some or all of Fedex’s questioning because this Court does not know the substance or context of the questioning. Essentially, any dispute as to the applicability of the attorney client privilege is not ripe before this Court. As a consequence, this Court will not rule on Plaintiffs’ argument regarding the attorney-client privilege at this time.
In summary, Fedex has failed to articulate a need for the depositions of Lester and Pinkham. As a result, the motion to quash is GRANTED. However, the facts and circumstances of Griffin’s situation warrant that he be produced for deposition. Consequently, the motion to compel the deposition of Griffin is GRANTED.
D. Fedex’s Motion to Compel a Document Used to Refresh Deponent Recollection On December 12, 2006, Fedex took the depositions of two named Plaintiffs, Dale Fluegel (Fluegel) and Clarence Kelley (Kelley). At the beginning of each deposition, the deponents appeared to be reviewing certain documents in their possession. Both deponents indicated to Fedex that they had reviewed the documents prior to the commencement of the deposition to
16

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 17 of 21
refresh their recollection. However, Plaintiffs agreed to turn over some of the documents, but they refused to turn over one document on the basis that it was protected by the work product privilege.
Generally, the work product doctrine shields materials a party prepares in anticipation of litigation. Mattenson v. Baxter, 438 F.3d 763, 767-68 (7th Cir. 2006). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) provides that materials that contain mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation are out of bounds and are only discoverable if the seeking party shows a substantial need and is unable to obtain the materials or their substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); Mattenson, 438 F.3d at 768.
Plaintiffs claim the work product privilege applies to a single document, which constitutes a 19 page deposition preparation guide for use by Plaintiffs’ counsel in preparing named Plaintiffs for their depositions. (Affidavit of Lynn Rossman Faris ¶ 2). The document contains litigation strategy and was never intended to be used by clients or named plaintiffs. (Id.). Based on the representation of Plaintiffs’ counsel, which constitutes an oath by an officer of this Court, and the absence of contrary evidence, this Court finds that the disputed document is valid work product. See also Timm v. Mead Corp., 1992 WL 32280 at 5 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (indicating materials presented by an attorney to a deponent prior to deposition is opinion work product). However, this does not conclude the analysis. Fedex argues that the document be produced because when Plaintiffs counsel gave the deponents the document to refresh recollection at the depositions, it constituted a waiver of the work product privilege.
F.R.E. 612 provides in part,
17

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 18 of 21
[I]f a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either—
(1) while testifying, or (2) before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice, an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine . . . and to introduce in evidence.5
Use of documents to refresh recollection can even constitute the waiver of a privilege such as
work product. Cf. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Underwriters Lab.s, Inc., 81 F.R.D. 8, 10-
11 (D.C. Ill. 1978). However, “access is limited only to those writings which may fairly be said
in fact to have an impact upon the testimony.” Id. at 11. To determine whether those writings
indeed have an impact, Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d. Cir. 1985) announces a three part test:
1) the witness must use the writing to refresh his memory, 2) the witness must use the writing for
the purpose of testifying and 3) the court must determine that production is necessary in the
interest of justice. Id. at 317.6
5F.R.E. 612 is applicable to depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c), which states “examination and cross-examination may proceed as permitted at the trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence.” See Stone Container Corp. v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 1995 WL 88902 at 2 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
6The parties do not appear to dispute that Sporck is applicable. Fedex contends that Sporck is factually distinguishable, but it does not argue that Sporck’s legal test is at odds with the law of the 7th Circuit. This Court is not aware of any 7th Circuit case that either endorses or prohibits the analysis used by the Sporck court. However, other district courts in the 7th Circuit have applied the reasoning of Sporck in similar discovery disputes. See e.g. Stone Container Corp. v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 1995 WL 88902 at 3-4 (N.D. Ill. 1995); C&F Packing Co. v. IBP, Inc., 1997 WL 619848 at 5 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Furthermore, the reasoning of Sporck’s test is sound because it simply incorporates the requirements of F.R.E. 612. Specifically, prongs one and two ensure that this Court find that the witness actually used the document(s) in dispute to refresh his recollection for the purposes of testifying. The third prong simply reiterates the F.R.E. 612 (2) language that this Court utilize its discretion. Consequently, because district courts in the 7th Circuit have adopted Sporck, because the 7th Circuit is silent with regards to Sporck, and because this Court finds the analytical test set out by Sporck to be sound and reasonable, this Court will apply Sporck.
18

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 19 of 21
The testimony of Kelley unequivocally shows that Kelley specifically used the 19 page legal document to refresh his recollection. Kelley went through several documents in a folder prior to the deposition. Fedex counsel observed Kelly doing this and the relevant portions of Kelley’s testimony followed:
Q: And what exactly are the documents that you have in that folder? A: Okay. I hate to tell you I don’t remember. But some of them are my
relationship with FedEx and my complaints. Q: Okay. You can open them up and go through them. What’s the first
document that you hand to counsel? Ms. Norman: This is work product that we prepared. By Mr. Jirgal Q: Okay. And that’s something that you reviewed in preparation for this deposition? A: Today. Q: Okay. And did that - - you testified that helps refresh your recollection - A. Yes. (Defendant’s Motion to Compel Memorandum Used to Refresh the Recollection, Ex. A, Deposition of Kelley 8-10). Plaintiffs’ counsel indicates that the first document, which is the one in question, is work product, but then Kelley specifically says that he used it to refresh his recollection. Therefore, as to prong 1 of Sporck, Kelley admitted that it refreshed his recollection. As to prong 2 of Sporck, because Kelley unequivocally stated he used the document to refresh his recollection, this Court can only assume what Kelley’s answer provides, that he used the document for the purposes of testifying and that it had an impact upon his testimony. This situation is not like Timms where the deponent indicated he merely glanced at some of the documents to refresh his recollection. In that case, the court could not determine whether
19

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 20 of 21
the deponent used the documents for his testimony because of the cryptic nature of his answers. That is not the situation in the present case. When asked if he used the 19 page legal document to refresh his recollection, Kelley answered an unambiguous “yes.” This Court finds that such an answer clearly establishes Kelley used the documents for his testimony. No further questioning was required by Fedex’s counsel.
This Court also finds that it is in the interest of justice for Plaintiffs to surrender the document. The Plaintiffs only need to produce one document, which will be neither burdensome nor time consuming. Thus, this Court cannot say Fedex is engaging in “wholesale exploration of plaintiffs files” because they are only seeking one document. See Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 81. F.R.D. at 11. Furthermore, if the document holds the opinions and mental impressions of the attorney rather than any factual assertions by the witnesses as Plaintiffs represent, then the document is likely to contain little in the way of facts or admissible evidence for impeachment purposes against the witness. Timms, 1992 WL 32280 at 6. “Client’s opinions of appropriate strategies to follow in litigation will most likely not be admissible in the first place.” Id. Essentially, Plaintiffs will have nothing to worry about. But if it contains such facts or admissible evidence, then F.R.E. 612 demands that Fedex be allowed to have access to and use of this document. See Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 81. F.R.D. at 11 (“Under Rule 612 an adverse party is entitled to production of a writing used for refreshing one’s recollection . . . so that the may search out any discrepancies between the writing and the testimony.”). Consequently, the interests of justice warrant disclosure of the document.
In summary, because the deponent testified specifically and unequivocally that he used the 19 page legal document to refresh his recollection and because disclosure is in the interests of
20

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 542 filed 03/05/07 page 21 of 21 justice, F.R.E. 612 warrants disclosure of the document. Fedex’s motion to compel the production of the document used to refresh recollection is GRANTED. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Fedex’s motion to compel teamsters information is GRANTED IN PART [Doc. No. 433], Plaintiffs’ motion to quash is GRANTED [Doc. No. 471], Fedex’s motion to compel the Griffin deposition is GRANTED [Doc. No. 486], and Fedex’s motion to compel the production of a document used to refresh recollection is GRANTED [Doc. No. 488]. SO ORDERED. Dated this 5th Day of March, 2007. S/Christopher A. Nuechterlein Christopher A. Nuechterlein United States Magistrate Judge
21

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

)

)

)

)

CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

)

(MDL-1700)

)

)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO

)

ALL CASES

OPINION AND ORDER

On May 29, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the declarations of putative class

members that Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Fedex) filed with its oppositions

to Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. The issue before this Court is whether Fedex, which

had disclosed thousands of potential witnesses, was required to supplement its disclosures to the

Plaintiffs to inform them of the specific witnesses Fedex intended to use. This Court concludes

Fedex was so required and that its failure to disclose requires this Court to strike the witnesses’

statements. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

I.

PROCEDURE

On August 10, 2005, this multidistrict litigation case was transferred to the Northern

District of Indiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to perform consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On November 15, 2005, this Court entered an initial scheduling order where, pursuant to the

parties’ consent, discovery on liability and damages was bifurcated. For liability discovery, the

parties’ initial disclosures were due by January 8, 2006.

On November 29, 2005, this Court entered a supplemental scheduling order that, among

other things, established deadlines for discovery and class certification. Non-expert discovery

was to be completed by June 1, 2006, while class certification would be divided into three stages with the first wave beginning on August 8, 2006. Each subsequent wave was to be filed approximately three weeks later.
On January 9, 2006, Fedex served its initial disclosures to Plaintiffs (P.s’ Memorandum in Support, Ex. 20). Fedex indicated the following, in part, as individuals likely to have discoverable information that Fedex may use to support its claims or defenses:
Named plaintiffs, plaintiffs, putative class members and contractors in jurisdictions in or relevant to the MDL 1700 actions (Id. at 5). Fedex did not list any specific names of individual putative class members at this time. On May 26, 2006, this Court granted in part the parties’ joint motion to extend various deadlines. Non-expert discovery was reset to close on December 31, 2006. Class certification was reset to begin on January 22, 2007. On June 30, 2006, and September 15, 2006, Fedex supplemented its initial disclosures. Fedex provided the names and contact information for current contractors nationwide (Def. Ex. 3, Declaration of Chris Hollinger, ¶ 5). Fedex’s supplements spanned hundreds of pages and contained approximately ten thousand names (P.s’ Reply Ex.s 4 & 5). Fedex did not indicate which people or how many it would use to support its claims or defenses. On December 20, 2006, this Court held an in-court hearing regarding several motions to compel. The parties also raised some issues regarding deadlines at that hearing. By agreement of the parties, this Court extended the discovery deadline till January 31, 2007, solely for the completion of previously noticed depositions, which this Court memorialized in a December 21,
2

2006, order (P.s’ Memorandum in Support, Ex. 19).1 The class certification deadline was extended again and set to begin on February 12, 2007.
After the non-expert discovery deadline passed on December 31, 2006, Fedex again supplemented its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) initial disclosures. On January 3, 2007, and January 31, 2007, Fedex provided substantially smaller lists, although still numbering in the hundreds, than the September or June list of individual putative class members likely to have discoverable information that Fedex may use to support its claims or defenses. On January 23, 2007, this Court extended the class certification briefing deadline a final time and class certification briefing began on March 12, 2007.
On March 12, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their first motions for class certification. On April 27, 2007, Fedex filed their responses in opposition to those motions. Fedex submitted statements from putative class members who were listed in its January 3, and January 31, 2007, supplemental disclosures with its responses. On May 29, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their replies in support of their motions. On that same day, Plaintiffs also filed a motion to strike the declarations of putative class members that Fedex had submitted with its responses to Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. On June 18, 2007, Fedex responded to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. On July 2, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of its motion.
1On December 21, 2006, this Court entered an order that stated, “[b]y agreement of the parties, the discovery deadline for all current discovery is now January 31, 2007.” See Doc. No. 453. However, this order was simply a memorialization of the parties’ agreement, as indicated by the order. Fedex’s counsel even clarified with the Court that the extension was solely for previously noticed depositions (P.s’ Memorandum in Support Ex. 19, pg. 111). Neither party disputes that the end for all non-expert discovery, other than the previously noticed depositions, ended on December 31, 2006.
3

The current motion to strike was fully ripe by July 2, 2007, and as a result, this Court now enters its ruling on this motion and all similar motions.2 This Court may rule on these motions pursuant to its referral order and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). II. ANALYSIS
A. Applicable Law Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) a party must provide and supplement disclosures that include the names, addresses, and telephone numbers, if known, of each individual the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses. The purpose of both Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) and 26(e) is to accelerate the exchange of basic information about the case and to help effectuate the general purpose of all discovery rules that civil actions no longer need to be carried on in the dark. Schagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 114-15 (1964); Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 756 F.2d 230, 236 (2d. Cir. 1985); Fitz, Inc. v. Ralph Wilson Plastics Co., 174 F.R.D. 587, 589 (D.N.J. 1997). Both rules should be applied with “common sense” keeping in mind the salutary purpose the rules are intended to accomplish. See Fitz, Inc., 174 F.R.D. at 589; Paradigm Sales, Inc. v. Weber Marking Sys., Inc., 151 F.R.D. 98, 98 (N.D. Ind. 1993) (indicating Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 amendments suggest Rule 26 requirement to be applied with common sense). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), a party that fails to disclose or supplement information as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) or 26(e)(1) is not allowed to use as evidence on a motion
2On June 18, 2007, and July 2, 2007, Plaintiffs submitted a second and third motion to strike with regards to similar declarations that Fedex submitted in response to Plaintiffs’ second and third waves of motions for class certification. As of this date, Fedex has only responded to Plaintiffs’ first and second motions to strike. However, because the arguments and issues are identical with regards to all three motions to strike, this Court will rule with regards to all three motions at this time.
4

any witness or information not disclosed. The sanction of exclusion is automatic and mandatory unless the party that failed to disclose can establish that its violation was justified or harmless. Salgado by Salgado v. Gen. Motors Corp., 150 F.3d 735, 742 (7th Cir. 1998); Maritime-Ontario Freight Lines, Ltd. v. STI Holdings, Inc., 481 F.Supp.2d 963, 972 (W.D. Wis. 2007); Needham v. Innerpac, Inc., 2007 WL 1662681 at 2 (N.D. Ind. 2007). The determination of whether a violation is justified or harmless is entrusted to the broad discretion of the district court. Maritime-Ontario Freight Lines, Ltd., 481 F.Supp.2d at 972. While this Court does not need to make explicit findings concerning the existence of justification or harmlessness, the following factors guide this Court’s discretion: 1) the prejudice or surprise to the party against whom the evidence is offered; 2) the ability to cure the prejudice; 3) the likelihood of disruption to the motion or trial; and 4) the bad faith or willfulness involved in not disclosing the evidence at an earlier date. David v. Caterpillar, Inc., 324 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2003).
B. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike In the present case, Plaintiffs argue that Fedex failed to disclose prior to the close of discovery the hundreds of witnesses they are now using in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. In response Fedex argues that it disclosed as early as January 9, 2006, the members of the putative class who were potential witnesses that Fedex might use to support its case. Fedex further argues that it properly supplemented its disclosures by providing Plaintiffs with lists of thousands of names and contact information for current contractors nationwide on June 30, 2006, and September 15, 2006 (Def. Ex. 3, Declaration of Chris Hollinger, ¶ 5). Fedex maintains that these lists were sufficient to satisfy its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) duty to supplement (P.s’ Reply Ex.s 4 & 5).
5

This Court is not persuaded that Fedex’s duty to disclose and supplement was satisfied by

its extensive list of thousands of employees. While it is true that Fedex’s list of September 15,

2006, contained all the names of possible witnesses, the disclosure was complete in form, but not

complete in substance. See Ty, Inc. v. Publications Intern., Ltd, 2004 WL 421984 at 4 (N.D. Ill.

2004). As discussed earlier, the purpose of disclosure under Rule 26 is to have open, not

hidden, discovery. Long gone are the days of litigation by ambush where key witnesses or

critical information is sprung on the opponent at the last moment, too late to respond, counter or

learn the details of the information. See U.S. v. Loggins, 486 F.3d 977, 987 (7th Cir. 2007)

(“Trial by ambush has absolutely nothing to recommend itself to the judicial process.”);

Hodgdon v. Northwestern Univ., 2007 WL 15746486 at 3 (N.D. Ill. 2007); see generally 8

Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 2d § 2001 (1994). Although a list

of 10,000 possible witnesses Fedex intended to use is a disclosure, it is simply too broad and

extensive to be meaningful. It is not reasonable, or even possible, for a party to parse through

10,000 or more names to determine which people Fedex might use as witnesses, especially when

Fedex knew a substantially smaller number of the names disclosed was actually going to be

used. Essentially, Fedex’s September 15, 2006, supplement was nothing more than a needle in a

haystack.

Additionally, the record reveals that Fedex continued to narrow its list

from September 15, 2006, until it disclosed a more specific list in January.3 As Fedex realized

that a much smaller number of witnesses would already be used, candor and good faith should

have caused a supplemental disclosure to the Plaintiffs well before the discovery period closed to

3Fedex does not deny that it knew some of the specific witnesses prior to the close of discovery if not all. Further, some of the statements submitted by Fedex have endorsement dates well before the close of discovery. See e.g. Doc. No. 622-5, Response in Opposition to Class Certification, Declaration of Paul O’Brien.
6

alert them of the specific witnesses Fedex intended to use. Waiting until the discovery period has closed to inform the Plaintiffs which specific witnesses will be used is too late. Fedex’s response that the names were listed among 10,000 is technically correct, but it is inadequate and contrary to the purpose and goal of early disclosure and the common sense requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Rather than constituting disclosure as Rule 26 contemplates, it is constructive concealment when the actual witnesses a party intends to use is among a list of 10,000 names.
Multi-district litigation is complex and difficult made so by its size and scope. Fair and efficient resolution of complex litigation requires for counsel to act cooperatively and civilly. See Manual for Complex Litigation § 10.21 (4th Ed. 2004). On August 20, 2005, this Court entered an order that advised the parties that communication and cooperation by counsel of the parties was essential. See Doc. No. 2-3 at 5. On November 15, 2005, this Court’s scheduling order again indicated the parties were expected to cooperate in good faith. See Doc. No. 52 at 11. Yet again on March 24, 2006, this Court reminded the parties that the complexity of multidistrict litigation required the parties to cooperate. See Doc. No. 215 at 8. Yet, what is before this Court now is not evidence of candor, cooperation, and good faith. Rather, it is evidence of one party seeking an unfair advantage of the other party, by conduct that may meet the letter of the law but is contrary to the very purpose of the law.
Fedex argues that because it disclosed all of the names it eventually used in responding to Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification in the lists, Plaintiffs knew of all of Fedex’s potential witnesses. Fedex argues it was not its duty to disclose but rather the Plaintiffs’ duty to cull through the 10,000 names to determine which ones would testify.
7

This Court disagrees. As between Fedex, who knew before discovery closed which of the 10,000 witnesses it would use, and the Plaintiffs, who did not, this Court, consistent with the modern philosophy of discovery and disclosure, concludes that the burden was on Fedex to supplement its disclosures more precisely. Plaintiffs were not under a duty to object to initial or supplemental disclosures, nor would they be expected to object prior to the close of discovery. In fact, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) squarely places the burden on Fedex, the disclosing party, to supplement it disclosures. See Carter v. Finely Hosp., 2003 WL 22232844 at 2 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (“Rule 26(e)(1) imposes a duty to supplement their disclosures.”). Only if Fedex could have provided a reason for the Plaintiffs to seek court intervention could Plaintiffs be deemed to have sat on their laurels. See Fitz, Inc., 174 F.R.D. at 589-90. Fedex had previously provided Plaintiffs with supplements, in both June and September of 2006. It was reasonable for Plaintiffs to expect Fedex would provide more supplements of a smaller witness list. There was no reason for Plaintiffs to seek court intervention, such as by filing a motion to compel.
Finally, Fedex argues that it was not required to disclose its roster of witnesses because such a list would be legitimate work product. Fedex argues it were only required to identify those witnesses that are likely to have discoverable information, which it did by providing Plaintiffs with a list of 10,000 people. This argument fails the blush test. Fedex cannot seriously argue that the names of witnesses used to support its position, and required to be disclosed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, constitutes attorney work product.
Generally, the work product doctrine shields materials a party prepares in anticipation of litigation. Mattenson v. Baxter, 438 F.3d 763, 767-68 (7th Cir. 2006). It only protects form discovery the materials that contain mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories
8

of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); Mattenson, 438 F.3d at 768. The names of lay witnesses a party will use to support its case is simply not work product. See Auto Meter Prod.s, Inc. v. Maxima Tech.s & Sys., LLC 2006 WL 3253636 at 4 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Fridkin v. Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1998 WL 42322 at 4 (N.D. Ill. 1998); cf. Lockhart v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 214, 219 (7th Cir. 1991) rev’d on other grounds. A party’s determination of who its witnesses will be does not contain any mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or other legal theories of an attorney involved in the case.
Finally, this Court cannot say Fedex’s failure to disclose was harmless or justified. The most crucial factor to weigh is the prejudice to the parties. This Court finds that the prejudice Plaintiffs would suffer to be very high because of the late disclosures by Fedex. Knowing the identity of another party’s witnesses is crucial. It allows a party to properly prepare for contested matters. Cf. Musser v. Gentiva Health Serv.s, 356 F.3d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 2004). Because Plaintiffs learned about the specific putative class members Fedex is using in its response against class certification and after discovery, the Plaintiffs did not have time to investigate those individuals further. Plaintiffs were not able to interview, question, depose, or otherwise discover information about these witnesses. As a result, Plaintiffs cannot provide a response to any declarations by these witnesses because they have not had an opportunity to generate one.
Additionally, there is also no chance to cure the prejudice. Class certification briefing is well underway and is on the eve of completion. Discovery closed nearly six months ago. It is simply not possible to re-open discovery at this late date because it would unreasonably delay the resolution of class certification as well as the filing of dispositive motions later this year.
9

There is no practical way that Plaintiffs could examine, question, depose, or otherwise explore hundreds of witnesses and the veracity of their statements. Simply put, it is not practical nor possible to re-open discovery at this point.
Fedex’s attempts to establish that its failure to timely disclose were justified is also unpersuasive. Fedex claims that it did not know the full list of witnesses it would use until January 2007, because Fedex was working through the process of determining for itself which of the 10,000 witnesses it would use. Considering the history of this case, it is difficult for this Court to accept that Fedex did not know who of the thousands of witnesses they would use until after the close of discovery. Even assuming that Fedex was working to narrow its list, that does not justify its late supplement. It is clear that Fedex knew of at least some of the witnesses it would use prior to the close of discovery. At the very least, Fedex should have communicated with Plaintiffs that a more refined list was coming, or provided smaller, more regular supplements. But again, Fedex did nothing until after the close of discovery when it was too late for the Plaintiffs to use the information. This Court cannot say that Fedex’s late supplementation was justified.4
In summary, while Fedex has technically complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, they have not actually satisfied its duty. Also, Fedex has not proceeded with candor and good faith. Given the circumstances of this situation, this Court finds that Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) demands that the witness statements submitted by Fedex to be STRICKEN. The Plaintiffs are, no doubt,
4Plaintiffs also attempt to establish that Fedex has clearly demonstrated bad faith by showing Fedex tampered or unduly influenced the potential putative class members. Under either Rule 37 or 23, Plaintiffs claim this warrants that the evidence should be struck. This Court simply notes in passing that it cannot definitively say whether Fedex engaged in improper behavior or not.
10

prejudiced by the late disclosures, and it is not possible to cure the prejudice at this time. The late disclosure by Fedex is neither harmless or justified. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the declarations Fedex filed with its responses in opposition to class certification is GRANTED [Doc. No. 688]. Because Plaintiffs’ motions to strike with regards to the second and third waves of class certification are based on the same analysis, those motions are also GRANTED [Doc.s No. 756 & 773].
SO ORDERED. Dated this 23rd Day of July, 2007.
S/Christopher A. Nuechterlein Christopher A. Nuechterlein United States Magistrate Judge
11

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

ALL ACTIONS

)

)

_____________________________________ )

OPINION AND ORDER

This multi-district action involving the classification of FedEx Ground

pickup and delivery drivers is before the court on the Kansas plaintiffs’ motion for

class certification, as well as the certification of the national ERISA class. As a

preliminary matter, though, all plaintiffs have moved to strike portions of expert

reports the defendants use in support of their opposition to class certification. For

the reasons that follow, the court overrules the plaintiffs’ motions to strike, grants

the Kansas and ERISA plaintiffs’ motions for class certification, and denies

defendant’s request for oral argument on plaintiffs’ motions for class certification

I The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation created this docket and assigned it to the undersigned judge in 2005. The docket now includes fifty-six cases. Briefing is complete on most of the class certification motions, and the putative class representatives have moved to strike, under Federal Rule of

Evidence 702, various expert opinions the defendants have offered as part of their certification submissions. The court heard argument on the motions to strike on August 20, 2007. Because argument on the class certification motions would be both unwieldy and unnecessary, the court declines to hear argument on those motions.
The over-arching issue in this docket is the classification of certain FedEx Ground pickup and delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The named plaintiffs have moved to certify thirty state class action complaints and a national ERISA class. Most of the putative state class actions seek some combination of monetary damages, rescission of the operating agreement, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief under the state wage statutes. The proposed class-definition for nearly all the state class actions is some version of the following:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since xx/xx/xxxx, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of the terminal state of xxxxxxxxx. The ERISA national class claim seeks both declaratory relief regarding the putative class members’ participant status and entitlement to benefits under FedEx Ground’s ERISA plans, as well as payment of benefits to which they are entitled, but were improperly denied as a result of their misclassification.
2

The named plaintiffs seek to maintain class claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).
The named plaintiffs seek exclusion of opinions of Dr. Deborah Jay, Robert Crandall, and Dr. Richard Jeanneret. Their reports generally seek to show, through various data, that the named plaintiffs haven’t had the common experience necessary to warrant class certification. The named plaintiffs challenge the reports’ admissibility on several grounds relating to relevance and the reliability of the methods used in gathering and analyzing the data.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 seeks to assure that “experts’ work is admissible only to the extent that it is reasoned, uses the methods of the discipline, and is founded on data.” Lang v. Kohl’s Food Stores, Inc., 217 F.3d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 2000). The rule substantially codifies Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), which made trial judges gatekeepers who ensure that testimony is relevant and protect courtrooms from scientific opinions not based on reliable principles and methods. Donahue v. Barnhart, 279 F.3d 441, 446 (7th Cir. 2002) The first prong of this framework evaluates the reliability of the testimony; the second prong evaluates the testimony’s relevance—whether the testimony assists the trier of fact with its analysis of any of the issues involved in the case. Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 816 (7th Cir. 2004). The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of proving its compliance with Rule 702. Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. at 592 n.10. A judge deciding whether evidence
3

is reliable “must determine whether the expert is qualified in the relevant field and whether the methodology underlying the expert’s conclusions is reliable.” Zelinski v. Columbia 300, Inc., 335 F.3d 633, 640 (7th Cir. 2003).
The reliability inquiry focuses on the expert’s methodology, while the soundness of the factual underpinnings of the expert’s analysis and the correctness of the expert’s conclusions based on that analysis are factual matters to be determined by the trier of fact, or, where appropriate, on summary judgment. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. at 595); see also Walker v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 208 F.3d 581, 587 (7th Cir. 2000) (when addressing whether expert testimony is reliable the district court should not consider the “factual underpinnings” of the testimony but should determine whether “[i]t was appropriate for [the expert] to rely on the test that he administered and upon the sources of information which he employed”). The Daubert Court and the Advisory Committee notes to amended Rule 702 provide a series of guideposts gatekeeping courts are to use: (1) whether the scientific theory can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the theory’s known or potential rate of error when applied; (4) whether the theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community of which it is a part; (5) whether maintenance standards and controls exist; (6) whether the testimony addresses matters growing from research conducted independent of litigation; (7) whether the witness unjustifiably extrapolates from accepted premise to unfounded conclusion; (8) whether the
4

expert accounts adequately for obvious alternative explanations; (9) whether the expert uses as much care as she would use in professional work outside of paid litigation consulting; and (10) whether the expert’s claimed field of expertise is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give. Fuesting v. Zimmer, 421 F.3d 528, 534-535 (7th Cir. 2005), vacated in part 448 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2006). The Rule 702 test is a flexible one, and no single factor is either required in the analysis or dispositive as to its outcome. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d at 719.
The trial court must use the criteria relevant to a particular kind of expertise in a specific case to ‘make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field’. Id. (quoting Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. at 152). When analyzing the relevance of proposed testimony, the district court must consider whether the testimony will assist the trier of fact with its analysis of any of the issues involved in the case. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d at 719. The expert may satisfy this requirement without opining on the ultimate question to be resolved by the trier of fact. Walker v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 208 F.3d at 587. The relevance consideration has been described as one of “fit” that requires “a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. at 591-592. In other words, “scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes.” Id. at 591.
5

An expert may be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” FED. R. EVID. 702. While “extensive academic and practical expertise” in an area may suffice to qualify a potential witness as an expert, Bryant v. City of Chicago, 200 F.3d 1092, 1098 (7th Cir. 2000), “Rule 702 specifically contemplates the admission of testimony by experts whose knowledge is based on experience.” Walker v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 208 F.3d at 591; see also Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. at 156 (“[N]o one denies that an expert might draw a conclusion from a set of observations based on extensive and specialized experience.”). Thus, a court should consider a proposed expert’s full range of practical experience, as well as academic or technical training, when determining whether that expert is qualified to render an opinion in a given area. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d at 718.
The parties dispute the Daubert rule’s applicability to class determinations. The defendants cite to Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. Civ. A. 05-4206, 2006 WL 91364 (E.D. La. Jan. 12, 2006), in which the court took a quick glance approach to the Daubert analysis only to ensure that “it contains no flaws that would render it inadmissible as a matter of law,” id. at *4, leaving until trial the full Rule 702 analysis. See also Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 474 F.3d 1214, 1227 (9th Cir. 2007) (“courts need not apply the full Daubert ‘gate-keeper’ standard at the class certification stage. Rather, ‘a lower Daubert standard should be employed at this [class certification] stage of the proceedings.’” (citing Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives & Composites, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 159, 162
6

(C.D. Cal. 2002)); In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, 280 F.3d 124, 134-135 (2d Cir. 2001) (in the class certification phase, the “[d]istrict Court must ensure that the basis of the expert opinion is not so flawed that it would be inadmissible as a matter of law.”). The plaintiffs cite West v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 282 F.3d 935, 938 (7th Cir. 2002), for the proposition that a “district judge may not duck hard questions by observing that each side has some support, or that considerations relevant to class certification also may affect the decision on the merits. Tough questions must be faced and decided .”
None of those cases squarely reflect the posture of today’s case. Those cases all involved evidence that would be used at trial, but which also affected the propriety of class certification. In contrast, the expert opinions challenged here all deal solely with the class certification question; there is no later inquiry to which a Rule 702 analysis might be deferred.
On the other hand, the Rule 702 analysis is a gatekeeping tool, designed to keep unreliable scientific opinion from juries. There is little reason to think a judge can dispassionately scrutinize an expert’s opinion for reliability under Rule 702, only to be injudiciously affected by the same opinion. For that reason, “[t]he ‘gatekeeper’ doctrine . . . is largely irrelevant in the context of a bench trial.” Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 852 (6th Cir. 2004). A court evaluating expert opinion addressed solely to the factors the court must evaluate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is, for all practical purposes, conducting a bench trial and serving as a trier of fact.
7

Accordingly, the court approaches the plaintiffs’ objections to the defendant’s experts under a substantially relaxed Rule 702 analysis. The court will not struggle to discern the often-faint line between the opinion that is unpersuasive because it is not based on reliable principles reliably applied and the opinion that is unpersuasive despite being based on reliable principles reliably applied.
A Commissioned by FedEx in mid-2006, Dr. Jay’s report relies on a survey of FedEx Ground drivers conducted under her leadership. Thirty-six interviewers contacted 3,059 drivers in thirty-one different states by telephone. The interviewer read from a script indicating that FedEx Ground requested the survey. Respondents were asked eleven questions, including whether they considered themselves independent contractors or employees and which designation they preferred. Based on the survey findings, Dr. Jay prepared a report stating that FedEx Ground workers prefer to be independent contractors by a 52% to 20% margin. FedEx Ground relies on the report in support of its opposition to class certification, claiming the report shows a disconnect between the remedies sought by putative class members. The plaintiffs say the Jay Report fails both the reliability and relevance prongs of the Daubert test because the survey does not conform to generally
8

accepted principles of survey research and the report is irrelevant to the issue of class certification.
Survey evidence is independently admissible at trial where there is a substantial showing of reliability. Baumholser v. Amax Coal Co., 630 F.2d 550, 552 (7th Cir. 1980). Reliability of opinion survey evidence is based on whether (1) the survey was “conducted in accordance with generally accepted survey principles,” and (2) “the results [were] used in a statistically correct manner.” Id. The survey’s facts and data needn’t be independently admissible at trial for an expert to testify as to an opinion based on the otherwise inadmissible survey, so long as the methodology is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field to form opinions or inferences. Id.; FED. R. EVID. 703. Dr. Jay’s report does more than simply state her conclusions based on data that someone else collected; the report actually conveys results of her study.
In determining whether the survey was conducted in accordance with “accepted survey principles,” most courts look to the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which provides several factors courts should consider in assessing the reliability of a survey: (1) the survey’s purpose and design, (2) population definition and sampling —“was the appropriate universe defined”—, (3) the survey questions and structure —“were the questions framed to be clear, precise, and unbiased”—, and (4) the interviewers — “where the interviewers appropriately selected and trained.”
9

First, the plaintiffs say Dr. Jay’s method and procedures engineered a biased survey because the survey wasn’t conducted in a “double blind” fashion in which both the respondents and the interviewers are unaware of the purpose of the survey or its sponsor. Novartis Consumer Health. Inc. v. Johnson & JohnsonMerck Consumer, 290 F.3d 578, 590 (3rd Cir. 2002). In response, FedEx Ground says the survey was conducted in a double blind manner because the respondents didn’t know the purpose and disclosing the sponsor to them was necessary because unlike a consumer survey (where random calls are expected), the interviewer needed to explain how they knew the respondent was employed with FedEx Ground. The Judicial Center’s Manual suggests that disclosing the sponsor to the respondents isn’t fatal to the reliability of a survey and, in fact, might be required in some cases. In those cases, courts should consider (1) whether the sponsor has views and expectations that are apparent and (2) whether the respondents are aware of those views.
Interviewers had to disclose that FedEx Ground was the sponsor. Dr. Jay testified that cooperation depended on disclosing how the interviewer obtained the respondents’ names. The plaintiffs say “the interviewees would be reluctant to express a view on this matter that is opposite the view held by FedEx,” but disclosing FedEx Ground as the sponsor doesn’t make the survey biased because the respondents wouldn’t necessarily associate a view with FedEx Ground. Interviewees who knew of this litigation reasonably might presume the interview was for this suit, especially if, as the plaintiffs allege, FedEx Ground has engaged
10

in an information campaign aimed at controlling what the drivers know of the MDL proceedings. Still, Dr. Jay testified that in workforce surveys, respondents aren’t influenced by external factors and typically provide answers based on their own experiences.
Second, the plaintiffs say Dr. Jay did not properly choose and define the relevant population because the surveyed population was under-inclusive. The parties disagree as to the implications of an under-inclusive sample. FedEx says the alleged under-inclusiveness of the survey would affect only the weight accorded the survey, not its admissibility, while the plaintiffs say under-inclusive surveys should be excluded. The cases cited by the parties suggest that “[t]echnical and methodological deficiencies in the survey, including the sufficiency of the universe sampled, bear on the weight of the evidence, not on the survey’s admissibility,” and “survey evidence should only be excluded “when the sample is clearly not representative of the universe it is intended to reflect.” Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1544 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Spraying Systems Co. v. Delavan, Inc., 975 F.2d 387, 394 n. 5 (7th Cir. 1992) (“Since a sizable portion of the parties’ products are sold to distributors and equipment manufacturers, the selection of farmers only as the relevant universe limits the surveys’ probative value even further.” (emphasis added)).
The plaintiffs first take issue with the size of the survey sample: (1) the starting population (9,000 potential respondents) was only 46 percent of the total number of drivers (20,000), (2) responses from 3,000 drivers constitutes only 15
11

percent of the total number of drivers, (3) former drivers weren’t included, and (4) the survey included drivers from only thirty-one states, while the nationwide ERISA class includes potential drivers from all fifty states.
FedEx Ground says the target population for the survey was every driver in the thirty-one states in which a class action was pending at the time of the survey, and the absence of former drivers is irrelevant because the survey data will be used to show a conflict between the declaratory relief sought by the named plaintiffs and the proposed class members. FedEx Ground’s position is the more persuasive. Dr. Jay testified that the survey’s purpose was to determine whether current drivers would now prefer to perform their duties as independent contractors. In that respect, whether former drivers prefer classification as an employee goes only to monetary damages, not to declaratory relief. As Dr. Jay points out, nothing suggests the results would differ had the survey called drivers in the other nineteen states. Drivers in the thirty-one states that had class actions pending might be more likely to have been aware of the litigation, but that again goes to the weight of the evidence.
The plaintiffs’ expert says Dr. Jay’s sample has a disproportionate amount of multiple work area contractors, opposed to single work area contractors. Dr. Jay’s supplemental report suggests the statistical breakdown is very close to reflecting the actual make-up of the contractors. Dr. Jay explains in her supplemental report that the percentile differences may be the result of a disconnect between the way FedEx Ground classifies its contractors and the way
12

the contractors classify themselves. Whatever difference might exist is not sufficient to render the survey unreliable.
Finally, the plaintiffs question the response rate, but Dr. Jay’s response indicates the response rate was about 75 percent, which she says is a high cooperation rate. The plaintiffs’ reply doesn’t contest this conclusion.
The plaintiffs also take issue with the survey’s questions and structure, which, they say, created a bias because the language primed respondents to lean towards answers indicating an independent contractor relationship. Specifically, the callers referred to the respondents as “contractors” eight times during the script. Dr. Jay explains that this terminology was chosen because FedEx Ground referred to the drivers as contractors, but that doesn’t seem to affect whether people associate the term “contractor” with specific employment characteristics, one of which might be owning your own business. The plaintiffs say the bias created by the terminology is further exasperated by the failure to define the terms “employee” and “contractor.” This seems to be the crux of the problem with this survey—the survey ultimately calls for lay persons to state preferences and understandings about a relationship that the law defines. The impact of the choice of terminology depends on the purpose for which FedEx Ground seeks to use Dr. Jay’s results.
FedEx Ground says the survey is being introduced to show that “there is a conflict between the proposed class representatives and the putative class members about the form of the forward-looking declaratory and injunctive relief
13

that would potentially be sought if plaintiffs were to prevail on the threshold liability issues.” Fifty-two percent of the current contractors who responded to the Field Survey would prefer to be independent contractors and 20 percent would prefer to be employees. As the plaintiffs point out, though, the answer to question—“Would you prefer to perform your pick-up and delivery services as an employee or an independent contractor?”—is meaningless because the question doesn’t inquire into the respondents’ preferences as to the remedy they would receive for being wrongfully classified. This survey is unpersuasive when offered to prove that the proposed class members don’t want declaratory relief sought by the named plaintiffs.
B The plaintiffs challenge the portion of Mr. Crandall’s report that analyzed whether FedEx Ground routes meet the attributes of businesses such that it can be said that contractors are operating businesses. Mr. Crandall reviewed data relating to four different criteria attributable to businesses: (1) the requirement for capital investment; (2) the opportunity to expand; (3) the opportunity to generate profits and losses through the hiring of others; and (4) the opportunity to generate profit, loss, and changes in equity value through managerial decisions. To analyze the fourth criterion, Mr. Crandall conducted a phone survey of FedEx Ground drivers regarding the market for FedEx Ground delivery. He found that there is a significant market for FedEx Ground delivery routes, so drivers could make
14

decisions affecting their gross income. Based on these findings, Mr. Crandall concluded that FedEx Ground delivery drivers are operating a business.
The plaintiffs seek to exclude Mr. Crandall’s report because he isn’t qualified as an expert in research, economics, or statistics, and his survey lacks a reliable methodology, and his analysis of the data is unreliable.
The plaintiffs say Mr. Crandall is not an expert in survey design and administration or in economics. They say Mr. Crandall lacks requisite education in survey design and business valuation, isn’t published in either of those fields, and his experience relating to economics is mainly in the field of damages. FedEx Ground says Mr. Crandall’s education and experience are sufficient to allow him to testify as an expert.
Mr. Crandall is a partner in the litigation consulting practice of Resolution Economics, LLC. Before consulting, Mr. Crandall performed related work for fourteen years for Deloitte & Touche, Altschuler, Melvoin and Glasser, and Price Waterhouse. He holds a Masters of Business Administration Degree from Loyola Marymount University. Mr. Crandall’s main area of expertise is economic damages, but he has experience in his consulting practice and during trial preparation related to economics, business valuations, and class action employment matters.
Mr. Crandall has no courses, seminars, or publications in the relevant fields of research, economics, or statistics and hasn’t taken any course dedicated exclusively to “business valuation.” He has, though, taken courses in substantive
15

areas relevant to valuing a business, including economics, accounting, statistics, mergers and acquisitions, enterpreneurism, finance, and strategic planning. This course work alone may not carry the day, but experts can qualify to testify based upon personal experience. See Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d at 718 (citing Walker v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 208 F.3d at 591) (“Rule 702 specifically contemplates the admission of testimony by experts whose knowledge is based on experience.”). Mr. Crandall has participated in fifteen to twenty surveys and has provided business valuation and testimony in other cases. That his experience has been predominately with FedEx, and that he has only provided trial testimony five other times, doesn’t mean he isn’t qualified to provide an opinion on the differing value of the drivers’ “businesses.” Mr. Crandall’s background is in economics and includes several years of consulting on economic and employment matters, including survey design, research, and business valuations. The expertise that Mr. Crandall has developed as a result of these experiences puts him in a position to offer responsible opinion testimony on the subjects covered in his report.
The plaintiffs say Mr. Crandall’s survey didn’t comport to the Judicial Center’s generally accepted survey principles. First, they say the sample of only 146 drivers out of the nearly 5,000 current and former drivers who had bought or sold routes between 2000 and 2006 (2,900 of whom’s telephone numbers are available), results in a 5 percent response rate, which is too small to yield any conclusions. Mr. Crandall admits the sample is small. FedEx Ground says the sample was sufficient because the survey’s purpose wasn’t to review the sales
16

transactions in detail to determine route valuation, but rather “to examine the basic questions of (1) whether there is a market for routes and (2) are routes changing hands for consideration.” The plaintiffs also say the survey wasn’t reliable because some respondents didn’t remember the transaction’s details, a problem commonly referred to as “memory decay.” The plaintiffs note that some respondents couldn’t remember the price for which they bought or sold their routes; others received their routes for free. The survey results, however, take those responses into account with a category for respondents who couldn’t recall the details of the purchase or had received the route for free. The plaintiffs also say the questions were confusing, but they don’t say why, and the court’s review of the script doesn’t support that argument. Given the survey’s limited purpose, the court can’t find the survey too unreliable for Mr. Crandall to reasonably rely upon it.
The plaintiffs challenge the reliability of Mr. Crandall’s analysis of the survey data because his analysis is based on incomplete data and ignores inconsistent data. They say his conclusion—that there is a market to buy and sell delivery routes—fails to account for the 20 percent of his respondents who either didn’t recall the amount of the sale or “the thousands of drivers who were apparently unable to sell” their routes. The conflicting data, however, goes to the weight of his conclusion. See In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, 280 F.3d at 134-135 (at class certification “a district court may not weigh
17

conflicting expert evidence or engage in ‘statistical dueling’ of experts” when considering reliability).
Mr. Crandall opines that the “market multiple approach” was “the most common measurement of value considered by FedEx Ground Contractors when they made their decision about route valuation at the time of purchase or sale.” The most common answer provided when asked how the value of the route was determined was “whatever price was offered.” From this, Mr. Crandall concluded that the contractors used a strategic approach under which they valued their routes after comparing a multiple of their gross revenue to the sales transaction of a comparable business. He also concluded contractors made certain strategic decisions, such as buying undervalued routes. These conclusions don’t have the analytical framework to explain how the expert reached his conclusion in light of the contrary data, and seems much more like conjecture than science, and so are unpersuasive and likely inadmissible under a strict Daubert approach. See Ramsey v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 111 F. Supp.2d 1030, 1038 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (opinion testimony not admissible under Daubert where the report “contains no explanation as to how any scientific principles support the contrary opinion in the face of eight years of non-detect results in and immediately around the Ramsey well.”); see also General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997) (“[N]othing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.”).
18

Mr. Crandall opines that such a valuation method is common based on his Internet research, but he offers no data from the survey suggesting that these contractors used such a valuation method or considered factors consistent with such a determination. Without evidence that the drivers considered additional factors utilized in a market multiple approach, his conclusion that the drivers engaged in such a behavior is an unpersuasive inferential leap.
Mr. Crandall’s background, and more significantly his experience, is sufficient to allow him to testify about business valuation. His survey, although flawed in some aspects, is sufficiently reliable and persuasive to demonstrate what it was intended to show: that there is a market for buying and selling the delivery routes and some routes are sold for consideration. From this, Mr. Crandall concludes that supply and demand influenced route valuations. This seem apparent from the survey and his report. The court finds unpersuasive, however, his conclusion that contractors used a strategic approach whereby contractors valued their routes after comparing a multiple of their gross revenue to the sales transaction of a comparable business.
C Dr. Jeanneret examined the work activities of FedEx Ground workers. He prepared his report after observing twenty-one FedEx Ground workers in Indiana and Illinois and reviewing summaries of some disputed portions of the depositions of the eighty-six class representatives. In preparation for his report, Dr. Jeanneret
19

participated in “ride-alongs” with drivers and interviewed various FedEx Ground workers about their work activities. Based on his observations, Dr. Jeanneret prepared a report identifying variations in the drivers’ activities across five “work content domains” based in large part on the accepted methodology of the Professional Management and Position Questionnaire (PMPQ). FedEx Ground insists that the report shows important variations in the contractors’ work. The plaintiffs contend that the survey is unreliable because the survey and analysis are flawed.
The plaintiffs say the study is unreliable because twenty-one drivers in two states constitutes an improperly drawn sample representative of an appropriately defined population. Dr. Jeanneret didn’t base his conclusion on statistical survey data, which would require a higher sample population. Rather, he used direct observation and interviews of 107 drivers, two methods he says are reliable when performing job analysis; he cites to several academic treatises, including Earnest McCormick’s “Job Analysis; Methods and Applications.” The plaintiffs don’t point to any evidence suggesting this isn’t a reliable methodology for job analysis. The plaintiffs also say the study was biased because it only focuses on the “differences” in work activities. Dr. Jeanneret, however, says the team considered both similarities and differences, and he had no expectations when the study began.
The plaintiffs argue that there was substantial variation among the work performed by the studied drivers, and one would observe the same range of
20

differences (though not necessarily the same differences) among the greater population. Dr. Jeanneret’s report says he used a slightly adapted version of the PMPQ to analyze the drivers’ work activities, only adding a work content domain for technical/maintenance/physical activities (carries packages). The plaintiffs don’t dispute that the PMPQ is “scientifically established.” They say the test requires an examination of the frequency and importance of particular work activities. Dr. Jeanneret states in his declaration that he took these factors into consideration through a qualitative analysis. He did not, however, engage in a quantitative analysis of the frequency and importance of certain work tasks. He cited an academic treatise for the proposition that job analysis generally can either be quantitative or qualitative, but whether the PMPQ requires quantitative standards when reviewing how often a driver engages in certain activities is unclear. Without more, it seems that to compare job tasks it would be important to weigh how often (or how important) certain activities are. Dr. Jeanneret’ s conclusion that there was substantial variation among the work performed by the studied drivers is not persuasive.
Dr. Jeanneret also concludes that his study’s results can be attributed to the package drivers as a whole. He says he used a method of analysis called “triangulation,” whereby a researcher compares different sources of data to discern the presence of epistemological gaps, inconsistences, or errors in knowledge or perception. He says multiple vantage points allowed him to generalize the findings to all contractors—“we can conclude among [ ] the
21

contractor population at large, there probably will be variations in the major work functions.” This is unpersuasive. The term “triangulation” is nowhere in his report, and he didn’t consider any other data source that could be compared to the results of his observations and interviews.
Dr. Jeanneret’s report is unpersuasive on these points.
D For these reasons, the court overrules the plaintiffs’ motions to strike, but finds the targeted opinions unpersuasive to the extent noted in the preceding sections.
II The court turns now to the Kansas plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. These plaintiffs challenge the practice of FedEx Group Package System, Inc. of labeling its Ground and Home Delivery division drivers as independent contractors. The plaintiffs assert that even though FedEx represents to its drivers that they are only partnering with FedEx and will essentially own their own business, the FedEx Operating Agreement signed by all FedEx drivers actually reserves to FedEx the right to exercise pervasive control over the method, manner, and means of the drivers’ work, rendering improper the drivers’ classification as independent contractors rather than employees. For examples of the actual control FedEx asserts over its drivers, the plaintiffs point to FedEx’s right to
22

control the drivers’ appearance and behavior, their pay and rates charged to customers, the vehicle they use and its appearance, their route and the number of packages they deliver each day, their delivery methods and mode of customer service, their hours of work, and their opportunity to increase their earnings. The plaintiffs say litigation of this case as a class action is appropriate and desirable since common evidence can resolve all plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs contend that FedEx has a categorical policy of classifying its drivers as independent contractors. All class members share the same job title, signed the same nonnegotiable Operating Agreement, are paid under the same compensation formula, wear the same uniform, drive FedEx approved trucks bearing the FedEx logo, work exclusively for FedEx, and are all similarly integrated into FedEx’s operations.
FedEx responds that the proposed Kansas class should not be certified because the plaintiffs’ claims turn on individualized issues, including whether contractors should be classified as employees under Kansas’ common law test, whether contractors should be classified as employees under the Kansas Wage Payment Act, and whether any individual contractor can meet the high bar for rescission of his individual contract. FedEx says the named plaintiffs themselves show how diverse this class would be because each contractor’s experience is different: some named plaintiffs reviewed the Operating Agreement before signing; some had others drive their routes; some bought their routes from contractors; and one even developed his own alternating day schedule. FedEx further contends
23

that the proposed ERISA class shouldn’t be certified because the named plaintiffs lack standing since they are ineligible for benefits under the plans’ own terms, either as individuals or as putative class representatives.
A To maintain a class action, the named representatives and each class they seek to represent must meet the requirements under FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23. First, the proposed class action must satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. A district court has broad discretion in determining whether the plaintiffs have satisfied the prerequisites of Rule 23, Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d 584, 596 (7th Cir. 1993), but the court must conduct a rigorous inquiry into the propriety of proceeding as a class before certifying. Livingston v. Associates Finance, Inc., 339 F.3d 553, 558 (7th Cir. 2003). The plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating they satisfy the class certification prerequisites. Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d at 596. Numerosity means the proposed class is “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(1). No magic number establishes the numerosity requirement, and some courts have found this element satisfied when the putative class consists of fewer than forty members. Lucas v. GC Services L.P., 226 F.R.D. 337, 340 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (collecting cases). “The exact number of class members need not be known. . . [i]nstead, the plaintiff can offer
24

‘good faith estimates of class size... and the court may use ‘common sense assumptions' to determine the validity of those estimates’.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
The commonality requirement requires only that there exist “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 594 (7th Cir.1998). “A common nucleus of operative fact is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).” Id. That there is some factual variation among the class grievances will not defeat a class action. Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 1992). Claims arising from a defendant’s standardized conduct towards members of the proposed class or from the interpretation of a standard contract often present a case for treatment as a class action. Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d at 594 (citing Kleiner v. First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta, 97 F.R.D. 683, 691 (N.D. Ga.1983) (“When viewed in light of Rule 23, claims arising from interpretations of a form contract appear to present the classic case for treatment as a class action.”); Heartland Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., 161 F.R.D. 111, 116 (D. Kan. 1995) (certifying class where contracts signed by all class members contained virtually the same provision as that challenged by class representative)).
“The question of typicality in Rule 23(a)(3) is closely related to the preceding question of commonality,” Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d at 1018, but this requirement “primarily directs the district court to focus on whether the named representatives' claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the
25

class at large.” Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d at 596-597. “A plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and his or her claims are based on the same legal theory.” De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225, 232 (7th Cir. 1983).
Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the named plaintiff “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4). This means that (1) the chosen class representative cannot have antagonistic or conflicting claims with other members of the class, Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d at 1018; and (2) the class representatives must be willing and able to “vigorously pursue the litigation on behalf of the class,” and the attorneys they have chosen to represent the class must be “qualified, experienced and able to conduct the litigation.” Scholes v. Stone, McGuire & Benjamin, 143 F.R.D. 181, 186 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (citing Secretary of Labor v. Fitzsimmons, 805 F.2d 682, 697 (7th Cir. 1986)).
In addition to these four prerequisites, an action must also be maintainable under at least one of the three provisions of Rule 23(b). That is, the court must decide which form of class action, if any, is the most appropriate under Rule 23(b). Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 163 (1974); Jefferson v. Ingersoll International Inc., 195 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 1999) (the court should “endeavor to select the most appropriate subsection, not just the first linguistically applicable one in the list”).
26

A court may certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” FED. R. CIV .P. 23(b)(2). When a request is made for both declaratory and monetary relief, the class is properly certified under Rule 23(b)(2) only if the request for declaratory relief predominates over the request for monetary relief. Lemon v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 139, 216 F.3d 577, 580-581 (7th Cir. 2000). That is, the court must decide whether the requested monetary damages are “incidental” to the requested declaratory relief. Jefferson v. Ingersoll International Inc., 195 F.3d at 899. Incidental damages are those “that flow directly from liability to the class as a whole on the claims forming the basis of the injunctive or declaratory relief.” Lemon v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 139, 216 F.3d at 581 (quoting Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 415 (5th Cir. 1998)). Incidental damages, therefore, don't depend “in any significant way on the intangible, subjective differences of each class member's circumstances” and don’t “require additional hearings to resolve the disparate merits of each individual's case.” Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d at 415.
Rule 23(b)(3) allows class certification when questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. See Szabo v. Bridgeport
27

Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir. 2001). The court looks beyond the pleadings to analyze the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law that may be necessary to determine whether certification is appropriate. Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 744 (5th Cir. 1996). While individual issues may exist in determining the damages suffered, “it has been commonly recognized that the necessity for calculation of damages on an individual basis should not preclude class determination when the common issues which determine liability predominate.” Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 213 F.3d 124, 137 (3rd Cir. 2000) (quoting Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 561 F.2d 434, 456 (3rd Cir. 1977)); see also In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, 280 F.3d 124, 139 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Common issues may predominate when liability can be determined on a class-wide basis, even when there are some individualized damage issues.”); Bertulli v. Independent Ass'n of Cont'l Pilots, 242 F.3d 290, 298 (5th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court's determination that common issues predominated, stating that “[a]lthough calculating damages will require some individualized determinations, it appears that virtually every issue prior to damages is a common issue”); FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 23(b)(3) ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S NOTES (“[A] fraud perpetrated on numerous persons by the use of similar misrepresentations may be an appealing situation for a class action, and it may remain so despite the need, if liability is found, for separate determination of damages suffered by the individuals within the class.”).
28

“To determine whether damages predominate, a court should certify a class on a claim-by-claim basis, treating each claim individually and certifying the class with respect to only those claims for which certification is appropriate.” Bolin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 231 F.3d 970, 976 (5th Cir. 2000); See also FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(4); Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 441 (4th Cir. 2003) (“courts should take full advantage of the provision in subsection (c)(4) permitting class treatment of separate issues in the case... if [an] action includes multiple claims, one or more of which might qualify as a certifiable class claim”); Carnegie v. Household Int'l, Inc., 376 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Rule 23 allows district courts to devise imaginative solutions to problems created by the presence in a class action litigation of individual damages issues.”). The plaintiffs must also show a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3); Wahl v. Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., 243 F.R.D. 291, 299 (N.D. Ill. 2007). One factor often disputed in the superiority analysis (as it is in each of these cases) is “the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3)(D). Class actions have been found superior when potential damages might be too insignificant to provide class members with incentive to pursue a claim individually, and where potential plaintiffs may not be aware of their rights or be able to hire competent counsel to protect these rights. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997).
29

B The Kansas plaintiffs allege that FedEx’s classification of Kansas pickup and delivery drivers as independent contractors violates the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The plaintiffs seek rescission of their operating agreement as contrary to public policy and an unconscionable adhesion contract, as well as declaratory relief that FedEx’s employment practices are unlawful under Kansas law. The Kansas plaintiffs seek to certify these claims for class treatment, asserting that the claims are legally and factually common and typical among the following proposed class: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since February 11, 1998, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and (3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Kansas. FedEx doesn't contest that the putative class representatives and the proposed Kansas class satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a), but the court still must conduct its own review. See, e.g., Gammon v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, 162 F.R.D. 313, 317 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (defendant didn't contest three of the Rule 23(a) requirements and the court's “own independent review” confirmed that those requirements were satisfied). The class representatives include: Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Laible, Kent Whisler, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Neal Bergkamp, Heidi Law and Sylvia O’Brien.
30

The proposed Kansas class likely consists of at least 102 current package and delivery drivers who have entered into the standard operating agreement with FedEx, and an undisclosed number of former drivers who entered into the agreement during the class period. Based on the size of the delivery system in Kansas and other states, as well as the number of current drivers, it is reasonable to infer that the putative class is “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(1).
The plaintiffs say they are entitled to repayment of costs and expenses these drivers paid during their employment, as well as overtime wages, because FedEx wrongfully classified the putative class members as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. To succeed on this claim, the putative members will have to show they are (or were) employees under Kansas law. See Crawford v. State Dep’t. of Human Resources, 845 P.2d 703 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). Because the putative class members were uniformly classified as independent contracts, they share several common factual and legal questions regarding their statutory wage claim. See, e.g., Lucas v. GC Servs. L.P., 226 F.R.D. at 340 (“When a question of law refers to a standardized conduct by defendants toward members of the class, a common nucleus of operative facts is typically presented, and the commonality requirement is usually met.”).
The plaintiffs also seek the operating agreement’s recission as contrary to public policy and an unconscionable adhesion contract. Under Kansas law, a contract that is illegal to enforce is void as against public policy, so in assessing
31

the plaintiffs’ rescission claim, the court must examine the operating agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution and enforcement to determine the agreement’s legality. See In re Shirk's Estate, 350 P.2d 1, 13 (Kan. 1960). A provision in a contract can make the agreement unconscionable if the provision is, under the circumstances, “so outrageous and unfair in its wording or its application that it . . . is against public policy.” Adams v. John Deere Co., 774 P.2d 355, 357 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). Because the putative class members all signed the disputed operating agreement, they share several common factual and legal questions relating to the interpretation, execution, and enforcement of the agreement.
The plaintiffs’ statutory wage and rescission claims are also typical of the putative class members’ claims because they arise from the same event––the drivers’ classification as independent contractors––and rest on the same theory––that the drivers have wrongfully been denied wages and have paid unjust enrichment to FedEx as a result of their improper classification under the operating agreement. The plaintiffs and proposed class members all signed a standard-form operating agreement, so the claims of the plaintiffs have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large.
Finally, the named plaintiffs say that they, along with proposed class counsel, can “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). The named plaintiffs include current and former drivers from the Home Delivery and Ground divisions of FedEx, so the
32

court agrees their interests don’t differ from the those of the class as a whole. Nothing in the named plaintiffs’ conduct suggests they won’t continue to vigorously pursue the litigation on the class’s behalf, nor does the record suggest class counsel isn’t qualified, experienced, and able to conduct the litigation.
Having determined the plaintiffs and the proposed class meet the Rule 23(a) prerequisites with regard to their Kansas state law claims, the court must determine which form of class action, if any, is appropriate under Rule 23(b). Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 163 (1974). The plaintiffs seek to have their claim for damages under the Kansas Wage Payment Act certified under Rule 23(b)(3), which permits class certification when questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d at 676. To answer these questions, the court considers the substantive elements of named plaintiffs’ cause of action and inquires into the proof necessary for the various elements. Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 672 (7th Cir. 1981).
Like many of the claims in the suit, the Kansas plaintiffs’ wage claim hinges on whether they are employees under Kansas law. See KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 44-313 (b) & 314(a); see also Herr v. Heiman, 75 F.3d 1509, 1512 (10th Cir. 1996). The Kansas Wage Act circularly defines an employee as “any person allowed or permitted to work by an employer,” KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 44-313 (b), so courts look
33

to the facts and circumstances surrounding the employer-employee relationship to determine the package and delivery drivers’ employment status. Herr v. Heiman, 75 F.3d at 1512 (citing Wallis v. Secretary of Kansas Dep’t. of Human Resources, 689 P.2d 787, 792 (Kan.1984). The Kansas Supreme Court has held that “[a]n employer's right to direct and control the method and manner of doing the work is the most significant aspect of the employer-employee relationship, although it is not the only factor entitled to consideration.” Wallis v. Secretary of Kansas Dep’t. of Human Resources, 689 P.2d at 792. “An employer's right to discharge the worker, payment by the hour rather than by the job, and the furnishing of equipment by the employer are also indicia of an employer-employee relationship.” Id.; see also Crawford v. Department of Human Resources, 845 P.2d 703, 706 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989) (listing twenty additional factors Kansas Department of Human Resources uses to determine whether employee-employer relationship exists). FedEx says the court can’t make categorical decisions as to the drivers’ employment status because the Kansas drivers’ varied experiences raise individualized issues.
FedEx first argues that “Kansas courts look to the actual conduct of the parties in determining whether the right to control exists,” so determining the ability to control requires the court to engage in an individual analysis of each driver’s experience. The court disagrees. In support of its argument, FedEx points to the deposition testimony of a few drivers who say they had control over their schedules, who they hired, their delivery methods, the volume of their packages,
34

and their delivery route. While courts should look to the actual employment relationship as opposed to an employer’s unilateral determination, the nature of the employment relationship is determined by the existence of the right to exercise control, not the actual control FedEx exercised over some employees. Wallis v. Secretary of Kansas Dep’t. of Human Resources, 689 P.2d at 792 (“It is not the actual interference or exercise of the control by the employer, but the existence of the right or authority to interfere or control, which renders one a servant rather than an independent contractor.”). These few drivers’ anecdotal experience, therefore, isn’t determinative of the employment relationship. Wallis v. Secretary of Kansas Dep’t. of Human Resources, 689 P.2d at 795.
In Wallis, a vacuum cleaner distributor contracted with individual dealers, whom the court determined were free to “sell the products in whatever method they feel best accomplishes their goals.” Id. Despite the dealers’ autonomy in their daily operations, the distributor reserved the right to terminate the contract “in those instances wherein he [found] the dealer to be not representative of the product or product line.” The court concluded the distributor hadn’t exercised actual control over the dealers, but the fact that the distributor reserved the contractual right to require that dealers comply with distributor’s standards evinced an employer-employee relationship. Id. This court, too, must look to the substance of the standard operating agreement that purports to define FedEx’s authority over the manner in which the drivers made their pick-ups and deliveries, rather than the actual control FedEx exercised.
35

The background statement to the operating agreement states that drivers will provide their services as “independent contractors, and not as an employee of [Fed Ex] for any purpose,” and that the “method, manner and means” by which the drivers conduct their deliveries are “within the discretion of the Contractor.” Despite this acknowledgment, the plaintiffs say the agreement goes on to require that drivers handle their packages using particular methods, cooperate with other FedEx drivers, and foster an image consistent with the FedEx brand. To that end, the plaintiffs say the agreement reserves certain rights to FedEx regarding the manner in which the drivers conduct pick-ups and deliveries.
The plaintiffs say the operating agreement reserves to FedEx the right to (1) “determine whether the truck used by the driver to drive his route is ‘suitable for the service called for in the Agreement;’” (2) “determine the identifying colors and the appropriate logo which the driver must use to mark her truck;” (3) “determine what logs, inspection reports and shipping documents the driver must provide to [Fed Ex] at the conclusion of each day;” (4) “determine whether a driver’s personal appearance meets the ‘consistent image’ that [Fed Ex] wishes to project to customers;” (5) “verify through ‘customer service rides’ and other ‘visits’ with customers that the drivers is meeting [Fed Ex’s] standards of customer service;” (6) “approve any supplemental drivers or helpers the contractor has to employ to substitute for the contractor when he or she needs a day off or some assistance;” (7) “determine and assign the routes that will be covered by the drivers;” (8) “reconfigure or change the driver’s route on five days’ notice;” (9) “determine, in
36

its sole discretion, the compensation that will be paid to the driver for his services;” and “terminate the contractor if [Fed Ex] determines that the driver has failed to perform her ‘contractual obligations’ or not renew the driver’s contract on 30-days notice.” The operating agreement appears to provide common proof of FedEx’s authority to control its package and delivery drivers, which allows the court to make categorical determinations of the driver’s employment status, so the varying experiences of some drivers doesn’t preclude certification.
Still, FedEx says the operating agreement doesn’t provide common proof of control because there are material differences between the Ground and Home Delivery operating agreements and because the plaintiffs seek to rescind the agreement on the basis that it doesn’t reflect the actual relationship of the parties’ actual relationship. First, the court doesn’t find the differences highlighted by FedEx to be material to the issue of control, so doesn’t agree the differences mitigate the common proof that can be gleaned from the operating agreement. Second, the plaintiffs don’t contend that the agreement doesn’t reflect the actual employment relationship. They seek to rescind the operating agreement because the agreement was “designed to conceal the true nature of the relationship between FedEx [ ]and its drivers: that of employer and employee.” The basis of the recision is the various statements purporting to classify [the drivers] [ ] as independent contractors,” which creates a “misrepresented legal classification.” The plaintiffs put the remaining portions of the operating agreement at issue by arguing that FedEx’s right to control stems from such provisions.
37

FedEx argues that determining its ability to terminate drivers at will requires particularized evidence, making this claim unsuitable for class action treatment. FedEx claims the evidence to which the plaintiffs point for support of their contention that FedEx had the right to terminate drivers at will (e-mails between various managers discussing specific terminations) actually supports FedEx’s contention that such determinations are highly case specific. This argument confuses the test: it isn’t the actual practice of who and how FedEx terminates, but rather whether FedEx reserved the right to terminate drivers at will. When the Wallis v. Secretary of Kansas Dep’t. of Human Resources court addressed this element, it didn’t look at specific terminations, but rather noted that “Wallis can terminate the contract with the dealer ‘in those instances wherein he finds the dealer to be not representative of the product or the product line.’” 689 P.2d at 795. Likewise, the FedEx Operating Agreement states that it may be terminated: “[b]y Contractor or FedEx Ground if the other party breaches or fails to perform the contractual obligations imposed by this Agreement.” Deciding whether this element weighs in favor or against the drivers being employees will require the court to focus on the agreement’s language, not the specific circumstances surrounding certain drivers’ terminations.
FedEx also argues that the methods by which drivers are paid their “settlement checks” vary considerably. They claim drivers’ checks are based on the number of stops and the number of packages picked up and delivered; a set figure for making available a qualifying van and operator; a “core zone” payment
38

particular to each serviced area, which is inversely related to customer density and package volume; and other payments. This formula means contractors servicing areas with a low density of customers and low package volume will receive a significant portion of their settlement in a “core zone” payment, while other contractors who service more concentrated areas may not receive any “core zone” payment.
The plaintiffs don’t dispute the earnings calculation, but instead assert that the calculation proves how little control drivers have over how much they earn. They claim that each year FedEx unilaterally re-sets the package and store rates, the “core zone” payment, and announces the changes to the compensation formula in scripted, strictly controlled presentations to the drivers. The drivers can’t negotiate any part of the compensation formula, since by the time the changes are announced they already have been incorporated into a take-it or leave-it contract addenda for the drivers to sign. The plaintiffs also assert that the drivers can’t grow their business since as the number of stops and packages in a driver’s route increase beyond what can be serviced individually, the driver risks having his or her route reconfigured and stops or packages diverted to another driver. The driver can put a supplemental truck on the route to cover the additions, but must absorb that cost.
The court needn’t decide at this stage whether the amount of control Fed Ex has over what the drivers are paid supports the contention that an employeremployee relationship exists. The evidence to which the court will look to make
39

that decision, such as the Operating Agreement and yearly addenda, however, won’t require the sort of individual analysis that would make class certification inappropriate.
Finally, FedEx argues that the provision of tools, supplies, and materials may vary by contractor depending on whether he or she purchased a business support package. Too, drivers acquire their vehicles in several ways: leasing through Bush Leasing; another leasing company; or purchasing from FedEx, another driver, or a separate entity. The variations would call for individual analyses rendering this claim unfit for a class action.
The plaintiffs counter by stating that FedEx ultimately retains the absolute right to approve or disapprove any vehicle a driver seeks to use. FedEx sets forth standardized vehicle specifications for each type and class of vehicle in its fleet, including policies on the height, width, and length of vehicles used by drivers. All vehicles must be painted FedEx White, a color Sherwin Williams developed for FedEx. Moreover, although the drivers bear the cost of owning their vehicles, FedEx actually orders and purchases most of the trucks in its fleet and resells those same trucks to drivers at a reduced price. The Operating Agreement requires these vehicles to be maintained in a clean and presentable fashion, free from body damage and extraneous markings. Inspections made by Fed Ex field managers reinforce this requirement. This element, too, can be determined on a class wide basis without the need for an assessment of each individual driver’s experience.
40

From these analyses, the court finds that determining whether the drivers are employees under Kansas law will depend upon the amount of control reserved by Fed Ex and will require a detailed analysis of the standard Operating Agreement. These common questions of law and fact predominate over issues affecting only individual members and so support class certification.
For certification under Rule 23(b)(3), a class action must also be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. In determining whether a class action is superior, Rule 23(b)(3) provides that the court should consider: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.
In this case, these factors support certification. The amount of damages available to individual class members likely wouldn’t justify the cost of litigation if members were to proceed on an individual basis. Additionally, though managing a class action this large in one forum will present difficulties, the advantages of concentrating this litigation, such as preventing conflicting judicial decisions, outweigh the difficulties. Class actions have been found superior when potential damages might be too insignificant to provide class members with incentive to pursue a claim individually, and where potential plaintiffs may not be aware of
41

their rights or be able to hire competent counsel to protect these rights. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997).
For the reasons stated above, certification under 23(b)(3) is appropriate for the Kansas Wage Payment Act claim.
C Alternative to their claim under the Kansas Wage Payment Act, the plaintiffs have alleged common law claims of rescission, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. The drivers claim entitlement to rescission of their Operating Agreements on the grounds that those agreements contravene public policy and are unconscionable contracts of adhesion. The plaintiffs argue that Kansas labor statutes demonstrate a clear public policy in favor of providing employees with certain non-waivable employment rights, such as the right to unemployment compensation, workers compensation, and wage law protections. The plaintiffs say that FedEx, by allegedly misclassifying their drivers as independent contractors, undermines the public policy of ensuring their employees these benefits. The drivers further claim that the Operating Agreement meets the standard for unconscionability because it is “so one sided that no fair-minded person would view [it] as just or tolerable.” Adams v. John Deere Co, 774 P.2d 355, 358 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). The plaintiffs contend that the issues raised by these claims are proper for class certification because they are based on the legality of the Operating
42

Agreement’s classification of drivers as independent contractors, which is common to the whole class. Since the plaintiffs seek certification of these claims under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must decide whether the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication.
FedEx counters that under Kansas law, one who continues to receive the benefits of a contract after learning the facts that would otherwise entitle him to rescission is not entitled to such a remedy. They point to Baker v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 650, 662 (10th Cir. 1986), which provides that:
Rescission is an equitable remedy designed to afford relief from contracts entered into through mistake, fraud, or duress. Ordinarily, the nature of relief asked in such cases must be such as to place the parties in their original situation. Where one with knowledge of [the] facts entitling him to a rescission of the contract afterwards without duress ratifies it, he is not entitled to have it canceled.... Acts or conduct, inconsistent with an intention to avoid it, or in recognition of the contract, have the effect of an election to affirm it. (emphasis removed). FedEx argues that individual issues would predominate since the court would need to engage in individualized inquiry of when each class member became aware of the facts entitling him to rescission. As the plaintiffs point out, the drivers allege that FedEx fraudulently misrepresented their legal classification, thereby concealing the true nature of the employment relationship. Until the court ultimately decides the legal nature of this employment relationship, the class members cannot “become aware” of their “employee status”.
43

In any event, this claim is suitable for class certification because it is based on alleged misrepresentations contained in the Operating Agreement common to all drivers. FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 23(b)(3) ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S NOTES (“[A] fraud perpetrated on numerous persons by the use of similar misrepresentations may be an appealing situation for a class action, and it may remain so despite the need, if liability is found, for separate determination of damages suffered by the individuals within the class”). This claim can be decided on a class-wide basis because common legal and factual questions predominate over individual issues.
FedEx claims that rescission based on unconscionability is similarly unsuitable for class-wide proof, since whether a contract is unconscionable depends on whether similar terms existed in previous contracts between the parties. FedEx also argues that the standard for unconscionability is a high bar, which the drivers cannot meet; the contract must be “so outrageous and unfair in its wording or its application that is shocks the conscience or offends the sensibilities of the court.” Adams v. John Deere Co., 774 P.2d 355, 357 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). First, whether previous contracts between the parties had been executed is only one factor the courts take into consideration. That other contracts were entered into can be considered without examining each individual contract between the drivers and FedEx. Because the bar’s height is not relevant at this stage and since this claim can be decided without in-depth individual analysis, it is also fulfills the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Lastly, FedEx argues that under Kansas law, unjust enrichment and other quasi-
44

contractual remedies are not available where an express contract exists. FedEx doesn’t believe that the contract can be rescinded and so argues that plaintiffs are not entitled to this relief. Again, whether the plaintiffs can meet their burden to rescind the Operating Agreement does not need to be decided at this stage.
FedEx also raises other substantive legal defenses that do not appear to raise individual issues and thus needn’t be considered at this stage.
As stated in the Kansas Wage Payment Act analysis, the class action is the superior method for adjudicating this claim because the high cost of litigation would likely preclude most individual class members from bringing this lawsuit and this method will also promote judicial efficiency by having all of these common claims decided in one forum.
Class certification for plaintiffs common law claims is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3).
D The named Kansas plaintiffs, along with three additional package delivery drivers, seek to certify a national ERISA class action for recovery under 29 U.S.C. § 502(a)(1). The putative class members seek declaratory relief regarding their participant status and entitlement to benefits under the ERISA plans, as well as payment of benefits to which they are entitled, but were improperly denied as a result of their misclassification. They seek certification of an ERISA class defined as:
45

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) during the class period to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were eligible for ERISA plan benefits, absent their mischaracterization as independent contractors
FedEx doesn’t contest that the named plaintiffs and the proposed ERISA class satisfy the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a), but as before, the court still conducts its own review. See, e.g., Gammon v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, 162 F.R.D. 313, 317 (N.D. Ill.1995)(defendant didn’t contest three of the Rule 23(a) requirements and the court's “own independent review” confirmed that those requirements were satisfied).
The proposed ERISA class likely consists of “thousands of P & D drivers across the country” whom the named plaintiffs say “have been improperly denied benefits based on the mischaracterization of their employment status” so it is “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(1).
The commonality requirement requires only that there exist “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 594 (7th Cir.1998). FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(2). That means, “[a] common nucleus of operative fact is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).” Id. The putative class members’ ERISA claim also hinges on their allegation that they were misclassified as independent contracts, so the court will need to focus on FedEx’s treatment of the package and delivery drivers, specifically FedEx’s right
46

to control the manner and means by which the drivers carried out their job functions. This constitutes a common nucleus of operative fact. See, e.g., Breedlove v. Tele-Trip Co. Inc., No. 91-C5702, 1993 WL 284327, at *4-6 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 1993)(citing Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323 (1992) (“In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished.”)).
“The question of typicality in Rule 23(a)(3) is closely related to the preceding question of commonality,” Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992), but this requirement “primarily directs the district court to focus on whether the named representatives' claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large.” Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d 584, 596-597 (7th Cir. 1993). “A plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and his or her claims are based on the same legal theory.” De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225, 232 (7th Cir. 1983). The named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the putative class members’ claims because the claims rest on the same theory––that the drivers have wrongfully been denied employee benefits under several ERISA plans as a result of their mischaracterization as independent contractors. The plaintiffs, like the putative class members, signed a standard-form operating agreement and their participant status under the FedEx’s ERISA plans depends on their treatment by FedEx.
47

“Whether the named plaintiffs properly represent the class' interest depends upon a number of factors including: the adequacy of the named plaintiff's counsel, and the adequacy of representation provided in protecting the different, separate, and distinct interest of the absentee members.” Secretary of Labor v. Fitzsimmons, 805 F.2d 682, 697 (7th Cir. 1986). FedEx doesn’t challenge the adequacy of plaintiffs’ counsel, and nothing in the record suggests counsel aren’t “qualified, experienced and able to conduct the litigation.” Scholes v. Stone, McGuire & Benjamin, 143 F.R.D. 181, 186 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (citing Secretary of Labor v. Fitzsimmons, 805 F.2d at 697). Rather, FedEx says the named plaintiffs cannot adequately represent the ERISA class because they lack standing to bring a claim for benefits under the identified ERISA plans. The court disagrees.
A class action may not be certified unless the named plaintiff has standing to seek the relief requested. O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974) The parties don’t dispute that the named plaintiffs have standing under Article III because they claim a direct, substantial, and tangible interest. See Harzewski v. Guidant Corp., 489 F.3d 799, 803 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Obviously the named plaintiffs have standing to sue in the sense of being entitled to ask for an exercise of the judicial power of the United States as that term in Article III of the Constitution has been interpreted, because if they win they will obtain a tangible benefit.”). The court therefore understands FedEx’s use of the term “standing” as denoting the right to obtain a particular form of judicial relief. Such “nonconstitutional standing” requires that the plaintiff be in “the ‘zone of interest’ of the statute or
48

other source of rights under which he is suing.” Harzewski v. Guidant Corp., 489 F.3d at 803 (citing Coan v. Kaufman, 457 F.3d 250, 256 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Although we have referred to a plaintiff's status as a ‘participant’ under ERISA as a question of ‘standing,’ [ ] it is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one” and “[u]nlike Article III standing, which ordinarily should be determined before reaching the merits. . . .”)(citations omitted)).
Prudential standing requires that a plaintiff seeking to recover benefits due to him under an ERISA plan be a “participant or beneficiary.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1); see also Miller v. Rite Aid Corp., 334 F.3d 335, 340 (7th Cir. 2005) (“ERISA... restricts civil actions against a plan administrator to actions brought by a ‘participant or beneficiary’.”). Participant status requires that the plaintiff show he is an employee and has a colorable claim for vested benefits under the plan’s terms. Sallee v. Rexnord Corp., 985 F.2d 927, 929 (7th Cir. 1993). But unless it is an “extreme case”––one in which the party has no possible legally protected interest in the pension plan––“whether an ERISA plaintiff is a ‘participant’ entitled to recover benefits under the Act should be treated as a question of statutory interpretation fundamental to the merits of the suit rather than as a question of the plaintiff's right to bring the suit.” Harzewski v. Guidant Corp., 489 F.3d at 804.
The named plaintiffs, and the class members they wish to represent, seek benefits under six FedEx benefit plans: (1) a wealth accumulation 401(k) plan; (2) a group life plan; (3) a short-term disability plan; (4) a long-term disability plan;
49

(5) a medical, dental, and vision care plan; and (6) a dependent care account plan. Each plan defines the term “employee,” but courts look to the common-law employee test to determine a hired party’s status for purpose of ERISA benefits. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323-324 (1993). Whether the named plaintiffs are common law employees is unclear at this stage.
Still, the named plaintiffs must demonstrate a colorable claim of eligibility under the language of the plan because ERISA doesn’t require employers to make their ERISA plans available to all common law employees. See Bauer v. Summit Bancorp, 325 F.3d 155, 164 (3rd Cir. 2003) (adopting the reasoning of multiple circuits to find that “ERISA does not preclude an employer from denying participation in an ERISA plan if the employer does so for reasons other than age or length of service.”); Bronk v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel., Inc., 140 F.3d 1335, 1338 (10th Cir. 1998) (circuit court disagreed with the district court that ERISA's minimum participation standards require that leased employees who meet the test for common law employee status be automatically included in the company's plan, whether or not they were excluded under the terms of the plan). At least two of the plans, the medical plan and the 401(k), purport to exclude coverage to drivers classified by FedEx as independent contractors, “regardless of whether such individuals are subsequently reclassified by a court . . . as common law employees.” FedEx says that under the terms of these plans, the named plaintiff cannot fall within the class of people who are eligible to receive benefits thereunder. The court disagrees.
50

This case isn’t Jaeger v. Matrix Essentials, where the court declined to determine the plaintiff’s employee status because it found the limiting language in the benefit plan––that employees who were not treated as employees for tax purposes were not to be covered––precluded coverage irrespective of the employment relationship. 236 F.Supp.2d at 825. The Jaeger court concluded that whether Ms. Jaeger was a common law employee and whether she was eligible for benefits were independent inquiries because tax treatment is only one of several Darden factors to be considered. Ms. Jaeger could have been a common law employee but still ineligible for benefits because she wasn’t treated as such for tax purposes. Id. In our case, however, whether the named plaintiffs are common law employees and whether they are eligible for benefits under the plan’s express terms aren’t mutually exclusive inquiries. See, e.g., Burrey v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 159 F.3d 388 (9th Cir. 1998) (ERISA plan excluded leased employees but because the definition incorporated the common law employee definition, the court reasoned that if a person was determined to be common law employee, he or she was not a leased employee).1
If the court determines that the named plaintiffs are common law employees, they can’t be independent contractors, despite FedEx classifying them
1 That is not to say a company cannot exclude “leased employees,” Abraham v. Exxon Corp., 85 F.3d 1126, 1130 (5th Cir. 1996), or provide coverage only to “regular employees.” Bronk v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel., Inc., 140 F.3d at 1338; see also Wolf v. Coca-Cola Co., 200 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2000) ([H]er claim for ERISA benefits fails the second prong because she is specifically excluded from eligibility by the terms of Coca-Cola’s ERISA plan. The plan includes regular employees and excludes temporary and leased employees.”).
51

as such, so by demonstrating they are common law employees, the package drivers can satisfy both prongs of eligibility. See, e.g., Burrey, 159 F.3d 388; Daughtrey v. Honeywell, Inc., 3 F.3d 1488, 1492-1493 (11th Cir. 1993). Indeed, allowing an employer to define participant status through exclusionary language that denies coverage to those parties based solely on the employer’s classification of them as independent contractors, regardless of the reality of the employment relationship, runs contrary to the teachings of Darden. Despite the language purporting to deny newly-determined employees participant status, whether the named plaintiffs are employees eligible for benefits under the FedEx plans is a question fundamental to the merits of this lawsuit, which should be addressed at summary judgment rather than as a question of the plaintiff's right to bring the suit. The court can’t say the named plaintiffs inadequately represent the class due to a lack of “standing.” The plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that they satisfy the class certification prerequisites Rule 23(a).
The court must determine which form of class action, if any, is appropriate under Rule 23(b). Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 163 (1974). The plaintiffs seek to certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), which allows a class to be certified if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(2). FedEx says the plaintiffs’ ERISA claims aren’t appropriate for class
52

treatment under Rule 23(b)(2) because the plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief is incidental to their monetary request. The court can’t agree.
The named plaintiffs seek both declaratory and monetary relief, so the class is properly certified under Rule 23(b)(2) only if the request for declaratory relief predominates over the request for monetary relief. Lemon v. Int’l. Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 139, 216 F.3d 577, 580-581 (7th Cir. 2000). The court must decide whether the requested monetary damages are “incidental” to the requested declaratory relief. Jefferson v. Ingersoll Int’l Inc., 195 F.3d 894, 899 (7th Cir. 1999). Incidental damages are those “that flow directly from liability to the class as a whole on the claims forming the basis of the injunctive or declaratory relief.” Lemon v. International Union, 216 F.3d at 581(quoting Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 415 (5th Cir. 1998)). “[I]ncidental damages do not depend ‘in any significant way on the intangible, subjective differences of each class member's circumstances’ and do not ‘require additional hearings to resolve the disparate merits of each individual's case’.” Id.
Fed Ex’s treatment of the package and delivery drivers as independent contractors and denial of benefits on those grounds can fairly be characterized as a course of conduct that is “generally applicable” to the proposed class. See, e.g., Breedlove v. Tele-Trip Co. Inc., No. 91-C5702, 1993 WL 284327, at *9 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 1993). And because the named plaintiffs seek benefits that were not paid as a result of their alleged uniform improper classification, the requested monetary relief is incidental to the declaratory relief with respect to the class
53

members' rights under the subject plans. Bublitz v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 202 F.R.D. 251, 259 (S.D. Iowa 2001); Fuller v. Fruehauf Trailer Corp., 168 F.R.D. 588, 603 (E.D. Mich. 1996); Jansen v. Greyhound Corp., 692 F. Supp. 1022, 1028 (N.D. Iowa 1986). Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is therefore appropriate.
The named plaintiffs also seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which allows class certification when questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d at 676. FedEx says the individualized nature of the statute of limitations defense renders the ERISA claims unsuitable for class treatment. The court disagrees.
Individualized statute of limitations determinations weigh against certification under Rule 23(b)(3), but courts have rejected a per se rule that the presence of such issues compels a finding that individual issues predominate. See In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, 305 F.3d 145, 162 (3rd Cir. 2002) (“[T]he mere fact that such concerns may arise and may affect different class members differently does not compel a finding that individual issues predominate over common ones.”); Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 296 (1st Cir. 2000) (same). Rather, “[a]s long as a sufficient constellation of common issues binds class members together, variations in the sources and application of
54

statutes of limitations will not automatically foreclose class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).” Id.
A claim under ERISA section § 502 accrues upon a clear and unequivocal repudiation of a claim to benefits. Miles v. N.Y. State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund Employee Pension Ben. Plan, 698 F.2d 593, 598 (2d Cir. 1983). Both sides seem to agree that the court will need to look to when the putative class members should have known they would be denied benefits, but the parties disagree on whether signing the operating agreement served as an unequivocal repudiation of the putative class members’ claim to benefits. This disagreement doesn’t preclude class certification. While notice of repudiation may differ depending on each defendant, “[c]hallenges based on the statute of limitations . . . have usually been rejected and will not bar predominance satisfaction because those issues go to the right of a class member to recover, in contrast to underlying common issues of the defendant's liability.” In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, 305 F.3d at 162 (quoting NEWBERG & CONTI, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS, § 4:26 (3d ed.)); The predominate issue for purposes of liability under the Fed Ex ERISA plans is whether the putative members are eligible employees, and because this issue arises from a common nucleus of facts, it can be demonstrated by common proof and certification is therefore economical and appropriate. See, e.g., Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d at 296; Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 980 F.2d 912, 924 (3rd Cir. 1992). Individual statute of limitations issues can and should be addressed
55

separately with damages. In re Revco Securities Litigation, 142 F.R.D. 659, 663 (N.D. Ohio 1992); In re Plywood Anti-Trust Litigation, 76 F.R.D. 570, 586 (E.D. La 1976). Moreover, class treatment of the named plaintiffs’ ERISA claim is superior to individual trials for adjudication of the matter because it will likely save time and money, as well as prevent different courts from interpreting the employment relationship differently. Breedlove v. Tele-Trip Co. Inc., No. 91-C5702, 1993 WL 284327, at *11. Certification under 23(b)(3) is also appropriate.
While the proposed ERISA class can be appropriately certified under both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3), the court must decide which form of class action, if any, is the most appropriate under Rule 23(b). Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 163 (1974); Jefferson v. Ingersoll International Inc., 195 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 1999) (the court should “endeavor to select the most appropriate subsection, not just the first linguistically applicable one in the list”).
Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is more appropriate in this case so potential class members will retain the ability to opt-out of the class if they so choose. A class maintained under Rule 23(b)(2) doesn’t require that members have the option of not being part of the class. Accordingly, the court concludes that the ERISA class should be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3), which is more suited to claims for monetary damages and contains a provision requiring notification to class members of their opt-out option.
III. 56

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the plaintiffs’ motions to strike (docket nos. 684, 686, 690), GRANTS the Kansas and ERISA plaintiffs’ motions for class certification (docket no. 551), and DENIES defendant’s request for oral argument on plaintiffs’ motions for class certification (docket no. 627).
The parties are ordered to confer regarding the preparation of a notice to the members of the classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and submit an agreed proposed notice (or separate proposals if they cannot reach agreement, supported by appropriate citations to case law) to the court by no later than October 31, 2007.
All parties that have filed briefs on class certification shall file, within 30 days of this order, a supplemental statement, not to exceed five pages, stating how their position on class certification differs from the positions addressed in this opinion. All class certification briefs yet to be filed also shall contain such a statement.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: October 15, 2007
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Robert L. Miller, Jr., Chief Judge United States District Court
57

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

ALL ACTIONS

)

_____________________________________ )

CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM (MDL-1700)

OPINION AND ORDER This multi-district litigation docket involving the classification of FedEx Ground pickup and delivery drivers is before the court on the motions for class certifications filed by plaintiffs in the actions categorized in this docket as “Wave 1,” “Wave 2,” and “Wave 3.” These plaintiffs challenge the practice of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. labeling its Ground and Home Delivery division drivers as independent contractors. The plaintiffs assert that although FedEx Ground represents to its drivers that they are only partnering with FedEx Ground and will essentially own their own business, all FedEx Ground drivers sign the FedEx Ground Operating Agreement, which actually reserves to FedEx Ground the right to exercise pervasive control over the method, manner, and means of the drivers’ work, rendering improper the drivers’ classification as independent contractors rather than employees.

As examples of the actual control FedEx Ground asserts over its drivers, the plaintiffs point to FedEx Ground’s right to control the drivers’ appearance and behavior, their pay and rates charged to customers, the vehicle they use and its appearance, their route and the number of packages they deliver each day, their delivery methods and mode of customer service, their hours of work, and their opportunity to increase their earnings. The plaintiffs say litigation of this case as a class action is appropriate and desirable since common evidence can resolve all plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs contend that FedEx Ground has a categorical policy of classifying its drivers as independent contractors. All class members share the same job title, have signed the same non-negotiable Operating Agreement, are paid under the same compensation formula, wear the same uniform, drive FedEx Ground-approved trucks bearing the FedEx Ground logo, work exclusively for FedEx Ground, and are all similarly integrated into FedEx Ground’s operations.
FedEx Ground generally responds that the proposed classes should not be certified because the plaintiffs’ claims turn on individualized issues, including whether contractors should be classified as employees under the states’ statutory tests, and whether any individual contractor can meet the high bar for rescission of his individual contract. FedEx Ground says the named plaintiffs themselves show how diverse this class would be because each contractor’s experience is different: some named plaintiffs reviewed the Operating Agreement before signing;
2

some had others drive their routes; some bought their routes from contractors; and one even developed his own alternating day schedule.
For the reasons that follow, the court grants motions for class certifications in cases involving drivers from Tennessee (see page 10 of this opinion), Arkansas (page 24), Kentucky (page 30), Texas (page 39), Wisconsin (page 44), Alabama (page 48), New York (page 53), New Jersey (with a modification of the class definition (page 69)), Maryland (page 77), Minnesota (page 87), Pennsylvania (page 93), New Hampshire (page 97), South Carolina (page 102), Oregon (page 110), Indiana (page 119), West Virginia (page 129), Florida (page 149), and Rhode Island (page 156). The court grants the motion for class certification involving drivers from California to the extent the motion seeks a class and sub-class for state law claims, but denies the motion with respect to the Family and Medical Leave Act claims (page 63). The court denies motions for class certifications in cases involved drivers from Montana (page 17), Mississippi (page 20), Massachusetts (page 57), Michigan (page 83), Missouri (page 106), South Dakota (page 115), Iowa (page 125), Virginia (page 136), and Illinois (page 142).
A. To maintain a class action, the named representatives and each class they seek to represent must meet the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. First, the proposed class action must satisfy all four elements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
3

A district court has broad discretion in determining whether the plaintiffs have satisfied the prerequisites of Rule 23, Retired Chicago Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d 584, 596 (7th Cir. 1993), but the court must conduct a rigorous inquiry into the propriety of proceeding as a class before certifying. Livingston v. Associates Fin., Inc., 339 F.3d 553, 558 (7th Cir. 2003). The plaintiffs have the burden of demonstrating they satisfy the class certification prerequisites. Retired Chicago Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d at 596.
Numerosity means the proposed class is “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(1). No magic number establishes the numerosity requirement, and some courts have found this element satisfied when the putative class consists of fewer than forty members. Lucas v. GC Servs. L.P., 226 F.R.D. 337, 340 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (collecting cases). “The exact number of class members need not be known . . . [i]nstead, the plaintiff can offer ‘good faith estimates of class size’ . . . and the court may use ‘common sense assumptions’ to determine the validity of those estimates’.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
The commonality requirement requires only that there exist “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 594 (7th Cir. 1998). “A common nucleus of operative fact usually is enough to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).” Id. That there is some factual variation among the class grievances will not defeat a class action. Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 1992). Claims arising from a defendant’s standardized
4

conduct towards members of the proposed class or from the interpretation of a standard contract often present a case for treatment as a class action. Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d at 594 (citing Kleiner v. First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta, 97 F.R.D. 683, 691 (N.D. Ga. 1983) (“When viewed in light of Rule 23, claims arising from interpretations of a form contract appear to present the classic case for treatment as a class action.”); and Heartland Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., 161 F.R.D. 111, 116 (D. Kan. 1995) (certifying class where contracts signed by all class members contained virtually the same provision as that challenged by class representative)).
“The question of typicality in Rule 23(a)(3) is closely related to the preceding question of commonality,” Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d at 1018, but this requirement “primarily directs the district court to focus on whether the named representatives’ claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large.” Retired Chicago Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 7 F.3d at 596-597. “A plaintiff’s claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and his or her claims are based on the same legal theory.” De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225, 232 (7th Cir. 1983).
Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the named plaintiff “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4). This means that (a) the chosen class representative cannot have antagonistic or conflicting claims with other members of the class, Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d at 1018, and (b) the class
5

representatives must be willing and able to “vigorously pursue the litigation on behalf of the class,” and the attorneys they have chosen to represent the class must be “qualified, experienced and able to conduct the litigation.” Scholes v. Stone, McGuire & Benjamin, 143 F.R.D. 181, 186 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (citing Secretary of Labor v. Fitzsimmons, 805 F.2d 682, 697 (7th Cir. 1986)).
In addition to these four prerequisites, an action must also be maintainable under at least one of the three provisions of Rule 23(b). The court must decide which form of class action, if any, is the most appropriate under Rule 23(b). Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 163 (1974); Jefferson v. Ingersoll Int’l, Inc., 195 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 1999) (the court should “endeavor to select the most appropriate subsection, not just the first linguistically applicable one in the list”).
A court may certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” FED. R. CIV .P. 23(b)(2). When a request is made for both declaratory and monetary relief, the class is properly certified under Rule 23(b)(2) only if the request for declaratory relief predominates over the request for monetary relief. Lemon v. International Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local No. 139, 216 F.3d 577, 580-581 (7th Cir. 2000). That is, the court must decide whether the requested monetary damages are “incidental” to the requested declaratory relief. Jefferson v. Ingersoll Int’l, 195 F.3d at 899. Incidental damages are those “that flow directly from liability to the class as a whole on the claims
6

forming the basis of the injunctive or declaratory relief.” Lemon v. Operating Eng’rs, Local 139, 216 F.3d at 581 (quoting Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 415 (5th Cir. 1998)). Incidental damages, therefore, don’t depend “in any significant way on the intangible, subjective differences of each class member’s circumstances” and don’t “require additional hearings to resolve the disparate merits of each individual’s case.” Allison v. Citgo Petroleum, 151 F.3d at 415.
Rule 23(b)(3) allows class certification when questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. See Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 676 (7th Cir. 2001). The court looks beyond the pleadings to analyze the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law that may be necessary to determine whether certification is appropriate. Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 744 (5th Cir. 1996). While individual issues may exist in determining the damages suffered, “it has been commonly recognized that the necessity for calculation of damages on an individual basis should not preclude class determination when the common issues which determine liability predominate.” Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 213 F.3d 124, 137 (3rd Cir. 2000) (quoting Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 561 F.2d 434, 456 (3rd Cir. 1977)); see also In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124, 139 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Common issues may predominate when
7

liability can be determined on a class-wide basis, even when there are some individualized damage issues.”); Bertulli v. Independent Ass’n of Cont’l Pilots, 242 F.3d 290, 298 (5th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court’s determination that common issues predominated, stating that “[a]lthough calculating damages will require some individualized determinations, it appears that virtually every issue prior to damages is a common issue”); FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 23(b)(3) ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S NOTES (“[A] fraud perpetrated on numerous persons by the use of similar misrepresentations may be an appealing situation for a class action, and it may remain so despite the need, if liability is found, for separate determination of damages suffered by the individuals within the class.”).
“To determine whether damages predominate, a court should certify a class on a claim-by-claim basis, treating each claim individually and certifying the class with respect to only those claims for which certification is appropriate.” Bolin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 231 F.3d 970, 976 (5th Cir. 2000); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(4); Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 441 (4th Cir. 2003) (“courts should take full advantage of the provision in subsection (c)(4) permitting class treatment of separate issues in the case . . . if [an] action includes multiple claims, one or more of which might qualify as a certifiable class claim”); Carnegie v. Household Int’l, Inc., 376 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Rule 23 allows district courts to devise imaginative solutions to problems created by the presence in a class action litigation of individual damages issues.”). The plaintiffs must also show a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
8

adjudication of this controversy. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3); Wahl v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 291, 299 (N.D. Ill. 2007). One factor often disputed in the superiority analysis (as it is in each of these cases) is “the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3)(D). Class actions have been found superior when potential damages might be too insignificant to provide class members with incentive to pursue a claim individually, and where potential plaintiffs may not be aware of their rights or be able to hire competent counsel to protect these rights. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997).
B. On October 15, this court issued its order granting the Kansas and ERISA plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Because of the similarities amongst states, in the conclusion of that order the court instructed all parties that had filed class certification briefs to file a five-page supplemental stating how their position on class certification differs from the positions addressed in that order. In this order, the court uses the Kansas opinion as its basis and will analyze whether each of the states addressed raise substantial enough differences to make class certification inappropriate.
TENNESSEE
9

The Tennessee plaintiffs allege violations of Tennessee’s Consumer Protection Act of 1977 and seek an accounting, rescission, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Tennessee plaintiffs contend that through “misclassification” of its drivers, FedEx Ground has acted on grounds generally applicable to all of the proposed members of the Tennessee class of FedEx Ground pickup and delivery drivers and, therefore, this class is suitable for class certification under 23(b)(2). Additionally, the common “overarching issue” of whether FedEx Ground treated its drivers as employees predominates and makes certification of the Tennessee claims suitable under 23(b)(3). The Tennessee plaintiffs assert that these claims are legally and factually common and typical to the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since June 22, 1999 to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Tennessee.
In its supplemental briefing, FedEx Ground raises two issues, which it asserts make the Tennessee scenario different from the one presented in Kansas and weigh against class certification. The first is that, unlike Kansas where the named class representatives included current and former drivers, the Tennessee named plaintiffs all are former contractors. FedEx Ground argues that this presents two separate problems for adequacy of representation. First, as former contractors, the Tennessee plaintiffs can only argue that they were improperly
10

classified as independent contractors in the past. A named plaintiff must have standing at the time of certification for the class to be properly certified. Second, former drivers have significantly different interests than do the current contractors they purport to represent. Current contractors have a long-term interest in whether they are classified as contractors or employees, and whether they can obtain what they believe is a more favorable relationship with FedEx Ground, whereas former contractors have no such interest.
The two cases FedEx Ground cites to support its standing argument deal with plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief for allegedly improper practices in the criminal justice system. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974), addressed whether plaintiffs had standing to bring a class action alleging that the country magistrate and associate judge of the county circuit court were depriving members of their class of their Constitutional rights by engaging, under color of state law, in a continuing pattern and practice of conduct consisting of illegal bond setting, sentencing, and jury fee practices in criminal cases. The plaintiffs in Robinson v. City of Chicago, 868 F.2d 959 (7th Cir. 1989), challenged the city police department’s investigatory detention policy.
In the employment context, courts have held that former employees have standing to represent a class consisting of both current and past employees. As stated in Cross v. National Trust Life Ins. Co., 553 F.2d 1026, 1030-1031 (6th Cir. 1977), “[t]hat plaintiffs are no longer employees of the defendant does not deprive them of standing to represent a class consisting of current and prospective
11

employees.” See also Walker v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., No. 06 C 6906, 2007 WL 2903180, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2007) (“Bankers Life’s additional argument that Paradise lacks standing (and adequacy) to pursue any form of injunctive relief because she is a former agent is also unpersuasive. Former employees are adequate representatives of current employees in class actions seeking, at least in part, declaratory and/or injunctive relief.”); Resnick v. American Dental Ass’n, 90 F.R.D. 530, 540 (D.C. Ill. 1981) (“We believe that a former employee, who is not entitled to reinstatement, may still be an adequate representative of a class of past and present employees.”). The named Tennessee plaintiffs’ lack of current drivers does not defeat the petition for class certification.
“In making the determination of adequacy of representation the district court should consider the experience and ability of counsel for the plaintiffs and whether there is any antagonism between the interests of the plaintiffs and other members of the class they seek to represent.” Cross v. National Trust, 553 F.2d at 1031. FedEx Ground hasn’t questioned the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to represent the class, and the court sees no basis for any antagonistic interests between the named Tennessee plaintiffs and the rest of the class. All Tennessee plaintiffs signed the same standard Operating Agreement and were classified as independent contractors. The Tennessee plaintiffs were subject to the same regulations regarding their appearance, trucks, delivery methods, and working hours. Whether they were improperly classified as independent contractors affects all of them equally, as it entitles both former and current drivers to additional
12

benefits and compensation as well as entitling the current drivers to proper classification in the future. FedEx Ground asserts that current contractors, unlike former contractors, have a long-term interest in their classification, and whether they can obtain what they believe is a more favorable relationship with FedEx Ground. If the Tennessee plaintiffs are being treated as FedEx Ground employees, however, the law requires them to be classified as such. Current contractors don’t have the option to be classified as one type and treated as another.
Many courts have noted the benefits of having former employees named as class representatives. “[W]ith respect to plaintiffs who were former employees of the company ‘being familiar with (the company’s) employment practices and being free from any possible coercive influence of (the company’s) management, (the plaintiffs) are better situated than either job applicants or present employees to present an intelligent and strongly adverse case against (the company’s) alleged discriminatory practices.’” Wetzel v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 508 F.2d 239, 247 (3d Cir. 1975) (quoting Mack v. General Elec. Co., 329 F. Supp. 72, 76 (E.D. Pa. 1971)). Additionally, deeming former employees inadequate to represent a class that included current employees might give hiring companies a perverse incentive: “employers would be encouraged to discharge those employees suspected as most likely to initiate a Title VII suit in the expectation that such employees would thereby be rendered incapable of bringing the suit as a class action.” Wetzel v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 508 F.2d at 247. For these reasons, the court deems the named Tennessee plaintiffs adequate representatives.
13

FedEx Ground’s second objection to class certification is that while the right to control is an important factor, Tennessee courts look beyond written contracts to the parties’ actual conduct. In support of this proposition, FedEx Ground cites the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Hendrix v. City of Maryville, which stated: “When the contract is in writing and its terms are indefinite and ambiguous, or if the evidence shows that more than one inference can be drawn from the relationship, or if there is evidence of circumstances and relations outside of the written agreement, the written contract alone cannot be determinative but a question of fact arises which must be determined by the jury.” 431 S.W.2d 292, 297 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968). FedEx Ground claims that this reasoning applies to the Tennessee case since the plaintiffs have squarely put contract interpretation in issue. FedEx Ground sees the Tennessee plaintiffs as contending that the Operating Agreement is internally inconsistent because, on the one hand, it indicates that the contractor has sole discretion in determining the manner and means of the work, and, on the other hand, it reserves certain rights of control to FedEx Ground. The Tennessee plaintiffs also contend that there are “many terms in the contract that are open to many interpretations.” Given that parol evidence is admissible when contract language is in dispute, FedEx Ground says class certification is improper despite the existence of an allegedly standardized agreement.
FedEx Ground also contends that, unlike in Kansas where the right to terminate was dispositive, Tennessee courts consider it to be “just one factor to
14

be considered” in the employee-independent contractor analysis. Wright v. Knox Vinyl & Aluminum Co., Inc., 779 S.W.2d 371, 374 (Tenn. 1989). Tennessee courts apply a seven-factor test to determine employee-independent contractor status: “(1) the right to control the conduct of the work, (2) the right of termination, (3) the method of payment, (4) the freedom to select and hire helpers, (5) the furnishing of tools and equipment, (6) self scheduling of working hours, and (7) being free to render services to other entities.” Bargery v. Obion Grain Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 119-120 (Tenn. 1990). FedEx Ground believes that these factors will take the court beyond the Operating Agreement’s terms and hence render class certification unsuitable.
FedEx Ground’s reliance on Hendrix v. Maryville for the proposition that parol evidence must be introduced in light of ambiguous contract terms and existence of circumstances and relations outside the contract does not persuade the court. The Tennessee plaintiffs aren’t arguing that the Operating Agreement is ambiguous. The Tennessee plaintiffs assert that although the agreement purports to establish an independent contractor relationship with its drivers the amount of control that FedEx Ground withholds throughout the contract makes the relationship one of an employer-employee. In support of their argument, the Tennessee plaintiffs continually point to contract terms that seem to dictate much of the driver’s work day. It doesn’t appear that the plaintiff’s will need to introduce parol evidence for support.
15

Likewise, while Tennessee courts look to the factors listed in Bargery to determine whether an employee or independent contractor relationship exists, even the court in Bargery stressed that the employer’s “right to control” its workers is the primary factor. Bargery v. Obion Grain, 785 S.W.2d at 120 (“The Masiers court noted that while all factors are important the ‘right to control’ is the primary test.”); see also Wright v. Knox Vinyl & Aluminum, 779 S.W.2d at 373. Just as this court stressed in its Kansas opinion, determining the extent of FedEx Ground’s control primarily will involve an analysis of the standard Operating Agreement. Kansas courts looked to similar factors when determining the extent of an employer’s control and this court found that these factors could again be determined primarily by consulting the Operating Agreement. Neither of FedEx Ground’s objections persuade the court that certification of the Tennessee class is inappropriate.
MONTANA In their amended complaint, the Montana plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Montana’s independent contractor and wage laws, rescission and quantum meruit, an accounting, and declaratory relief. The Montana plaintiffs challenge the validity of FedEx Ground’s practice of labeling its ground and home delivery division drivers as “independent contractors,” thereby shifting its ordinary operating expenses to its workforce while still retaining the control traditionally enjoyed by an employer. FedEx Ground’s standardized policies and procedures
16

and the pickup and delivery contractor Operating Agreement, they say, make these claims suitable for class certification. The Montana plaintiffs move the court to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for their claims for an accounting and for declaratory judgment. The Montana plaintiffs further move for class certification of their claims for violation of Montana’s independent contractor law, violation of Montana’s wage law, rescission, and declaratory judgment under Rule 23(b)(3). They assert that these claims are legally and factually common and typical to the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since October 26, 1997 to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3)were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Montana. FedEx Ground’s supplemental brief raises four issues that FedEx Ground asserts make the Montana scenario different from the one presented in Kansas and weigh against class certification. One of these contentions is that the Montana plaintiffs who are former employees may only argue that in the past they were improperly classified as independent contractors. These former drivers lack standing, FedEx Ground says, because they have no stake in the future conduct at which claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are targeted. The court analyzed this objection as to the Tennessee plaintiffs, and for those same reasons the court finds that former Montana employees can adequately represent the interests of current employees in this action.
17

FedEx Ground’s next objection is that based on the Montana plaintiffs’ own theory of the case, it will be necessary to go beyond the Operating Agreement’s terms to resolve independent contractor status. FedEx Ground portrays the Montana plaintiffs as asserting that the Operating Agreement is inconsistent since, on the one hand, it indicates that the contractor has sole discretion in determining the manner and means of the work, and, on the other hand, it reserves certain rights of control to FedEx Ground. As already stated in the Tennessee analysis, the court doesn’t construe the Montana plaintiffs’ argument as being that the Operating Agreement is ambiguous, but rather that, although the agreement purports to establish an independent contractor relationship between FedEx Ground and its drivers, the amount of control FedEx Ground withholds throughout the contract makes the relationship one of an employeremployee. Therefore, the court doesn’t believe extrinsic evidence will be necessary to construe the contract.
FedEx Ground next argues that Montana courts look beyond the four corners of the contract and analyze the parties’ conduct. FedEx Ground is correct. Montana law places a burden of proof on the party claiming an independent contractor relationship to prove both prongs of what the Montana courts call the “AB test”: that the hired party “(a) has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of the services, both under a contract and in fact; and (b) is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.” MONT. CODE ANN. § 39-51-201(14); American Agrijusters
18

Co. v. Montana Dep’t of Labor and Indus., 988 P.2d 782, 787 (Mont. 1999). Under this “AB test,” the party claiming an independent contractor relationship must show not only that no contract vested the hiring party with the right to control the details of the contracted work, but also that the hiring party did not in fact control the details of the contracted work. See, e.g., Walling v. Hardy Constr., 807 P.2d 1335 (Mont. 1991). The hired party “must be free from the control of his employer, under his contract And in fact, in the performance of his services.” Sharp v. Hoerner Waldorf Corp., 584 P.2d 1298, 1301 (Mont. 1978).
If the Montana plaintiffs are correct about the import of the control reserved to FedEx Ground under the Operating Agreement, it will be unnecessary to look beyond the Operating Agreement. But if the Montana plaintiffs are incorrect, FedEx Ground is entitled to an opportunity to meet the rest of its burden under the “AB test” by proving that it didn’t control the details of the drivers’ work sufficiently.
Montana law places a burden of proof on FedEx Ground, and FedEx cannot meet that burden of proof without presenting evidence of the control it exercised over (or conversely, the freedom it allowed) its drivers. The parties’ submissions make clear that neither unanimity of perception nor uniformity are hallmarks of individual drivers’ experiences. Something very close to a driver-by-driver analysis will be needed.
Although the effect of the Operating Agreement is a question common to the entire proposed class, that question does not predominate over the remaining
19

issues under Montana law. The court denies the Montana plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
MISSISSIPPI The Mississippi plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserts claims for fraud, rescission, constructive trust, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment. They maintain the overarching issue in this litigation is the classification of certain package delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The Mississippi plaintiffs argue that through this classification, FedEx Ground has acted on grounds generally applicable to all of the proposed members of the Mississippi class of drivers. The Mississippi plaintiffs move to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for their claims for rescission of the Operating Agreement, constructive trust and other equitable relief, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The Mississippi plaintiffs also move to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. They assert that these claims are legally and factually common and typical to the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 26, 2002, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Mississippi.
20

In its supplemental briefing, FedEx Ground raises five issues that FedEx Ground says make the Mississippi scenario different from that presented in Kansas and weigh against class certification. First, unlike Kansas, Mississippi courts start with the premise that it is the parties’ constitutionally protected right to contract as they please. Therefore, courts generally allow contracting parties to decide for themselves that they are creating an independent contractor relationship even if the facts traditionally would have been viewed as creating that of an employer/employee relationship. In support of this contention, FedEx Ground points to the Mississippi Supreme Court decision Richardson v. APACMississippi, Inc., 631 So. 2d 143 (Miss. 1994).
In Richardson, the plaintiff was leaving a parking lot when a truck driven by McCandless struck her vehicle. The plaintiff filed suit against APAC for negligence based on the theory of respondeat superior. APAC countered that McCandless was not its employee, but rather was an independent contractor. The court stated that in Mississippi, the determination of whether a relationship is that of an employer/employee or is an independent contractor relationship “depends upon the power of control which the employer is entitled to exercise over the person in question.” 631 So. 2d at 147. An independent contractor relationship is one “where it appears that a person employed to do such work is not, in the execution and performance of such work, subject to the control of the employer, but is free to execute the work without being subject to the orders of the employer with respect to the details thereof.” Id. To aid in determining whether
21

one is an employee or a contractor, Mississippi courts look to a long list of factors.1 The Richardson court added yet another factor, upon which FedEx
Ground relies heavily, to that balancing test: “When a contract is made between
two parties that as between themselves creates an independent contractor
relationship and involves employment generally performed under a simple
master/servant or employer/employee relationship, it will be upheld as between
the parties.” 631 So. 2d at 150. The Richardson court limited this freedom to
contract by stating that when a third party is adversely affected, the “court will
carefully scrutinize the contract to see if public policy should permit the
transformation of an ordinarily employer/employee relationship into that of an
independent contractor.” Id.
While no case cited by FedEx Ground has been decided based on the
parties’ right to contract when third party rights are unaffected, the court’s
language has been referenced in several other decisions and still appears to be a
factor that courts consider. See McKee v. Brimmer, 39 F.3d 94, 98 (5th Cir. 1994)
(“The Mississippi Supreme Court in Richardson added an explicit factor which had
1 Mississippi courts apply the following tests: “Whether the principal master has the power to terminate the contract at will; whether he has the power to fix the price in payment for the work, or vitally controls the manner and time of payment; whether he furnishes the means and appliances for the work; whether he has control of the premises; whether he furnishes the materials upon which the work is done and receives the output thereof, the contractor dealing with no other person in respect to the output; whether he has the right to prescribe and furnish the details of the kind and character of work to be done; whether he has the right to supervise and inspect the work during the course of the employment; whether he has the right to direct the details of the manner in which the work is to be done; whether he has the right to employ and discharge the subemployees and to fix their compensation; and whether he is obliged to pay the wages of said employees.” Richardson v. APAC-Mississippi, 631 So. 2d at 148-149.
22

previously been implicit to the balancing test used in determining the nature of a relationship.”); McCary v. Wade, 861 So. 2d 358, 362 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (“Looking further to Richardson, the appellants direct our attention to Richardson’s addition of a ‘public policy’ test to determine liability.”). Although, as the plaintiffs point out, this is just one factor in the balancing test, it is a significant one.
Deciding the parties’ intent when they signed the Operating Agreement will require individualized analysis that is not consistent with class certification. As FedEx Ground points out, the Mississippi plaintiffs might refute an intention to enter into an independent contractor relationship by asserting that the contract was so long and confusing they didn’t understand what they were agreeing to. Individual plaintiffs would have to testify as to their understanding and intent when they signed the Operating Agreement. This weighs heavily against certification of a class. Since the Mississippi plaintiffs’ claims all hinge on whether the relationship between FedEx Ground and its drivers is an employer/employee relationship or an independent contractor relationship, the court must deny the Mississippi plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
ARKANSAS The single named Arkansas plaintiff, David Harris, alleges violations of Arkansas’s overtime statute and asserts claims for fraud, rescission, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Mr. Harris claims that the common issue
23

of whether FedEx Ground improperly labels its drivers as independent contractors is at the heart of each of the Arkansas claims. Mr. Harris asks this court to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for his declaratory judgment claim, his Arkansas Wage and Hour Law claim, his unjust enrichment claim, his conversion claim, and for his quantum meruit claim. Mr. Harris seeks certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for his claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Mr. Harris asserts that these claims are legally and factually common and typical to the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since Jan. 17, 2001, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Arkansas. In its supplemental briefing, FedEx Ground says four issues make the Arkansas case different from the one presented in Kansas and weigh against class certification. FedEx Ground argues that, unlike in Kansas, the sole named Arkansas plaintiff is a former contractor who can only argue that he was improperly classified as an independent contractor in the past. As a former contractor, FedEx Ground says, Mr. Harris lacks standing because he has no stake in the future conduct at which claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are targeted. Additionally, as a former contractor, Mr. Harris only has an interest in financial gain and not in declaratory and injunctive relief. FedEx Ground argues that this conflicts with the interests of the putative class members who are
24

current contractors. The court addressed FedEx Ground’s nearly identical
objection to the Tennessee class certification and, for the reasons stated there,
doesn’t find that it weighs against class certification.
FedEx Ground next argues that in Arkansas the “control test” is not
dispositive. Instead, FedEx Ground asserts, the Arkansas Supreme Court has
“consistently held that no rule of unvarying application can be formulated for
ascertaining whether a workman is a servant or an independent contractor, and
each case must be determined upon its own particular facts.” Massey v. Poteau
Trucking Co., 254 S.W.2d 959, 961 (Ark. 1953). While FedEx Ground concedes
that the “extent of control” is the principal factor to be considered, it isn’t the only
factor. Arkansas courts also consider the factors borrowed from the RESTATEMENT
(SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220:
(a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work; (b) whether the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (c) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision; (d) the skill required in the particular occupation; (e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; (f) the length of time for which the person is employed; (g) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; (h) whether the work is a part of the employer’s regular business; (i) whether the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant; and (j) whether the principal is in business.
Blankenship v. Overholt, 786 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Ark. 1990).
FedEx Ground believes the court will need to go outside of the contract to
utilize the RESTATEMENT factors. For example, whether the driver has a “distinct
25

business” may turn on whether the contractor is incorporated, which varies across drivers. The Operating Agreement doesn’t indicate how long the driver has contracted with FedEx Ground, which will vary from several months to many years. FedEx Ground also contends that the court won’t be able to determine from the Operating Agreement whether the driver supplied the instrumentalities. Lastly, FedEx Ground argues that weighing the parties’ intent will vary from driver to driver.
When deciding whether an independent contractor or employer/ employee relationship exists under Arkansas law, “[t]he right to control, not the actual control, is the principal factor in determining the worker’s status.” Draper v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 212 S.W.3d 61, 67 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005); see also Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. v. Coker, No. CA 06-769, 2007 WL 1207221, at *5 (Ark. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2007) (“The ultimate question in determining whether a person or entity is an independent contractor is not whether the employer actually exercises control over the doing of the work, but whether he has the right to control the work.”).
As FedEx Ground indicated, the Draper court used the RESTATEMENT factors to guide its analysis and noted that “there is no fixed formula for determining whether an entity is an employee or an independent contractor, the determination must be made based on the particular facts of each case.” 212 S.W.3d at 67. That language doesn’t convince the court that the Arkansas analysis would vary substantially from that used in Kansas. Arkansas courts use the RESTATEMENT
26

factors as tools to help weigh the evidence. None but the right to control is determinative. As in the court’s Kansas analysis, these RESTATEMENT factors will guide the determination of whether an employer/employee or independent contractor relationship exists between the drivers and FedEx Ground based primarily on the terms of the Operating Agreement. As for whether the drivers have a “distinct business”, statistics of the incorporated drivers can be provided without requiring analysis of each driver’s individual circumstances. The same holds true for the length of time each of the drivers has contracted with FedEx Ground (assuming the overall period, rather than the duration of the standard Operating Agreement, is the pertinent inquiry). The court held with respect to the Kansas certification motion that whether the drivers supply their own instrumentalities could be determined primarily from the agreement’s terms.
Lastly, although intent is one of the RESTATEMENT factors it was rarely used in the cases the parties cite. The Draper court factored the parties’ intent into its analysis, but also found that the parties’ intent “is not determinative . . . except insofar as such belief indicates an assumption of control by the one and submission to control by the other.” 212 S.W.3d at 69. Inquisition into the parties’ intent at the time of signing would not, after years of litigation preparation, provide much guidance in the Arkansas case.
FedEx Ground’s third objection is that in determining the extent of control, Arkansas courts look at the actual control exercised over the worker to discern the level of control to which the worker was subjected. In support of this contention,
27

FedEx Ground cites to Draper v. Conagra Foods, 212 S.W.3d at 67-69, in which, according to FedEx Ground, the court examined numerous extra-contractual aspects of the actual relationship between the parties, such as control over the route driven, drivers time and date requirements, and precautions for protecting deliveries, to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate.
The Draper court explicitly stated that the right to control, not the actual control, is the principal factor in the independent contractor/employee analysis: “The governing distinction is that if control of the work reserved by the employer is control not only of the result, but also of the means and manner of performance, then the relation of master and servant necessarily follows.” 212 S.W.3d at 67. Control over the route and any time or date requirements could be determined by referring mainly to the Operating Agreement in this case.
Lastly, FedEx Ground alleges that by contending that there are “many terms in the contract that are open to many interpretations,” plaintiff has placed contract interpretation squarely at issue in this case.2 When contract interpretation is in issue, Fed Ex contends, class certification is improper. As stated in its Tennessee analysis, the court does not interpret the Arkansas plaintiff’s argument as being that the contract is ambiguous. Instead the Arkansas
2 FedEx Ground begins its fourth objection by stating that Arkansas courts look to control based on the “agreement of the parties.” FedEx Ground then states that since the plaintiff’s theory of the case is that he signed a contract of adhesion, Mr. Harris is challenging that he and FedEx Ground, in fact, agreed to the terms in the Operating Agreement. FedEx Ground provides no legal support for this contention and doesn’t elaborate further. Since the court’s research has disclosed no basis for this objection, the court will not address it further.
28

plaintiff asserts that although the agreement purports to establish an independent contractor relationship with its drivers the amount of control that FedEx Ground withholds throughout the contract makes the relationship one of an employeremployee. Neither this nor any of FedEx Ground’s previous three objections weighs against class certification.
KENTUCKY Kentucky plaintiffs John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, and George Sanders seek class certification of their claims for violations of Kentucky’s wage deduction statute, rescission and unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Kentucky plaintiffs argue that these claims all depend on the predominant common question of whether FedEx Ground has improperly labeled these drivers as independent contractors, which will require the court to assess common evidence of FedEx Ground’s programmatic retention and exercise of the right to direct and control its drivers. The Kentucky plaintiffs move for certification of a damages and unjust enrichment class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for their claims for violation of Kentucky Revised Statutes §§ 337.060 and 337.070, rescission, and declaratory relief. They also move the court to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for their claims for declaratory relief and injunctive relief. The Kentucky plaintiffs contend that these claims are legally and factually common and typical among the following similarly situated class:
29

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since September 13, 2000, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal located in Kentucky or provide(d) pick-up and delivery services within Kentucky. In its supplemental briefing, FedEx Ground raises six issues, which it asserts make the Kentucky case different from the one presented in Kansas and weigh against class certification. One of those issues is that, in contrast to the Kansas class representatives who include current drivers, the Kentucky plaintiffs are all former drivers who can only argue that they were improperly classified as independent contractors in the past. FedEx Ground argues that as former drivers, these plaintiffs lack standing and their claims are not typical and conflict with the putative class, making them inadequate representatives. For the reasons stated in the Tennessee analysis, the court disagrees with FedEx Ground’s position on the Kentucky plaintiffs’ standing. FedEx Ground also asserts that the named plaintiffs are inadequate representatives because they, unlike the vast majority of the putative class, drive out of an Indiana terminal. FedEx Ground argues that while Kentucky law will govern most of the putative class, Indiana law applies to the named Kentucky plaintiffs, who executed their Operating Agreements in Indiana and allegedly were controlled by terminal management in Indiana.
30

The Kentucky plaintiffs claim that all four named plaintiffs drove out of FedEx Ground’s Louisville terminal, which relocated across the Ohio River to Jeffersonville, Indiana in 2000, but continues to be referred to as the “Louisville terminal.” The Louisville terminal is subdivided between drivers who drive routes in Kentucky and drivers who drive routes in Indiana; all trucks and packages destined for Kentucky are on one side of the terminal and the Indiana trucks and packages are on the other side. The four named plaintiffs all were Kentucky residents while they worked for FedEx Ground, worked on the Kentucky side of the Louisville terminal, and drove routes located exclusively in Kentucky.
This case came from, and would return to, a federal court sitting in Kentucky, so Kentucky choice of laws rules apply. See Tanner v. Jupiter Realty Corp., 433 F.3d 913, 915 (7th Cir. 2006) (“When a district court sits in diversity, it must apply the choice of law principles of the forum state to determine which state’s substantive law governs the proceeding.”). When determining the appropriate state law to apply, Kentucky courts have “applied Kentucky substantive law whenever possible.” Harris Corp. v. Comair, Inc., 712 F.2d 1069, 1071 (6th Cir. 1983). The Harris court when on to state that the Kentucky Supreme Court will apply Kentucky law “to a contract issue if there are sufficient contacts and no overwhelming interests to the contrary, even if the parties have voluntarily agreed to apply the law of a different state.” Id.; see also Foster v. Leggett, 484 S.W.2d 827, 829 (Ky. 1972) (“We are now reaffirming our position taken in Wessling v. Paris, [417 S.W.2d 259 (Ky. 1967)], that if there are
31

significant contacts—not necessarily the most significant contacts—with Kentucky, the Kentucky law should be applied.”).
In a case analogous to this case, Davis v. Siemens Med. Solutions USA, Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d 785 (W.D. Ky. 2005), Kentucky’s inclination to apply forum law was again displayed. Mr. Davis, a product sales executive, brought suit against Siemens for additional commissions and benefits he thought were due to him under their compensation agreement, which contained a New Jersey choice of law provision. The court found that Mr. Davis was a Kentucky resident whose employment was focused there. 399 F. Supp. 2d at 791. The only facts connecting New Jersey to Mr. Davis’s case was that the contract was negotiated in a New Jersey hotel and that the Siemens employee who sent Mr. Davis the contract to sign worked in New Jersey. Based on these facts, the Davis court rejected the choice of law provision and found that Kentucky had the most significant relationship to the dispute. Id.
In today’s case, the Kentucky plaintiffs have significant contacts with both Kentucky and Indiana. The named Kentucky plaintiffs were all Kentucky residents who drove routes and delivered packages exclusively in Kentucky. The Kentucky plaintiffs’ terminal is located in Indiana, so they loaded and unloaded packages, interacted with their supervisors, and some even signed their Operating Agreement in Indiana. These facts give both Kentucky and Indiana significant interest in the employment conditions of the plaintiffs. Based on the cases just
32

discussed, however, there are sufficient contacts for Kentucky courts to apply Kentucky law to the named plaintiffs.
Further, while FedEx Ground raised this choice of law objection by way of questioning the adequacy of the named plaintiffs, FedEx Ground hasn’t stated how the substantive law of Indiana would differ from the law of Kentucky. As the court of appeals explained in Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. v. Vic Koenig Leasing, Inc., 136 F.3d 1116, 1120 (7th Cir. 1998), “a federal court should apply the law of the forum state where the parties have not identified a conflict between two bodies of state law which might apply to their case.” Accord Kochert v. Adagen Med. Int’l, Inc., 491 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Where the parties have not identified a conflict in state law, we will generally apply the law of the forum state.”). Since Kentucky law will apply to both the named plaintiffs and the putative class, the court sees no problem with the adequacy of the named Kentucky plaintiffs’ representation.
The Kentucky Administrative Regulations sets out a multi-factor test to determine whether an employment relationship exists. 803 KY. ADMIN. REGS. 1:005, § 4. FedEx Ground argues that many of the factors in this test are highly individualized. For example, the regulation lists four “significant” factors relevant to an individuals status, all of which, FedEx Ground contends, will require individualized proof. These factors include investment in facilities and equipment, opportunity for profit and loss, the extent to which the services in question are an integral part of the employer’s business, and the amount of initiative, judgment,
33

or foresight in open market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise. FedEx Ground further argues that many of the remaining factors also turn on individualized evidence, such as length of contract, whether the possible employer may discharge employees of the contractor, and the similarity of work done by contractor to work done by admitted employees.
FedEx Ground omits the first paragraph of the section, which states: “The principal test for determining whether an employment relation exists is whether the possible employer controls or has the right to control the work to be done by the possible employee to the extent of prescribing how the work shall be performed.” 803 KY. ADMIN. REGS. 1:005, § 4(1). As for the other factors listed, many are similar to ones already discussed in this memorandum; none require such individualized analysis to make class certification inappropriate.
FedEx Ground posited a similar objection to the plaintiffs’ claims that would be subject to Kentucky’s common law test. FedEx Ground argues that Kentucky law presents a different scenario from the one presented in Kansas since the Kentucky Supreme Court expressly held that the control factor is of no greater importance than the others. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Ky., Inc., 91 S.W.3d 575, 580 (Ky. 2002). Instead, the Landmark case held that not one of the factors is determinative and each case must be decided on its own particular facts. Id. FedEx Ground asserts that many of these factors will require individualized proof such as: the intent of the parties;
34

whether the instrumentalities, tools, and places of work are supplied by the driver; and the length of time the driver is employed.
Lastly, FedEx Ground argues that the “right to control” factor itself often is determined by reference to the parties’ actual conduct. For support, FedEx Ground cites Sturgill v. Barnes, 300 S.W.2d 574 (Ky. 1957), in which the court focused exclusively on the actual working conditions of the coal miners to determine whether a “right to control” existed and concluded it did not because of the actual conduct of the miners. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the miners “were free to work at their convenience and on occasions did not work even though the loading bin was not full.” 300 S.W.2d at 576. FedEx Ground also asserts that the Landmark court ignored the contract and instead relied on the parties’ actual relationship. 91 S.W.3d at 581.
The court agrees that the Landmark decision, which abrogated Sturgill, changed the right to control from “the chief criterion” to a factor of no greater importance than the others, 91 S.W.3d at 580, but disagrees that this makes class certification inappropriate. The factors Kentucky courts consider when analyzing an employment relationship are those listed in the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220(2). These same factors are used by the Arkansas courts, and were found by this court to not require highly individualized analysis. That the right to control isn’t the determinative factor doesn’t change that analysis.
Nor does the court agree with FedEx Ground that the Landmark decision requires analysis beyond the contract’s terms. In Landmark, the Kentucky
35

Supreme Court looked mainly to the contract between Landmark and its carriers to decide whether the newspaper carriers Landmark hired were independent contractors or employees. 91 S.W.3d at 581. The Landmark court’s statement that “every case . . . needs to be resolved on its own facts” doesn’t demand individualized analysis; a court can look to the employment relationship as set out in the contract between the parties to decide whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee.
FedEx Ground next raises the objection that plaintiffs’ claims under Kentucky’s wage deduction statute will require proof that each plaintiff did not agree to each deduction. The wage deduction statute makes it unlawful for an employer to withhold from any employee any part of the wage upon which the parties agreed. KY. REV. STAT. § 337.060. Statutory exceptions to this provision include when the employer is authorized to withhold wages “by local, state, or federal law, or when a deduction is expressly authorized in writing by the employee to cover insurance premiums, hospital and medical dues, or other deductions not amounting to a rebate or deduction from the standard wage arrived at by collective bargaining or pursuant to wage agreement or statute” or “for union dues when such deductions are authorized by joint wage agreements or collective bargaining contracts.” KY. REV. STAT. § 337.060(1). This claim will require FedEx Ground to either point to a statute allowing the deduction in question or produce a written agreement between itself and the driver allowing the deduction that falls into one of the statute’s stated exceptions. The court doesn’t
36

read this statute to require each driver to testify as to what he or she agreed to in terms of deductions. This argument doesn’t persuade the court that class certification is inappropriate.
Lastly, FedEx Ground again argues that since the plaintiffs take the position that there are “many terms in the contract that are open to many interpretations,” the court will have to consider parol or extrinsic evidence. As already explained with respect to certification motions from other states, the court doesn’t read the plaintiffs’ position as FedEx Ground does. For all of these reasons, and the reasons stated in the Kansas ruling, the court will grant the Kentucky plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
TEXAS Texas plaintiffs John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Tim Mershon, and Charles Campbell seek class certification of their claims for rescission and declaratory relief. They argue that common class-wide evidence will establish that FedEx Ground treated its package and delivery drivers as employees, systematically retaining and exercising far-reaching rights to direct and control the drivers in the performance of their work. Texas plaintiffs move for certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for their rescission and declaratory relief claim and under Rule 23(b)(2) for their declaratory relief claim. The Texas plaintiffs contend that these claims are legally and factually common and typical among the following similarly situated class:
37

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since March 6, 2001, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Texas. In its supplemental briefing, FedEx Ground raises three issues it asserts make the Texas case different from the one presented in Kansas and weigh against class certification. FedEx Ground contends that based on the Texas plaintiffs’ own theory of the case, it will be necessary for the court to go beyond the terms of the Operating Agreement. For support, FedEx Ground quotes the Texas plaintiffs as stating that there are “many terms in the contract that are open to many interpretations” and that the Operating Agreement is contradictory. FedEx Ground argues that interpretation of these ambiguous or conflicting terms of the contract would have to be resolved through the use of individualized evidence regarding the parties’ course of dealings. As the court has stated already in this opinion with respect to the Arkansas and Tennessee motions, it doesn’t interpret the plaintiffs’ argument to be that the Operating Agreement is ambiguous. Instead, the Texas plaintiffs are asserting that although the Operating Agreement purports to establish an independent contractor relationship with its drivers the amount of control that FedEx Ground withholds throughout the contract makes the relationship one of an employer-employee. Therefore, it doesn’t appear the Texas plaintiffs will need to introduce parol evidence for support.
38

FedEx Ground’s next objection to class certification is that unlike the Kansas named plaintiffs, the Texas named plaintiffs are all former contractors who can only argue that in the past, they were improperly classified as independent contractors. As former contractors, FedEx Ground says, the Texas plaintiffs all lack standing because they have no stake in the future conduct at which claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are targeted. FedEx Ground also argues that former contractors only have an interest in the financial gain and not in declaratory and injunctive relief. This conflicts with the interest of the putative class members who are current contractors. For the reasons stated in the Tennessee analysis, the court disagrees with FedEx Ground’s position.
FedEx Ground’s last objection is that in contrast to Kansas where the most important factor in determining independent contractor status was whether there existed a “right to control,” Texas courts say that “the written contract is important, but the test remains right of control which may be shown by actual control exercised in derogation of a written contract.” Space City Oil Co. v. McGilvray, 519 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975). In support of its contention that Texas courts determining the “right to control” look to the degree of actual control exercised over the individual, FedEx Ground cites to Limestone Prods. Distribution, Inc. v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2002). In determining a delivery driver’s status, the Limestone court analyzed evidence of actual control relating to assignment of work, paperwork, route driven, hours, and interactions with the putative employer. 71 S.W.3d at 312-313.
39

FedEx Ground asserts that it is particularly true that in this case the court will need to look outside the Operating Agreement, since the contract on its face doesn’t resolve many of the factors to be addressed. For example, whether a driver has an “independent” business will turn on the nature of the business and whether the driver is incorporated, which varies across drivers. The court will also need to weigh whether the drivers supplied the tools, which might involve evidence of whether some drivers leased their trucks “at a reduced price” from an entity the Texas plaintiffs say is related to FedEx Ground. The Operating Agreement does not indicate how long the driver has contracted with FedEx Ground.
The test in Texas for determining whether one is acting as an independent contractor is to “measure the amount of control that the employer exerts or has a right to exert over the details of the work.” Durbin v. Culberson County, 132 S.W.3d 650, 658 (Tex. App. 2004). Texas courts look to a number of factors to aid in this analysis, including: “(1) the independent nature of the worker’s business; (2) the worker’s obligation to furnish necessary tools, supplies, and materials to perform the job; (3) the worker’s right to control the progress of the work except about final results; (4) the time for which the worker is employed; and (5) the method of payment, whether by unit of time or by the job.” Limestone Prods. v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d at 312. The fundamental factor is the right to control. Durbin v. Culberson County, 132 S.W.3d at 659.
When an employment contract exists and provides for an independent contractor relationship, it generally is controlling. See Durbin v. Culberson
40

County, 132 S.W.3d at 659 (“Generally, an agreement providing that a person shall be an independent contractor and providing for no right of control is controlling in determining the relationship between the parties.”). The contract can be overcome, however, if extrinsic evidence is produced “indicating that the contract was a subterfuge or that the hiring party exercised control in a manner inconsistent with the contractual provisions.” Ross v. Texas One Partnership, 796 S.W.2d 206, 210 (Tex. App. 1990); see also Space City Oil v. McGilvray, 519 S.W.2d at 258-259 (“When, however, the parties, as in this case, have entered into a definite contract that expressly provides for an independent contract relationship and does not vest in the principal or the employer the right to control the details of the work, evidence outside the contract must be produced to show that despite the terms of the primary contract the true operating agreement was one which vested the right of control in the alleged master. Under such circumstances, the exercise of control is evidentiary only. The true test remains the right of control.”).
Class certification would be inappropriate if the Texas plaintiffs’ position was that though the Operating Agreement purported to establish an independent contractor relationship, the actual relationship between FedEx Ground and its drivers is one of employer/employee. To prove that the agreement was a sham or that the actual relationship was inconsistent with the agreement, the court would be required to conduct individual analysis of the actual relationship between the parties. But the court understands the Texas plaintiffs’ argument to be that
41

though the Operating Agreement labels the drivers as independent contractors, the Operating Agreement itself reserves to FedEx Ground the right to control, making the drivers employees of FedEx Ground. This determination will only require analysis of the Operating Agreement and generally applicable corporate policies, and so is suitable for class certification. Nor does the court find that the factors utilized by Texas courts to determine the right to control will require individualized analysis. These factors are similar to many of the states already discussed, where the court found class certification to be appropriate. For all of these reasons, and the reasons stated in the Kansas ruling, the court will grant the Texas plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
WISCONSIN Like the Kansas plaintiffs, the Wisconsin plaintiffs assert claims under their state’s wage payment statute, as well as claims for rescission and declaratory relief. The Wisconsin plaintiffs contend FedEx Ground uniformly misclassified all Wisconsin pickup and delivery drivers as independent contractors, and common factual and legal questions regarding their employment misclassification predominate as required for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into an FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since August 18, 1999, to provide
42

package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Wisconsin. FedEx Ground argues that the court must look outside the parties’ standard Operating Agreement to determine whether FedEx Ground is liable as an employer under Wisconsin’s wage withholding statute. WIS. STAT. § 103.455. FedEx Ground maintains that class certification is inappropriate because the court must engage in an individualized examination of each plaintiff’s employment relationship. To succeed on their claim under the Wisconsin wage withholding statute, the Wisconsin plaintiffs must show that they are (or were) employees as defined by Wisconsin law. The Wisconsin statute defines an “employee” as “any person who may be required or directed by any employer, in consideration of direct or indirect gain or profit, to engage in any employment, or to go to work or be at any time in any place of employment.” WIS. STAT. § 103.001(5). Although Wisconsin courts have yet to specifically address how to determine employee status for purposes of § 103.455, they have noted that the “dominant test in determining whether a person is an independent contractor or employee is who has the right to control the details of the work.” Madison Newspapers, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue, 599 N.W.2d 51, 60 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999); see also Pamperin v. Trinity Mem. Hosp., 423 N.W.2d 848, 852 (Wis. 1988) (noting that the “right to control is the dominant test in determining whether an individual is a servant” under the doctrine of respondeat superior); Snider v. Northern States Power Co., 260 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Wis. 1977) (“The most important single criterion in determining whether
43

a person is an independent contractor is the degree to which the owner, rather than the independent contractor, retains the right to control the details of the work.”).
FedEx Ground argues that instead of focusing solely on its “right to control” the Wisconsin drivers, the court will utilize the “economic realties” test found in decisions interpreting Title VII. While the economic realties test considers a number of factors, the most important factor is the right to control the means and manner of performance. Moore v. Labor & Indus. Rev. Comm’n, 499 N.W.2d 288, 291 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). FedEx Ground maintains that the court will need to look beyond the face of the Operating Agreement and focus on the degree of control that FedEx Ground actually exercised rather than the authority derived from the terms of the Operating Agreement.
The court reads Wisconsin law differently. The court need only determine the existence of control, rather than examining FedEx Ground’s actual exercise of control over each individual driver. See Stafford Trucking, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 306 N.W.2d 79, 83 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981) (“It is immaterial whether the right or power to control is in fact exercised as long as the right to exercise such control exists.”); Goldberg v. Department of Indus., Labor, and Human Resources, 484 N.W.2d 568, 573 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that therapists associated with psychiatric clinic were “employees” within the meaning of Wisconsin’s unemployment statute because the clinic retained the right to control or direct the therapists in fulfilling their responsibilities, even if the
44

clinic never exercised that right).This determination depends on an analysis of the Operating Agreement’s terms as well as FedEx Ground’s centralized practices and procedures that are systematically applicable to all of the Wisconsin plaintiffs. Any nuanced distinctions between the Wisconsin plaintiffs do not predominate over the many common questions that arise from FedEx Ground’s efforts to standardize its relationship with the plaintiffs. See Walker v. Bankers Life Ins. & Cas. Co., No. 06 C 6906, 2007 WL 2903180, at *8-9 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2007) (certifying class of insurance agents who contended that they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees based on the defendant’s standardization of the agent position through a non-negotiable, form contract). Similar to the Kansas class, this evidence doesn’t require the sort of individualized analysis that would make class certification inappropriate.
FedEx Ground also argues that even if the court decides to focus on the Operating Agreement to determine employee status, individualized extrinsic evidence is needed to interpret the provisions related to control. FedEx Ground relies heavily on two cases in which class treatment was inappropriate despite the existence of a standardized contract, neither of which applied Wisconsin law. See Bowers v. Jefferson Pilot Fin. Ins. Co., 219 F.R.D. 578 (E.D. Mich. 2004); Adams v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 192 F.R.D. 274 (W.D. Mo. 2000). In Bowers v. Jefferson Pilot, the plaintiffs sought class certification based on breach of contract claims involving disputed contract language. Unlike the Wisconsin class, the Bowers plaintiffs were domiciled in different states, leading to a significant
45

variation in the laws of the states with respect to the use of extrinsic evidence. See 219 F.R.D. at 583. The claims in this case don’t invoke the type of choice of law considerations that rendered class certification inappropriate in Bowers.
Similarly, the court in Adams v. Kansas City Life Ins. rejected class certification of the plaintiffs’ contract claims because those claims involved ambiguous contract terms that could only be interpreted by considering varying types of extrinsic evidence. 192 F.R.D. at 282. The Wisconsin plaintiffs don’t contend that the terms of the Operating Agreement are ambiguous. Rather than asking the court to interpret the contract’s meaning, the Wisconsin plaintiffs argue that FedEx Ground’s right to control its drivers does not comport with the Operating Agreement’s explicit term on employment status, so the use of individualized extrinsic evidence appears to be unnecessary. Accordingly, FedEx Ground’s arguments in opposition to class certification are not persuasive.
ALABAMA Named Alabama plaintiff Tina Floyd seeks certification of a statewide class under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) for claims of rescission, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief under Alabama law. The Alabama plaintiffs assert these claims are legally and factually common and typical to the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 11, 2000, to provide package pick-
46

up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Alabama. FedEx Ground responds with two principal arguments against class certification. First, FedEx Ground disputes the named plaintiff’s adequacy as a representative of the class members as required under Rule 23(a)(4). Second, FedEx Ground argues that common issues of law and fact do not predominate over individual issues as required for certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The named plaintiff must “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4). FedEx Ground argues that Ms. Floyd is an inadequate class representative for several reasons. FedEx Ground claims that because Ms. Floyd is a former driver she cannot show a real or immediate threat of any alleged harm and so lacks standing to pursue declaratory and injunctive relief for current drivers. The court addressed, and rejected, that argument in conjunction with the Tennessee plaintiffs. FedEx Ground also claims Ms. Floyd can’t represent the interests of all of the Alabama plaintiffs because she worked as a Home Delivery driver in a single work area and wasn’t interested in expanding her business. FedEx Ground maintains Ms. Floyd’s interests are divergent from Ground drivers and multiple work area drivers who have a longterm interest in being classified as either contractors or employees. Ms. Floyd’s interests are not so divergent that she can’t adequately represent all of the drivers within the proposed Alabama class. While FedEx Ground focuses on the variances in control over Ms. Floyd versus other Alabama
47

drivers, these differences do not render Ms. Floyd unable or unlikely to fully represent class interests. See Walker v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., No. 06 C 6909, 2007 WL 2903180, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2007) (finding that a former agent was an adequate class representative even though factual differences existed between the named agent and class members). The entire Alabama class asserts the same legal theories based on the same general nucleus of operative facts. See Duffin v. Exelon Corp., No. 06 C 1382, 2007 WL 845336, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2007). Ms. Floyd’s claims are premised on that notion that she was misclassified under the same contract and subject to the same uniform employment policies as the other class members. Any distinctions between Ms. Floyd and Ground or multiple work area drivers are meaningless because each of the drivers signed nearly identical Operating Agreements. Ms. Floyd is not antagonistic to the class, see Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992), and there is no reason to believe she won’t vigorously pursue the claims on behalf of the Alabama class as required by Rule 23(a)(4).
FedEx Ground also argues that the named Alabama plaintiff can’t demonstrate that common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues as required for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Like the Kansas plaintiffs, the named Alabama plaintiff asserts claims that hinge on whether the plaintiffs are deemed employees under Alabama law. While the plaintiff relies on the substance of the standard Operating Agreement, FedEx Ground contends the court must look outside the contract’s terms and conduct an individualized
48

examination of each plaintiff’s relationship with FedEx Ground. To this end, FedEx Ground offers testimony from a number of mid-level managers indicating their varied experience on issues such as the ability to control their schedule, routes, delivery methods, volume of packages, and income level.
The common question the named Alabama plaintiff presents is whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. Under Alabama law, the primary test in determining the existence of an employee-employer relationship is whether the employer maintains a right of control over the actions of the alleged employee. Hester v. Brown, 512 F. Supp. 2d 1228, 1234 (M.D. Ala. 2007); Butler v. Aetna Fin. Co., 587 So. 2d 308, 310 (Ala. 1991) (“[I]t is axiomatic that for an agency relationship to exist, there must be a right of control by the principal over the agent.”). The right of control test involves four factors: “(1) direct evidence of the right or exercise of control; (2) the method of payment used; (3) whether the alleged principal had the right to terminate employment; and (4) the right to control another’s time.” Dickinson v. City of Huntsville, 822 So. 2d 411, 416 (Ala. 2001).
FedEx Ground contends that the right of control test requires the court to examine the Alabama drivers’ varied experiences, focusing on the actual exercise of control in determining contractor independence. As in Kansas, however, Alabama courts look to the reserved right of control rather than the actual exercise of control to establish employee status. Turnipseed v. McCafferty, 521 So. 2d 31, 32 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987) (citing Weeks v. C.L. Dickert Lumber Co., 121 So.
49

2d 894 (Ala. 1960)). This analysis depends on the substance of the standard Operating Agreement and common practices and procedures standard to all of the Alabama plaintiffs. Even though individual differences may exist between the plaintiffs’ actual work experience, these issues don’t bar class certification. See Chun-Hoon v. McKee Foods Corp., No. C-05-620, 2006 WL 3093764, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2006) (finding that individual issues did not prevent the court from certifying the claims of drivers allegedly treated as independent contractors rather than employees based on the defendant’s standard distribution agreement and uniform policies toward its drivers).
Moreover, FedEx Ground claims that even if the court relies on the standard Operating Agreement to determine employee status, individualized extrinsic evidence of each driver’s course of dealing with FedEx Ground is necessary to interpret the contract provisions related to control. The court disagrees. The named Alabama plaintiff doesn’t contend that the Operating Agreement’s terms are ambiguous. Instead, she argues that FedEx Ground’s treatment of its drivers is inconsistent with their purported definition as independent contractors. As such, common questions arising from FedEx Ground’s standard treatment of its drivers predominate and satisfy the requisites for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3).
NEW YORK
50

The New York plaintiffs allege violations of New York’s wage statutes and unlawfulness of their Operating Agreement with FedEx Ground. The New York plaintiffs seek to certify a class of:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since October 27, 1998, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New York. The New York plaintiffs claim they meet the requirements of Rule 23(a). First, they claim the class is sufficiently numerous to make joinder impractical: there were 695 pickup and delivery drivers in New York at the time of briefing, and even more signed Operating Agreements during the proposed class period. Second, the New York plaintiffs contend the class members share common questions of law or fact because FedEx Ground has engaged in standardized conduct towards each proposed class member. The New York plaintiffs say the class members’ claims arise out of FedEx Ground’s alleged nationwide policy of classifying its pickup and delivery drivers as independent contractors while treating them as employees. Accordingly, the New York plaintiffs say FedEx Ground violated New York Labor Law §§ 193(1) and 193(2) by deducting and withholding such things as vehicle expenses, cargo claims, and insurance claims not ordinarily chargeable to employees. The New York plaintiffs say their common law claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit also turn on whether the independent contractor classification was invalid. With respect to the declaratory
51

judgment claim, the New York plaintiffs say, the Operating Agreement’s terms and FedEx Ground’s procedures will require identical analysis for each class member.
Third, the named New York plaintiffs contend their claims arise from the same practice or course of conduct that gives rise to, and are based on the same legal theory as, other class members’ claims. Each named plaintiff signed the standard Operating Agreement and underwent the same systematic control over the methods and means by which they accomplish their tasks.
Finally, as to the requirements of Rule 23(a), the named New York plaintiffs say they fairly and adequately protect the class’s interests. They include current and former drivers from the Home Delivery and Ground divisions of FedEx Ground Ground. Their attorneys have extensive experience in the prosecution of class actions like this.
The New York plaintiffs argue their damage claims should be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) because each claim is based upon the common question of whether they have been improperly classified as independent contractors. That drivers differed in hours worked, packages delivered, and earnings, the plaintiffs reason, doesn’t affect whether FedEx Ground’s right to control them in the course of their work makes them employees or independent contractors.
The New York plaintiffs say a single class action is superior to individual actions because efficiencies of a class action will reduce litigation expenses and court resources. Fear of economic retaliation by an employer, the plaintiffs argue, weighs in favor of certification in an employment context.
52

The New York plaintiffs seek certification of their declaratory and equitable claims under Rule 23(b)(2) because the case seeks to define the relationship between FedEx Ground and the plaintiffs and the relief sought will benefit the entire class. FedEx Ground’s use of standard Operating Agreements and standardized policies constitutes action on grounds generally applicable to the class, they say.
FedEx Ground opposes class certification. First, FedEx Ground argues that New York drivers vary substantially in the freedom they have had to operate their businesses, so several of the New York plaintiffs’ claims, such as those for unjust enrichment, rescission, and reimbursement of wage deductions will turn on individualized inquiries. Second, FedEx Ground claims most New York drivers want to be independent contractors, so the named plaintiffs are out of step with the class they seek to represent. Third, FedEx Ground argues the class action device isn’t the way to handle this case, since the plaintiffs haven’t articulated a trial plan but have proffered a class definition that guarantees individual trials.
The second and third arguments mirror arguments the court rejected in the Kansas case, and FedEx Ground doesn’t argue to the contrary. Instead, in the aftermath of the Kansas ruling, FedEx Ground points to differences in controlling state law as disfavoring class treatment. While the Kansas ruling stressed the putative employer’s right to control as the central (and common) factor in determining employment status under Kansas law, FedEx Ground claims that
53

New York law looks primarily to the control and supervision actually exercised and indicia of control not memorialized in the agreement.
The court doesn’t see the same distinction FedEx Ground perceives between Kansas law and New York law. The purported employer’s right to control is “the critical inquiry” under New York law. Bynog v. Cipriani Group, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 1090, 1092-1093 (N.Y. 2003). New York law looks specifically to the right to control the contracted results and the means by which the results are to be obtained, with the latter more important than the former. Noel v. Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 1082, 1083 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007); In re Claim of Cromer, 248 A.D.2d 773, 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998).
None of the cases FedEx Ground cites suggests that the inquiry can’t be made through a common Operating Agreement, at least when the parties suggest few deviations from that agreement in the field. For example, in In re Claim of Tyner, 257 A.D.2d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999), the court took a class-wide view of the degree of control a telephone directory distributor exercised over its delivery persons. Similarly, the issue was resolved in In re Claim of Rukh, 208 A.D.2d 1105 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994), through a class-wide discussion of the control a franchisor in radio-dispatched vehicles for hire exercised over its franchisees. The same approach was taken in In re Pepsi Cola Buffalo Bottling Corp., 144 A.D.2d 220 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988), which addressed franchised beverage delivery drivers.
54

Controlling New York law is not identical to Kansas law, but it is sufficiently similar that the court’s reasoning in the Kansas class certification opinion applies equally to the New York class certification motion.
In its post-Kansas brief, FedEx Ground also presented essentially the same argument the court addressed in the Alabama discussion concerning the need to go beyond the Operating Agreement’s terms based on the plaintiffs’ arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Alabama discussion, the court finds that argument unpersuasive.
The New York plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is granted.
MASSACHUSETTS The Massachusetts plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, claim damages because FedEx Ground is violating the state’s independent contractor law and the state’s wage law, and bring claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. They seek certification of a class of all who (1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now called forms OP-149 and OP-149 RES); (2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis since May 7, 1999 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and (3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts plaintiffs contend the proposed class is so numerous that joinder is impractical. At the time of its original brief, there were 292 drivers
55

for FedEx Ground, and there would be many others who entered into Operating Agreements during the class period. They also contend questions of law and fact are common to the class because FedEx Ground treats all class members the same way. They note that controlling Massachusetts law requires FedEx Ground — not the plaintiffs — to prove that the class members are independent contractors. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 149, § 148B(a)(1-3). That law, they argue, creates a presumption (common to the class) against independent contractor status. See Coverall N. Am., Inc. v. Commissioner of the Div. of Unemployment Assistance, 857 N.E.2d 1083 (Mass. 2006). The plaintiffs suggest that the statute itself creates a right to bring a representative action even if all elements of Federal Rule 23 are not met. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 149, § 150; see also Moore v. Barnsider Mgmt. Corp., No. 04-1360, 2006 WL 2423328, at *7 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 15, 2006).
The alleged misclassification of employees also, the plaintiffs say, provides a common issue for their common law quantum meruit claim, which focuses on enrichment to FedEx Ground rather than upon any individual plaintiffs. See Schumacher v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 605, 612-613 (D.S.D. 2004); In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 220 F.R.D. 672, 685-686 (S.D. Fla. 2004). A single analysis, plaintiffs say, will govern their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Massachusetts plaintiffs argue that the named representatives’ claims have the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large, so the
56

Rule 23(a) typicality requirement is satisfied even if some factual distinctions exist. The named plaintiffs, like the putative class members, are present and former drivers who were parties to the Operating Agreement. They and their counsel have zealously represented and advocated on behalf of the class as a whole.
The Massachusetts plaintiffs argue that the common questions predominate because they center on the meanings and functions of standardized forms or contracts. See Lucas v. GC Servs. L.P., 226 F.R.D. 337, 342 (N.D. Ind. 2005). FedEx Ground’s similar treatment of the class will provide the basis for determining the class members’ employment status. See, e.g., Flanagan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 228 F.R.D. 617 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
The Massachusetts plaintiffs argue that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudicating their controversy. They point to the efficiencies (and consequent reduced expenses) gained by use of a class action for common questions, and argue that most class members would be unable to pursue claims for relatively small awards. See Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980).
FedEx Ground argues the claims lack commonality because the putative class members have had varying experiences with FedEx Ground. The drivers are associated either with FedEx Ground Home Delivery or FedEx Ground Ground; some have multiple work areas, while others have single work areas. Massachusetts, FedEx Ground says, employs a nine-factor test taken from the
57

Second Restatement of Agency, Yohn v. L.A. Ruiz Assocs., Inc., No. 97384, 2002 WL 3177206, at *4 (Mass. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2002), and each factor must be considered for each driver. The Operating Agreement can’t provide a uniform answer, FedEx Ground contends, because the plaintiffs contend the Operating Agreement isn’t being followed. FedEx Ground contends that drivers vary in their abilities to determine their own schedules, to choose supplemental drivers and helpers, to control delivery methods, to select vehicles and control maintenance, to control volume of packages, and to control appearance. FedEx Ground also contends the legal issue isn’t quite as simple as the plaintiffs suggest. See American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Department of Indus. Accidents, No. 053469A, 2006 WL 2205085, at * 4 (Mass. Super. Ct. June 1, 2006). All in all, FedEx Ground argues, the Massachusetts plaintiffs’ claims will turn on careful examination of individualized evidence.
FedEx Ground asserts several conflicts exist within the purported class. Only about a quarter of the Massachusetts drivers agree with the remedy the plaintiffs propose; current and former drivers may have divergent interests; and multiple work area drivers have considerably less interest than single work area drivers in being deemed employees.
Finally, FedEx Ground argues that the class action device is not a superior method by which to litigate this case. The class definition refers to drivers who are full time, but doesn’t define the term. Since FedEx Ground doesn’t view the drivers as employees, its records won’t disclose who meets any definition that might be
58

chosen. For much the same reasons, FedEx Ground argues, the plaintiffs’ equitable relief claims are unfit for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2)
The court rejected the second and third arguments in the Kansas case, and the arguments are no stronger in the Massachusetts case. As to the third, FedEx Ground seems to have had no difficulty in identifying class members for purposes of quantifying the number of putative class members who disagree with the remedies the Massachusetts plaintiffs seek. The court concludes the challenge of class identification is considerably less daunting than FedEx Ground fears. The proposed class definition is “sufficiently definite enough to permit class members to be ascertained. See Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 565 F.2d 975, 977978 (7th Cir. 1977).
In its supplemental brief, FedEx Ground argues that Massachusetts employs a multi-factor test to determine employments status, see Yohn v. L.A. Ruiz Assocs., Inc., No. 97384, 2002 WL 31677206, at * 4 (Mass. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2002), so individual inquiries will predominate. FedEx Ground is correct.
The Massachusetts plaintiffs are correct that their law places upon an alleged employer the burden of proving independent contractor status and requires the alleged employer to prove three things:
(1) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and
(2) the service is performed outside the usual course of business of the employer; and
59

(3) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 149, § 148B(a)(1-3). Of necessity, then, FedEx Ground will be required to prove its drivers’ freedom from control, not only under the drivers’ contract, but also “in fact.” Unlike the evidence that will be needed to resolve the claims in most of the states discussed so far, FedEx Ground will need to prove freedom from control in practice, as well as freedom from control under the Operating Agreement. The Massachusetts plaintiffs may believe that freedom in fact need never be reached because FedEx Ground will be unable to carry its burden of showing freedom from control under the Operating Agreement, making the plaintiffs employees. Perhaps so, but this is not the time for decision on the merits. The Massachusetts plaintiffs also argue that Massachusetts law favors use of class actions both in this setting, MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 149, § 150, and in other settings governed by Massachusetts class action laws. See, e.g., Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 813 N.E.2d 476, 484-485 (Mass. 2004); Baldasarri v. Public Fin. Trust, 337 N.E.2d 701, 706 (Mass. 1975) (superceded by statute on another point of law). Massachusetts procedural law, though, is not a matter to be considered in deciding whether common issues of fact or law predominate. Massachusetts law doesn’t look solely to the right to control in deciding employment status. It looks to the relationship between payor and payee in the field, regardless of what control might be given the payor in the contract. Because
60

a class action would require examination of the actual relationship — not just the
relationship created by the Operating Agreement — between FedEx Ground and
292 drivers who would be class members, common questions do not predominate.
Whether the Operating Agreement vests too much control in FedEx Ground is a
common question, but is just one of several.
The Massachusetts plaintiffs’ motion for class certification must be denied.
CALIFORNIA
The California plaintiffs seek certification of three classes. First, as to their
FMLA claims, they seek certification of the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since November 17, 2001, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the United States.
As to their claims under California law, they seek certification of the following
class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since November 17, 2000, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of California.
Finally, they seek certification of a sub-class for their overtime claim:
61

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since November 17, 2001, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of California; and 4) at any time during the class period operated a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds.
The California plaintiffs argue that their proposed classes satisfy the
numerosity requirement: the FMLA class would include some 12,000 active
drivers across the nation, and the California class would include more than 1,000
active and former drivers, more than 100 of whom would be in the sub-class.
The California plaintiffs contend that the national FMLA claim raises several
questions common to class members: whether class members are “eligible
employees” under the FMLA, which turns on whether they are employees rather
than independent contractors; whether FedEx Ground interfered with class
members’ FMLA rights through the standard form Operating Agreement, uniform
company policies, and standard practices requiring drivers to forego FMLA leave
unless they can provide approved substitute drivers at their own expense. The
California plaintiffs argue that FedEx Ground teaches terminal managers to
discourage drivers from taking time off and to insist that drivers make contingency
plans to cover their routes in case of illness.
In applying the “economic realities test” applicable to FMLA claims, courts
consider the nature and degree of the employer’s control over the manner of
performance; the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss based on his
62

managerial skill; the alleged employee’s investment in equipment or materials, or his employment of workers; the degree of special skill required for the services rendered; the duration and permanence of the working relationship; and the extent to which the services rendered are integral to the alleged employer’s business. Secretary of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1534-1535 (7th Cir. 1987). The law applicable to the state law claims uses the same factors to determine whether the alleged employer “has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired.” S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399, 404 (Cal. 1989).
The California plaintiffs claim they satisfy the requirement of typicality because their claims arise from FedEx Ground’s practice of uniformly classifying drivers as independent contractors, thereby denying everyone rights under the FMLA, the California Labor Code, and the California unfair competition law. They contend their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) because FedEx Ground has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class by classifying them as independent contractors. They contend the court should certify a hybrid class on the state law claims, with a Rule 23(b)(2) class for the declaratory and injunctive claims and a Rule 23(b)(3) class for the damages claims.
FedEx Ground contends individualized analysis is required with respect to the issues of the control FedEx Ground actually exercises over drivers, the parties’ intent in signing an Operating Agreement that purports to establish an
63

independent contractor relationship, the extent of each driver’s investment in his or her business, the drivers’ opportunity to profit, whether a driver operates a distinct business, whether a driver has employees, the method of payment, whether the work ordinarily is performed under a supervisor or requires special skills, length of driver’s experience, and whether a given classification is a subterfuge.
Further, FedEx Ground argues, individualized analysis will be required for some of its defenses and some of the plaintiffs’ damages claims, such as whether expenses the plaintiffs say should have been reimbursed were reasonable, the amount of overtime a driver worked, what deductions should or could have been made from any employee paycheck, and whether certain purchases by drivers were coerced.
With respect to FMLA claims, FedEx Ground argues that the former drivers don’t have standing to assert a claim for wrongful interference with their FMLA rights, while current drivers must prove both their status as “eligible employees” under the FMLA, and that FedEx Ground interfered with their FMLA rights. Given its view that determining employment status requires individualized analysis, FedEx Ground further opines that the FMLA claim doesn’t involve common questions of fact or law. Finally, FedEx Ground says the proposed FMLA class members have impermissibly divergent interests because too few drivers want to be classified as employees.
64

FedEx Ground also argues that conflicts between the named plaintiffs and the purported class members preclude class certification. Most of the plaintiffs, they argue, are former drivers with no stake in injunctive relief, and the named plaintiffs alone present fraud claims. Further, FedEx Ground says single area contractors can’t represent multiple area contractors. FedEx Ground argues that the class action is not a superior method for resolution: the plaintiffs haven’t presented a trial plan or indicated how to decide which drivers were “full time.”
Previous analyses have addressed, and rejected, FedEx Ground’s arguments concerning standing of former drivers, the difficulty of identifying full time drivers, the superiority of the class action as a method for resolution, and the asserted conflict between class members. The court renews those conclusions here. The court does not read California law as does FedEx Ground. As the court understands the law that will govern the California plaintiffs’ state law claims, whether a driver is an employee or an independent contractor will turn on FedEx Ground’s right to control that driver, not on whether FedEx Ground fully exercised that control. See S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d at 408-410. Given the ubiquity of the Operating Agreement, FedEx Ground’s right to control its drivers is a common question that predominates over all other questions with respect to the California claims.
With respect to the FMLA claim, though, the court agrees with FedEx Ground. To establish a violation of the FMLA, a driver will have to establish that (1) the driver was eligible for the FMLA’s protections (in other words, an employee),
65

(2) FedEx Ground was covered by the FMLA, (3) the driver was entitled to leave under the FMLA, (4) the driver provided sufficient notice of his or her intent to take leave, and (5) FedEx Ground denied the FMLA benefits to which the driver was entitled. Burnett v. LFW, Inc., 472 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 2006). Whether the Operating Agreement creates an employment relationship and whether FedEx Ground is covered by the FMLA plainly constitute common issues of law and fact, but the remaining elements present individual questions. Those individual questions — Was a particular driver entitled to FMLA leave? Did that driver give notice of intent to take leave? Did FedEx Ground deny that driver FMLA leave? — will predominate.
The court grants the California plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a California class and sub-class, but denies the California plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a national FMLA class.
NEW JERSEY The New Jersey plaintiffs bring claims under New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law, N.J. STAT. ANN. § 34:11-4.1, et seq., and Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-1, et seq., breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing within the Operating Agreement, rescission of the Operating Agreement, quantum meruit damages for services performed, and declaratory and injunctive relief. They seek certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for their
66

damages claims, and of a class Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for their
claim for declaratory relief. Their proposed class definition under both rules is:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 19, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New Jersey.
The New Jersey plaintiffs say their proposed class meets the numerosity
requirement; 388 drivers currently are under contract with FedEx Ground (FedEx
Ground reports even more). As to commonality, the New Jersey courts look to §
220 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY (1958) to distinguish employees from
independent contractors, MacDougall v. Weichert, 677 A.2d 162, 190-191 (N.J.
1966):
(1) A servant is a person employed to perform services in the affairs of another and who with respect to the physical conduct in the performance of the services is subject to the other’s control or right to control.
(2) In determining whether one acting for another is a servant or an independent contractor, the following matters of fact, among others, are considered:
a. the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work;
b. whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;
c. the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision;
d. the skill required in the particular occupation; e. whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; f. the length of time for which the person is employed;
67

g. the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; h. whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the employer; i. whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant; and j. whether the principal is or is not in business. These constitute the common questions for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2), the New Jersey plaintiffs contend, because if they are employees, they are entitled to recovery under the New Jersey Wage Law of deductions that FedEx Ground took pursuant to the Operating Agreement, FedEx Ground’s treatment of the drivers as independent contractors would amount to both an unconscionable commercial practice under the New Jersey Commercial Fraud Act and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the drivers might be entitled to rescission on grounds of New Jersey public policy of protecting employees (and if the Operating Agreement is rescinded, they will be entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the value of the services they provided). The New Jersey plaintiffs say the preclusive effect of various administrative agency rulings also would amount to a common question of law. The New Jersey plaintiffs maintain they are members of the class they seek to represent and are adequate class representatives; their counsel is experienced and competent. FedEx Ground first contends that the New Jersey plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of the class. They filed incorrect interrogatory responses; their interests differ from the proposed class, most of whom want to be independent
68

contractors; the Teamsters are directing the litigation; the fee agreement between the New Jersey plaintiffs and their attorneys compromises the class; former drivers cannot represent current drivers; and the current driver, a single work area contractor, cannot represent multiple work area drivers.
Second, FedEx Ground contends that New Jersey law requires an individualized examination of each of the RESTATEMENT factors measured against each driver. These arguments are discussed below.
Third, FedEx Ground contends that individualized determinations will be needed for several of its defenses to the New Jersey plaintiffs’ state law claims. FedEx Ground says it will be entitled to set off losses caused by any driver’s negligence or conversion from any recovery under the Wage Payment Law. FedEx Ground says that any driver’s success on a rescission claim for a completed contract will require proof that a given driver was deprived of the full benefit of those contracts. FedEx Ground contends that any plaintiff’s recovery under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act requires proof of a causal nexus between the allegedly fraudulent practice and the resulting loss. The claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, FedEx Ground says, will require an inquiry into the understandings and intent of each individual driver. Further, FedEx Ground says, its statute of limitations defense will require individualized inquiry into when any particular driver became aware, or should have become aware, of the fraudulent activity.
69

Fourth, FedEx Ground argues, as it has in most other cases in this docket, that a class action isn’t the superior method for litigating each potential class member’s claims because the plaintiffs haven’t offered any trial plan and because putative class members have a strong interest in controlling the outcome of the litigation; these arguments are no more persuasive to the court than they have been in other cases. FedEx Ground also argues that the proposed class definition is unworkable because it doesn’t define “full time” (this is the same argument found unpersuasive when raised in other cases in this docket) and because it would include future drivers within the class.
Fifth and finally, FedEx Ground argues that the New Jersey plaintiffs’ equitable relief claims are unfit for class certification under 23(b)(2) because (1) the amended complaint doesn’t identify the injunctive relief sought; (2) the proposed class isn’t cohesive and homogeneous because most drivers don’t want such relief; (3) the claims lack commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) because each class member’s status will, for the reasons already set forth, turn on their individual circumstances; and (4) the claims are unfit for certification as a Rule 23(b)(2) class because the New Jersey plaintiffs’ primary objective is money damages.
The court has addressed many of FedEx Ground’s objections to the New Jersey plaintiffs’ adequacy to represent the proposed class in conjunction with class certification rulings for other states, and those arguments concerning the New Jersey plaintiffs are no more persuasive. FedEx Ground’s arguments about
70

incorrect interrogatory answers and what might be an unusual fee agreement are unique to New Jersey, but FedEx Ground doesn’t persuade the court that those matters impair the abilities of the named plaintiffs or their attorneys to represent the class.
FedEx Ground contends that each driver’s individual situation must be examined on its own merits under New Jersey law. FedEx Ground contends that its drivers differ with respect to their abilities to configure routes and take on routes they choose, their abilities to control income; their abilities to determine their own schedule; their abilities to choose supplemental drivers and helpers; their abilities to control the volume of packages; their abilities to select their own vehicle and control its maintenance; their abilities to control delivery methods; whether they are supervised or unsupervised; the degree of skill each driver must have; provision of equipment; length of time the driver worked for FedEx Ground; method of payment; manner of termination of the work relationship; whether a driver accrues annual leave; and the parties’ intent.
The court doesn’t read the cases FedEx Ground cites as providing support for its contention that these issues require driver-by-driver examination. Millard’s, Inc. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 385, 388 (D.N.J. 1956), presented the issue of whether roofers were employees for purpose of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act; the case appears to have presented no issue of New Jersey law at all. DaBronzo v. Roche Vitamins, Inc., 232 F. Supp. 2d 306, 316 (D.N.J. 2002), involved analysis of whether an asbestos contractor was an employee or an
71

independent contractor, but the relationship in DaBronzo doesn’t appear to have involved a contract as detailed as the FedEx Ground Operating Agreement. Finally, Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 345 (4th Cir. 1998), involved a class action by franchisees claiming the franchisor had misused funds the franchisees had paid for advertising. The court of appeals held the class should not have been certified because it allowed the franchisees to create a “perfect plaintiff.” The New Jersey plaintiffs, in contrast, contend that FedEx Ground has treated each driver the same: as an employee.
The New Jersey Supreme Court explained its test concisely: “The control test is satisfied whenever the employer retains the right of control, even if the employer may not exercise actual control over the worker.” Lowe v. Zarghami, 731 A.2d 14, 20 (1999). Regardless of how FedEx Ground may have dealt with any given driver, its right to control the drivers may be determined by reference to the Operating Agreement and related company policies. Whether the class members are employees or independent contractors is a common issue of fact and law.
FedEx Ground also contends that individualized determinations will be necessary for several of its defenses to the New Jersey plaintiffs’ state law claims. Again, the court reads the law differently. Miller v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 6 N.J. Tax 118, 133 (N.J. Tax Ct. 1983), provides no support at all for the proposition that FedEx Ground will be entitled to set off losses caused by any driver’s negligence or conversion from any recovery under the Wage Payment Law. The law is to the contrary. Male v. Acme Markets, Inc., 264 A.2d 245, 246 (N.J.
72

Super. Ct. App. Div. 1970). FedEx Ground is correct that causation is an element of recovery under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, but the common issue needn’t be the only issue in a class action. Seidenberg v. Summit Bank, 791 A.2d 1068, 1077 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002), doesn’t support FedEx Ground’s proposition that an inquiry into each driver’s intent will be needed to resolve the claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; Seidenberg addressed the methods of proof when an alleged breach of the implied covenant didn’t violate a pertinent express term of the contract.
Even when considering the defenses available to FedEx Ground, the matter of FedEx Ground’s right to control its drivers remains the predominant and common issue of fact and law.
Finally, FedEx Ground is factually correct that the New Jersey plaintiffs’ declaratory relief claim is simply a predicate to their damage claims, but that is no impediment to certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2). Berger v. Xerox Corp. Ret. Income Guarantee Plan, 338 F.3d 755, 764 (7th Cir. 2003) (“No one wants an empty declaration. As long as the concrete follow-on relief that is envisaged will if ordered (that is, if negotiations for relief consistent with the declaration break down) be the direct, anticipated consequence of the declaration, rather than something unrelated to it, the suit can be maintained under Rule 23(b)(2).”).
The court agrees with FedEx Ground that as the class is proposed, its statute of limitations defense would require individualized inquiry into when any particular driver became aware, or should have become aware, of the fraudulent
73

activity. Yarchak v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 208 F. Supp. 2d 470, 479 (D.N.J. 2002). The New Jersey plaintiffs recognize the potential merit in that argument, and suggested limiting class members to those who signed an Operating Agreement, for the first time, on or after May 19, 1999. The court will so modify the class definition.
With that modification, the court grants the New Jersey plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
MARYLAND Thomas Westcott, a former driver for the Home Delivery section of FedEx Ground, is the sole named plaintiff in the Maryland case. He seeks certification of the following class for claims for violation of Maryland’s wage statutes, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 5, 2003, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Maryland. Mr. Westcott seeks certification of a damages and unjust enrichment class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for the claims under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act, MD. CODE ANN., LAB & EMPL. § 3-501, et seq., and the unjust enrichment claims. He seeks certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for the declaratory relief claim.
74

Mr. Westcott points to the 218 drivers in Maryland at the time of his motion in support of the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1). He contends that because he and the other Maryland drivers are employees rather than independent contractors under Maryland law, the deductions FedEx Ground made from the drivers’ earnings violate the wage payment act. Alternatively, he seeks rescission of the Operating Agreement because it contravenes Maryland public policy against depriving an employee of a portion of the wages he has earned. In distinguishing between employees and independent contractors, the Maryland courts emphasize whether the alleged employer has the right of control over the alleged employee in respect to the work to be performed. Baltimore Harbor Charters Ltd. v. Ayd, 780 A.2d 303, 315-316 (Md. 2001). The right to control, Mr. Westcott argues, provides a common and predominant question of fact and law.
Mr. Westcott says he is a member of the class and his claims are essentially the same as those of other drivers, so his claims are typical of the class he seeks to represent. He points to his extensive participation in the case thus far as indicative of his adequacy as a class representative and to his attorneys’ experience as indicative of their adequacy.
Mr. Westcott presents the same arguments as most other plaintiffs in the docket with regard to the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) being satisfied by the damages claims because common issues of law and fact predominate and class adjudication is superior to other available methods of resolution, and with regard
75

to his request for declaratory judgment supporting certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2).
FedEx Ground contends Mr. Westcott is an inadequate class representative. FedEx Ground notes that Mr. Westcott periodically violated FedEx Ground rules concerning acquisition of recipient’s signatures, so his claims are subject to equitable defenses. Further, FedEx Ground contends that Mr. Westcott’s work ethic (he would, according to FedEx Ground, “rather stop working at noon than have his business succeed”) makes him an unacceptable representative of a class that contains hard-working drivers with entrepreneurial spirit. FedEx Ground also challenges Mr. Westcott’s standing to represent current drivers since (to the apparent surprise of his attorneys) he quit his position as a FedEx Ground driver, and his adequacy, as a former Home Division driver, to represent Ground drivers.
FedEx Ground also contends that individual questions predominate over common questions. In deciding whether one is an independent contractor, Maryland courts consider factors including the power of control, selection and engagement of employees, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer. FedEx Ground contends that each potential class member’s situation must be evaluated on its own merits. Moreover, FedEx Ground argues, since quantum meruit smacks of fraud, the court will have to decide what was said, to whom it was said, and who relied on which statements, which are individual questions.
76

Finally, FedEx Ground argues, as it has in several other cases in this docket, that Mr. Westcott offers no trial plan, the proposed class definition is unmanageable because it doesn’t define driving on “a full-time” basis, and putative class members have a strong interest in controlling the litigation’s outcome. FedEx Ground also raises the same objections as it raises in other cases to certification of a 23(b)(2) class on the declaratory judgment claim. These objections are no more persuasive with respect to Mr. Westcott’s class certification motion than in the other cases.
The court also disagrees with FedEx Ground that Mr. Westcott’s assertedly unclean hands will doom his claims and make him an unsuitable class representative; there is no nexus between Mr. Westcott’s allegedly improper conduct and the claims he brings. See Hicks v. Gilbert 762 A.2d 986, 990 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000). The court addressed the standing concerns in conjunction with the Tennessee case in this opinion.
The quantum meruit claim won’t require individual analysis. See Alternatives Unlimited, Inc. v. New Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 843 A.2d 252, 291 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004); Mogavero v. Silverstein, 790 A.2d 43, 51-52 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002)). Whether Maryland law creates a common question of law and fact or individualized issues with respect to employment status is more challenging. FedEx Ground cites L.M.T. Steel Prods., Inc. v. Peirson, 425 A.2d 242, 244 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1981), for the proposition that Maryland courts look to the parties’ actual conduct in deciding whether the power of control exists. This
77

may be so in some circumstances; L.M.T. Steel dealt with liability for a purported
employee’s negligent use of the alleged employer’s personal automobile. The Court
of Appeals of Maryland specifically addressed the test under the wage act in
Baltimore Harbor Charters, Ltd. v. Ayd, 780 A.2d 303 (Md. 2001), while noting
that different definitions may apply in different settings, see 780 A.2d at 314 n.9,
so the court needn’t ponder the meaning of L.M.T. Steel. For purposes of today’s
issue, though, Baltimore Harbor Charters leaves ample room for pondering.
After reviewing case law and statutes from California and several other
jurisdictions, and considering the RESTATEMENT test, the Baltimore Harbor
Charters court held:
The factors considered in this Court’s opinions regarding the doctrine of respondeat superior and construction of the term “employee” under the principles enumerated in Restatement (Second) of Agency, as well as the case law interpreting the term “employee” under the wage act statutes of other jurisdictions provide an appropriate framework for determining whether an individual is an employee covered by the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act. Such factors include:
1. Whether the employer actually exercised or had the right to exercise control over the performance of the individual’s work;
2. Whether the individual’s service is [] outside all the usual course of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed;
3. Whether the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business;
4. Whether it is the employer or the employee who supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and location for the work to be performed;
5. Whether the individual receives wages directly from the employer or from a third party for work performed on the employer’s behalf; and
78

6. Whether the individual held an ownership interest in the business such that the individual had the ability and discretion to affect the general policies and procedures of the business. 780 A.2d at 318-319. The first factor — whether the alleged employer “actually exercised or had the right to exercise control” — seems to present a need for individual analysis: it appears to be pertinent whether the employer had a right to control that was not “actually exercised.” The Baltimore Harbor Charters court went on, though, to offer guidance to the trial court on remand, explaining with respect to the first factor, “[t]he emphasis on the right to exercise control is whether Berman could have exercised control over Ayd, not whether he actually did.” 780 A.2d at 319. Accordingly, as the court reads Maryland law, a plaintiff can prove himself an employee by showing a right to control or, in a different sort of case, actual control when no right to control actually exists. The court understands Mr. Westcott to bring his claims based wholly on the right to control reserved to FedEx Ground under the Operating Agreement, not upon FedEx Ground’s actual exercise (or forbearance) of control. If the court’s understanding is correct, the Operating Agreement is all that will be needed to determine whether FedEx Ground has a right to control such as to support Mr. Westcott’s claim of employee status. The remaining factors in the Baltimore Harbor Charters test can be resolved, too, without reference to differential treatment of individual drivers.
79

The court grants Mr. Westcott’s motion to certify the Maryland classes.
MICHIGAN The Michigan plaintiffs seek certification of the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for their claims of breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, and under Rule 23(b)(2) for their declaratory judgment claim. The proposed class includes:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since October 25, 1998, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Michigan. The Michigan plaintiffs’ arguments are nearly identical to those Mr. Westcott raised on Maryland class’s behalf, with the necessary exception of the controlling state law. FedEx Ground responds with much the same arguments, augmented by a stronger assault on the role it perceives the Teamsters to be playing in Michigan — an argument no more persuasive with respect to the Michigan class than it was with respect to the New Jersey class certification motion. The propriety of class certification turns, then, on whether the issue of the class members’ classification as independent contractors presents a common question under Michigan law. To decide whether one party is another’s employer, Michigan courts use an “economic reality test” that entails consideration of control, payment of wages,
80

hiring and firing, and responsibility for the maintenance of discipline. Ashker v. Ford Motor Co., 627 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). No single factor is controlling. Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 364 N.W.2d 670, 673 (Mich. 1984).
The parties’ disappointing citation choices slowed the court in resolving the Michigan motion. For example, FedEx Ground argues that by “control,” Michigan courts mean actual control, a proposition for which they cite Wells v. Firestone Tire, 364 N.W.2d at 673-674. Whatever support Wells provides for FedEx Ground is not immediately apparent. The Wells court considered which of two corporations employed the plaintiff. The section cited by FedEx Ground doesn’t seem to consider control in the slightest, though it notes a distinction between the organizational chart and actual practice when it came to hiring and firing. Another of the cases FedEx Ground cites, Aero Taxi-Rockford v. General Motors Corp., No. 259565, 2006 WL 1479915, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. May 30, 2006), neither applied nor discussed the economic reality test.
Similarly, the Michigan plaintiffs cite Farrell v. Dearborn Mfg. Co., 330 N.W.2d 397, 400 (Mich. 1982), for the proposition that, “The ‘control’ element of the test subsumes the common law ‘control test,’” but the court’s several rereadings of that page (and the rest of the case) disclose nothing from which that principle appears to be drawn. The Michigan plaintiffs also cite Goodchild v. Erickson, 134 N.W.2d 191, 193 (Mich. 1965), for the proposition that courts are to look for the right to control, rather than actual control. The Goodchild case
81

contains such language, but the language is contained in a quotation from a 1918 case, Arnett v. Hayes Wheel Co., 166 N.E. 957 (Mich. 1918), explaining a test no longer used by the Michigan courts.
Mantei v. Michigan Pub. Sch. Employees Ret. Sys., 663 N.W.2d 486, 495497 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003), is more instructive. Mantei considered whether a school principal was employed or retired for purposes of retirement benefits — a different sort of issue than in this case, but the court applied the economic realities test. When analyzing the control factor, the Mantei court discussed the contract under which one entity was to provide the school district with a qualified person to fill the principal position, and identified the work requirements the person was to satisfy. The school superintendent, though, testified that he didn’t supervise or evaluate the plaintiff as he had when the school district employed him, and set forth specific areas in which that lesser supervision arose. The court went on to discuss only the right to control the principal, rather than actual control that was exercised, and concluded that the school district had some control over the principal because the contract with the other entity provided the right to control to some degree. Id. at 496-497.
Still more instructive is Kidder v. Miller-Davis Co., 564 N.W.2d 872 (Mich. 1997),3 another case with a very different sort of issue, but governed by Michigan’s
3 Even with respect to this case, FedEx Ground’s citation is disappointing. In arguing that Michigan courts look to actuality rather than contractual right to control, FedEx Ground quotes the Kidder court as saying, “[j]ust as we have held that control is but one factor to consider under the economic-reality test, so is the contract but one factor” (emphasis provided by FedEx Ground). The quote is accurate, but the Kidder court was discussing the portion of the contract
82

economic realities test. At issue in Kidder was whether the worker compensation law barred an injured worker’s tort suit against the contractor on whose work site he was injured or the labor broker that sent him to that work site. The court applied the economic realities test and concluded that the worker was an employee of both. Most important to today’s case, a contract existed between the labor broker and the construction contractor, see 564 N.W.2d at 879 n.8, but the court examined the control each potential employer actually exerted over the workers — not just the over plaintiff, but over all the workers at the site. Id. at 880.
Sliter v. Cobb, 200 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 1972), involved a vehicular collision between the plaintiff and a newspaper deliverer. The newspaper sought summary judgment on the ground that the deliverer was an independent contractor rather than its employee. The supreme court looked only to the issue of control, but did so with respect to both contractual right to control and actual control. Id. at 207208.
These cases persuade the court that while FedEx Ground’s right to control its drivers under the Operating Agreement is an issue common to all class members, that common issue does not predominate because individual issues will
that disavowed any employer-employee relationship, not the contract’s impact on the control analysis. See Kidder, 564 N.W.2d at 881.
On a similar note, FedEx Ground accurately quotes Roostertail, Inc. v. Patti Page, Pattack, Inc., 188 N.W.2d 224, 228 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971), as saying, “[t]he actual relationship of the parties, not merely their characterization of that relationship, is relevant” (emphasis provided by FedEx Ground), but the Roostertail court was discussing federal labor law, not Michigan law.
83

have to be considered — matters of actual control, not just the right to control — for each of more than 350 class members. Class treatment is inappropriate in light of governing Michigan law, so the court denies the Michigan plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
MINNESOTA The Minnesota plaintiffs allege violations of Minnesota’s Illegal Deductions from Wages Law, MINN. STAT. § 181.79, subd. 1, Failure to Keep Records Law, MINN. STAT. § 177.30, and Consumer Fraud Act, MINN. STAT. § 325F.69, subd. 1. They seek rescission of the Operating Agreement, quantum meruit damages for services performed, and declaratory and injunctive relief. They seek certification of the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since April 5, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Minnesota. The Minnesota plaintiffs’ wage deduction claim seeks reimbursement of sums that FedEx Ground deducts or withholds from drivers’ earnings to cover FedEx Ground’s ordinary business expenses. The record-keeping claim asserts that the drivers are employees as to whom FedEx Ground has not kept records required by statute. The consumer fraud claim appears to be based on FedEx Ground’s representation to the drivers that they are independent contractors.
84

Apart from the controlling law, the Minnesota plaintiffs make essentially the same argument Mr. Westcott made for the Maryland class. The Minnesota plaintiffs report that there were 355 drivers in Minnesota when they filed their class certification motion. The Minnesota plaintiffs say they will rely on common proof, including the Operating Agreement, FedEx Ground standard policies, and training and programmatic treatment of its drivers, to establish that the drivers are employees rather than independent contractors.
FedEx Ground raises many of the same arguments already rejected in this order with respect to the Minnesota plaintiffs. FedEx Ground says the named plaintiffs are inadequate class representatives because (as former drivers) they have no stake in any claim for injunctive or declaratory relief, because the class disagrees on the proposed remedy, and because the named plaintiffs have shown little interest in growing their businesses, they can’t represent multiple work area drivers or even single work area drivers. FedEx Ground also argues that a class action is not the superior method for litigating each potential class member’s claims because the plaintiffs offer no trial plan, don’t define “full time,” and putative class members have a strong interest in controlling the outcome of the litigation.
The Minnesota plaintiffs and FedEx Ground generally agree that Minnesota courts apply the following factors to decide whether a person is an employee or independent contractor: (1) the right to control the means and manner of performance; (2) the mode of payment; (3) the furnishing of material or tools; (4)
85

the control of the premises where the work is done; and (5) the right of the employer to discharge. MINN. R. 3313.0555; Boily v. Commissioner of Econ. Sec., 544 N.W.2d 295, 296 (Minn. 1996). The right to control the means and manner of performance “generally carries the greatest weight in a determination of the worker’s status.” Boily v. Commissioner, 544 N.W.2d at 296. If the first five factors don’t produce an answer, Minnesota courts then consider (1) availability to public, (2) compensation on job basis, (3) realization of profit or loss, (4) obligation, (5) substantial investment, (6) simultaneous contracts, (7) responsibility, and (8) services in the course of the employing unit’s organization, trade, or business. MINN. R. 3315.0555, subd. 2.
FedEx Ground contends that Minnesota law requires examination of each factor with respect to each driver. FedEx Ground notes that in Boily v. Commissioner, 544 N.W.2d at 296, the court looked to the putative employer’s opportunity in addition to the right to control. As this court reads the opinion, though, the look to opportunity was merely an observation on the way to a holding, and formed no part of the Boily court’s reasoning or holding:
Inasmuch as Dr. Boily is a resident of California, it is apparent that his opportunity to control the manner and means of the three dentists whose status is in question would be extremely limited even if the right of control had been reserved. It appears, however, that Dr. Boily did not reserve to himself the right to control the manner in which the dentists practice their profession. Id. FedEx Ground also cites Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, 155 F.3d 331, 345 (4th Cir. 1998), for the proposition that each potential class member’s
86

situation must be evaluated on its own merits; the inapplicability of Broussard was discussed with reference to the New Jersey class.
Thus, even if FedEx Ground actually allowed variations between drivers with respect to such things as choosing supplemental drivers, delivery methods, determining schedule, controlling package volume, reconfiguring routes, taking on routes of the driver’s choice, controlling income, selecting vehicles and controlling maintenance, and controlling appearance, FedEx Ground cites no authority for the proposition that such variations matter if — as the drivers claim — FedEx Ground had the authority to control such things. FedEx Ground argues that there also are variations between drivers as to mode of payment, furnishing of materials or tools, control of the premises where the work is done, and the right to discharge cannot be evaluated on the basis of classwide proof.
The differences as to payment appear to deal with calculation of payment, rather than mode of payment. Similarly, the differences FedEx Ground cites with respect to furnishing (or acquisition) of tools do not appear germane to whether the drivers are employees; it appears from FedEx Ground’s argument that FedEx Ground gives all drivers the same choices. FedEx Ground doesn’t appear to dispute that it has control over the terminals, though it posits that the terminals are not where the drivers do most of their work.
As to the specific state law claims, FedEx Ground argues that individual inquiry will be required as to some of its defenses, such as waiver and estoppel. FedEx Ground also says it might raise a laches defense to the rescission claim.
87

The variety of individual defenses, though, doesn’t eliminate the presence of a
predominant common question of fact. See LaFlamme v. Carpenters Local No. 370
Pension Plan, 212 F.R.D. 448, 455 (N.D. N.Y. 2003); Gaspar v. Linvatec Corp., 167
F.R.D. 51, 58 (N.D. Ill. 1996). As to the record-keeping claims, FedEx Ground says
it kept the required information as to at least some drivers, but that millions of
pages of weekly settlement statements and daily settlement records will need to
be reviewed to identify those drivers. This seems more in the nature of an
admission than a reason not to certify a class, since Minnesota law appears to
require such records as to each employee — if the drivers are employees.
FedEx Ground says a showing of reliance is essential for Consumer Fraud
Act cases seeking damages, for which FedEx Ground quotes Group Health Plan,
Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2, 14 (Minn. 2001), as saying a “showing
of reliance . . . must be made.” (emphasis by FedEx Ground). FedEx Ground’s use
of this case as authority for this proposition is nothing short of astonishing. The
quoted words are taken from the following paragraph, which makes abundantly
clear that no individual inquiry need be made into reliance under the Minnesota
Consumer Fraud Act:
More to the point, in cases such as this, where the plaintiffs’ damages are alleged to be caused by a lengthy course of prohibited conduct that affected a large number of consumers, the showing of reliance that must be made to prove a causal nexus need not include direct evidence of reliance by individual consumers of defendants’ products. Rather, the causal nexus and its reliance component may be established by other direct or circumstantial evidence that the district court determines is relevant and probative as to the relationship between the claimed damages and the alleged prohibited
88

conduct. Further, in the context of the certified question, we reject the view expressed in two federal court decisions that our misrepresentation in sales laws require proof of individual reliance in all actions seeking damages. To impose a requirement of proof of individual reliance in the guise of causation would reinstate the strict common law reliance standard that we have concluded the legislature meant to lower for these statutory actions. Moreover, we are confident that the legislature would not have authorized private damages actions such as this, where the alleged misrepresentations are claimed to have affected a large number of consumers, while retaining a strict burden of proof that depends on evidence of individual consumer reliance.
Group Health Plan v. Philip Morris, 621 N.W.2d at 14-15 (internal citations
omitted).
Whether the Minnesota drivers were employees or independent contractors
is a common question of fact that can be decided on a class-wide basis. The court
grants the Minnesota plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
PENNSYLVANIA
Derek Willis asks the court to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) for his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, for damages
for violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and for
rescission of the Operating Agreement. Mr. Willis also seeks certification under
Rule 23(b)(2) for his injunctive and declaratory relief claims. He seeks to certify the
following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused
89

employment absences) since July 25, 2001, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The parties make essentially the same arguments as those presented in the other states. Mr. Willis says the proposed Pennsylvania class is so numerous (571 Pennsylvania drivers at the time of the motion) that joinder is impractical, that the question of employee or independent contractor is common to the proposed class and can be resolved without analysis of individual drivers, that his claim (he is a former FedEx Ground driver who worked under the standard Operating Agreement) is typical of absent class members, and that he is an adequate class representative. With respect to his request to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) for the damages claims, Mr. Willis says the common issue (employee v. independent contractor) predominates, and a class action is superior to other methods of resolving the claims. With respect to his request to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for the injunctive and declaratory claims, Mr. Willis argues that through its use of the Operating Agreement, FedEx Ground has treated the class as a whole in the same way. FedEx Ground’s argument that Mr. Willis lacks standing because he no longer drives for FedEx Ground is no stronger than in other cases already discussed, though it is more interesting because FedEx Ground fired Mr. Willis after he filed this suit and gave his deposition. See Wetzel v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 508 F.2d 239, 247 (3d Cir. 1975). FedEx Ground also argues, as it has with
90

respect to named plaintiffs from other states, that Mr. Willis can’t adequately
represent FedEx Ground HD drivers, multiple work area contractors, or single
work area contractors who want to expand their businesses; the putative class
doesn’t want the remedy Mr. Willis seeks and has a strong interest in controlling
the litigation’s outcome; Mr. Willis offers no trial plan; the class definition is
unmanageable because it doesn’t define “full time driver;” and the declaratory
claim is unsuitable for Rule 23(b)(2) certification because Mr. Willis’s primary
objective is money damages. The court has considered and rejected each of those
arguments already in this opinion.
The remaining class certification issues turn on whether Pennsylvania law
allows the central issue of employee vs. independent contractor to be resolved
without examining each individual driver.
In determining whether a relationship is one of employeremployee or independent contractor, “. . . the basic inquiry is whether such person is subject to the alleged employer’s control or right to control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the services for which he was engaged. The hallmark of an employeeemployer relationship is that the employer not only controls the result of the work but has the right to direct the manner in which the work shall be accomplished; the hallmark of an independent contractee-contractor relationship is that the person engaged in the work has the exclusive control of the manner of performing it, being responsible only for the result.”
Urbano v. STAT Courier, Inc., 878 A.2d 58, 61 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (quoting
Valles v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 758 A.2d 1238, 1244 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000)).
Pennsylvania courts consider (1) the control of the manner that work is to be
done; (2) responsibility for result only; (3) terms of the parties’ agreement; (4) the
91

nature of the work or occupation; (5) skill required; (6) whether engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (7) which party supplies the tools; (8) whether payment is by the time or by the job; (9) whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer; and (10) the right to terminate the employment at any time. Morin v. Brassington, 871 A.2d 844, 850 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (citing Lynch v. WCAB, 554 A.2d 159, 160 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989)); Shay v. Flight C Helicopter Servs., Inc., 822 A.2d 1, 13-14 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). The right to control the manner in which another’s work is to be accomplished is paramount. Morin v. Brassington, 871 A.2d at 850.
With respect to these factors, whether and to what extent FedEx Ground has the right of control can be resolved by reference to the Operating Agreement and FedEx Ground policies. The extent to which FedEx Ground exercised its right to control with respect to a given employee or terminal won’t change the analysis: while one might become an employer by exercising more authority than is contractually granted, see, e.g., Urbano v. STAT Courier, 878 A.2d 58, neither side has cited a Pennsylvania case in which forbearance of the exercise of contractually granted power to control affects the analysis. See JFC Temps, Inc. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd. (Lindsay), 680 A.2d 862, 864 (Pa. 1996).
That common question — whether the Operating Agreement and FedEx Ground policies based on the Operating Agreement vest in FedEx Ground such right to control the manner of the drivers’ performance of their work that FedEx Ground is the drivers’ employer — predominates over all other issues in the sense
92

that it is the keystone to each of Mr. Willis’s claims. Whether the Wage Payment and Collection Law allowed the challenged deductions from the drivers’ pay turns on whether the drivers are employees. If the Operating Agreement properly classifies the drivers as independent contractors, the rescission claim must fail.
For these reasons, the court grants Mr. Willis’s motion to certify a class of drivers dispatched from Pennsylvania terminals.
NEW HAMPSHIRE The New Hampshire plaintiffs assert claims under New Hampshire law for failure to pay overtime, N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 279:21 VIII, and to provide meal breaks, N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:30-a, unauthorized deductions from compensation, N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:48, failure to reimburse expenses, N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:57, violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act, N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. ch. 358-A, et seq., rescission, failure to reimburse employee expenses, and also seek declaratory relief. They seek certification of the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since April 27, 2002, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New Hampshire. For the most part, the New Hampshire plaintiffs and FedEx Ground raise the same arguments that already have been address in the Kansas certification opinion and this opinion. The New Hampshire plaintiffs point to 80 drivers in New
93

Hampshire as proof of numerosity. FedEx Ground raises arguments already considered concerning the putative class’s minority position within the workforce as far as remedy and the general unsuitability of these claims for class treatment. The parties disagree as to the controlling state law.
The New Hampshire plaintiffs contend the drivers are employees. If this is so, they argue, they are entitled to unpaid compensation, breaks, standard deductions, and unpaid business expenses, including business expenses such as truck payments, vehicle insurance, vehicle maintenance, deductions for workers’ compensation insurance, and any wages withheld other than what New Hampshire statutes allow.
FedEx Ground first argues that New Hampshire law effectively precludes class certification of these claims. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:53 provides that actions asserting claims such as the New Hampshire plaintiffs’ statutory claims may only be brought “by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves, or such employee or employees may designate an agent or representative to maintain such action.” Given that provision, FedEx Ground reasons, only the person claiming employee status or someone that person has designated has standing to assert claims.
FedEx Ground cites Trezvant v. Fidelity Employer Servs. Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Mass. 2006), in support of its reading of N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:53, but that case contains no holding of help to FedEx Ground. The Trezvant court acknowledged the possible construction that FedEx Ground advances here
94

— “The New Hampshire statute may contain such an express limitation. The
wording of the statute and the lack of class action employee wage lawsuits in New
Hampshire leaves a significant degree of doubt as to whether class actions are
allowed,” 434 F. Supp. 2d at 57 — but went on to hold that the Trezvant plaintiffs’
Fair Labor Standards Act claim subsumed their state law claim. N.H. REV. STAT.
ANN. § 279:21 specifically excludes overtime claims covered by the FLSA. 434 F.
Supp. 2d at 57-58.
This court doesn’t read N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:53 to prohibit class
actions. As this court reads the statute, § 275:53 broadens the class of persons
who may bring specified suits to include designated agents or representatives.
FedEx Ground hasn’t persuaded the court that the statute limits standing rather
than broadening it.
For purposes of the statutory claims, an “employee” is defined as:
. . . every person who may be permitted, required, or directed by any employer, in consideration of direct or indirect gain or profit, to engage in any employment, but shall not include any person exempted from the definition of employee as stated in Rev. Stat. Ann. 281-A:2, VI(b)(2), (3), or (4), or Rev. Stat. Ann. VII(b), . . . or any person who meets all of the following criteria:
(a) The person possesses or has applied for a federal employer identification number . . . .
(b) The person has control and discretion over the means and manner of performance of the work in [achieving] the result of the work . . . .
(c) The person has control over the time when the work is performed, and the time of performance is not dictated by the employer. . . .
(e) The person holds himself or herself out to be in business for himself or herself. . . .
95

(l) The person is not required to work exclusively for the employer. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:42(II). With respect to their common law claims, the New Hampshire plaintiffs say their status turns on whether FedEx Ground controls or has the right to control the manner of the task they are to perform, citing Harper v. Healthsource New Hampshire, Inc., 674 A.2d 962, 966 (N.H. 1996), and Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d 328, 329 (N.H. 1994). FedEx Ground reads New Hampshire law differently. FedEx Ground says New Hampshire courts look beyond control to the “totality of the circumstances” of the alleged employment in deciding whether a person is an independent contractor. FedEx Ground cites four cases for its position: Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d 328, 329 (N.H. 1994) (which the plaintiffs also cite); Royal Burnham v. Downing, 480 A.2d 128, 130 (N.H. 1984); Merchants Ins. Group v. Warchol, 560 A.2d 1162, 1165 (N.H. 1989); and Walker v. Charles DiPrizio & Sons, Inc., 348 A.2d 355 (N.H. 1975). The court doesn’t read New Hampshire law as FedEx Ground does. Until 1970, New Hampshire looked only to the purported employer’s right to control, so one without a right to control the alleged employee could never be an employer. Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d at 329. In 1970, the New Hampshire Supreme Court broadened its test to one examining the totality of the circumstances and held that a regular employee who was sent on a specific
96

errand, was using his own car with the employer’s knowledge and permission, and was acting within the scope of his employment when he collided with the plaintiffs, was an “employee” for purposes of tort liability, even though the employer may not have had the “right to control the manner and means (the details, in other words) of operating the car.” Hunter v. R. G. Watkins & Son, Inc., 265 A.2d 15, 17 (N.H. 1970).
The court parts ways with FedEx Ground’s reading of the law at the point FedEx Ground implicitly concludes that one with right to control the manner and means of the task’s execution can shed its employer status under New Hampshire law if it can marshal enough of the factors from the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220. None of the New Hampshire cases that FedEx Ground cites found an independent contractor relationship notwithstanding the hiring party’s right to control the method and means of the other’s work. This is consistent with the New Hampshire court’s understanding that the Hunter court adopted a “more expansive view of the relationship and its determination,” Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d at 329.
Individual analysis of each driver might well be required if the New Hampshire plaintiffs claimed the other RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220 factors made them employees despite a lack of FedEx Ground control over the manner and means by which drivers are to complete their work. But that is not this case. The New Hampshire plaintiffs contend that the Operating Agreement vests such right to control in FedEx Ground as to make the drivers employees.
97

The individual RESTATEMENT factors that FedEx Ground analyzes in its response appear quite unlikely to affect that contention.
Both the statutory and common law claims may be resolved solely by reference to FedEx Ground policies and the Operating Agreement. The court will grant the New Hampshire plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
SOUTH CAROLINA The South Carolina plaintiffs seek certification of classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) for statutory claims for unlawful wage deductions under South Carolina Labor Law, S.C. CODE ANN. § 41-10-40, common law claims for rescission and unjust enrichment, and a claim for declaratory relief. S.C. CODE ANN. § 15-53-20. They seek certification of the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since September 6, 2002, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of South Carolina. The South Carolina plaintiffs report that there were 162 active drivers in South Carolina when they filed their class certification motion. Apart from issues dependent on South Carolina law, neither the South Carolina plaintiffs nor FedEx Ground raised any arguments on this motion that the court hasn’t already resolved in favor of driver plaintiffs and against FedEx Ground.
98

The South Carolina plaintiffs assert that the state’s statutes don’t define “employee,” so to distinguish between employees and independent contractors, South Carolina courts look to the hiring party’s right and authority to control and direct the manner or means by which the undertaking is to be accomplished, not the actual control the hiring party exercised. The South Carolina plaintiffs cite Dawkins v. Jordan, 534 S.E.2d 700, 704 (S.C. 2000), for that proposition, and further cite Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 538 S.E.2d 276, 280 (S.C. Ct. App. 2000), for the proposition that the right to control makes the hired party an employee even if the hiring party doesn’t exercise that control.
FedEx Ground reads South Carolina’s test as one requiring a fact-specific determination based on four factors: “(1) direct evidence of the right or exercise of control; (2) method of payment; (3) furnishing of equipment; and (4) right to fire.” South Carolina Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Ray Covington Realtors, Inc., 459 S.E.2d 302, 303 (S.C. 1995). FedEx Ground says the parties’ intent is the primary test of whether a contract forms an independent contractor relationship, and that South Carolina courts look to actions as well as the contract in determining the parties’ intent, citing Young v. Warr, 165 S.E.2d 797, 805 (S.C. 1969), and Fulton by Fulton v. Westvaco Corp., 930 F. Supp. 1115 (D.S.C. 1995) .
The court finds no ambiguity at all in South Carolina law: the right to control the manner and means of performance creates an employer-employee relationship. Whether the control is exercised does not affect the nature of the relationship. For example, in Dawkins v. Jordan, 534 S.E.2d 700, 703 (S.C. 2000),
99

the court of appeals had held that the putative employer did not exercise control
over the project; the supreme court explained, “The Court of Appeals
misinterpreted the testimony and misapplied the law on the right to control. Both
Dawkins and Jordan testified Dawkins supervised the McEntire project because
Dawkins was more experienced. For purposes of establishing an employer-
employee relationship, the question is not whether the employer actually exercised
control, but whether the alleged employer had the right to control and direct the
particular work or undertaking.”
The South Carolina Supreme Court also distinguished between the right to
control and actual control in Young v. Warr, 165 S.E.2d 797, 802 (S.C. 1969)):
The general test applied is that of control by the employer. It is not the actual control then exercised, but whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment. . . . [T]he right of power of control retained by the person for whom the work is being done is uniformly regarded as the essential criterion for determining whether the workman is an employee or an independent contractor.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals explained in Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co.,
538 S.E.2d 276 (S.C. Ct. App. 2000), that an unused right to control remains a
right to control for purposes of determining the nature of an agency relationship:
The fundamental test of the employment relationship is the right of the employer to control the details of the employee’s work. It is not the actual control exercised, but whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment.
The test is based on the right to control, not the exercise. By an “exercise test,” the employee would seem to be uncontrolled; yet, “it will often be found that the employer, in any showdown, would have
100

the ultimate right to dictate the method of work if there were any occasion to do so.” The right to control does not require the dictation of the thinking and manner of performing the work. It is enough if the employer has the right to direct the person by whom the services are to be performed, the time, place, degree, and amount of said services. 538 S.E.2d at 280 (citations omitted). The four factors to which FedEx Ground points don’t add to the inquiry into control; they steer the determination of whether the alleged employer has the right of control. See South Carolina Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Ray Covington Realtors, 459 S.E.2d at 303 (“In determining the control issue, this Court has looked at four factors: (1) direct evidence of the right or exercise of control; (2) method of payment; (3) furnishing of equipment; and (4) right to fire.”); Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transp. Co., 638 S.E.2d 109, 113-114 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006) (“The test to determine whether a claimant is an employee or an independent contractor is if the alleged employer has the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment. Four factors determine the right of control.” (internal citation and quotation omitted)). FedEx Ground cites no case in which any or all of those factors outweighed a contractually created right to control the manner and means of performance of the contracted undertaking. Compare Kilgore Group, Inc. v. South Carolina Empl. Sec. Comm’n, 437 S.E.2d 48 (S.C. 1993) (no contract; court looked to extrinsic evidence to determine agency relationship); Gamble v. Stevenson, 406 S.E.2d 350, 352 (S.C. 1991) (contract declared relationship to be one of independent contractor, but other evidence supported finding of employment);
101

Fulton by Fulton v. Westvaco Corp., 930 F. Supp. 1115, 1118-1119 (D.S.C. 1995) (contract declared independent contractor relationship, so other factors were addressed, as well).
Whether the FedEx Ground drivers are employees can be determined from the Operating Agreement and corporate documents, without reference to individual circumstances. Whether the drivers are employees is the predominant issue for each of the South Carolina plaintiffs’ claims. The court will grant the South Carolina plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
MISSOURI The Missouri plaintiffs seek certification of the following class under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) to prosecute their statutory claim for unauthorized wage deductions, MO. REV. STAT. § 290.010, their common law claim for rescission and unjust enrichment, and their claim for declaratory relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP- 149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since March 6, 2001 to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Missouri. Apart from arguments dependent on Missouri law, the parties present arguments already discussed in this opinion and in the Kansas class certification opinion. The Missouri plaintiffs argue that they satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) because there are so many drivers that joinder is impractical (there were 221
102

drivers in Missouri when the motion was filed), there are questions of law and fact common to the class (whether the drivers are employees or independent contractors), their claims are typical of missing class members (all of whom signed the Operating Agreement), and the Missouri plaintiffs are adequate class representatives (they are members of the class). The Missouri plaintiffs argue, too, that their damage claims are appropriate for class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3) because the issue of employment status predominates over individual issues and because the cost savings of a class action (and the risk of retaliation individual drivers might face) make it the superior method of resolving the case. Finally, they argue their claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief are appropriate for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) because FedEx Ground, by miscategorizing each driver as an independent contractor, is acting on grounds generally applicable to the class.
FedEx Ground argues that the Missouri plaintiffs — all former single work area drivers out of a single Home Delivery terminal — lack standing, can’t represent current multiple work area or Ground drivers, and don’t represent the aspirations of most Missouri drivers. FedEx Ground argues that Missouri’s test for agency status requires individualized analysis, class certification is inappropriate when contractor status is at issue, and the Missouri plaintiffs offer no trial plan and too inexact a class definition (because of the limitation to fulltime drivers).
103

Each of those arguments has been resolved in favor of class certification when presented with respect to certification motions from other states, and the parties present nothing to lead to a different ruling with respect to the Missouri motion. FedEx Ground also raises a unique argument about some of the named Missouri plaintiffs having given deposition testimony that FedEx Ground finds unconvincing, but the court does not see the cited testimony as making any of the named plaintiffs inadequate representatives.
The class certification issue, then, comes down to whether Missouri law is (as the Missouri plaintiffs argue) amenable to class determination of the drivers’ agency status or requires (as FedEx Ground argues) a driver-by-driver analysis.
It appears to the court that while the right to control determines whether one is an employee or independent contractor, see, e.g., Cloninger v. Wolfe, 477 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972) (“[t]he ultimate test in determining whether a person is a servant or bears some other relationship to the supposed master is whether the latter had the right to exercise control over the details of the servant’s work”), the concept of “right to control” is more intricate in Missouri than in most states. Whether the “right to control” exists in Missouri’s sense requires analysis of eight factors:
The factors to consider in determining whether or not the requisite right to control exists are: “(1) the extent of control, (2) the actual exercise of control, (3) the duration of the employment, (4) the right to discharge, (5) the method of payment, (6) the degree to which the alleged employer furnished equipment, (7) the extent to which the work is the regular business of the employer, and (8) the employment contract.”
104

Leach v. Board of Police Comm’rs, 118 S.W.3d 646, 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Phillips v. Par Elec. Contractors, 92 S.W.3d 278, 282 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002), and State v. Turner, 952 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)). Thus, for example, in Nunn v. C.C. Midwest, 151 S.W.3d 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004), a written agreement governed the relationship between Mr. Nunn and CC Mid West, and that agreement established a right to control, but the court analyzed each of the eight factors. At the second factor, the court concluded that CC Mid West actually exercised control; despite having found both a contractual right to control and the actual exercise of control — which would end the inquiry in most states — the court went on to evaluate the remaining factors. 151 S.W.3d at 400-402.
Nothing in the other cases the parties cited is inconsistent with the court’s understanding that Missouri defines the “right to control “ concept differently than do other states. See Talley v. Bowen Constr. Co., 340 S.W.2d 701, 705 (Mo. 1960); Summer Chase Second Addition Subdivision Homeowners Ass’n v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 146 S.W.3d 411, 417 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004); Phillips v. Par Elec. Contractors, 92 S.W.3d 278, 282 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002), overruled on other grounds, Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. 2003); Hinton v. Bohling Van & Storage Co., 796 S.W.2d 87, 90 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
Whether FedEx Ground has the right to control its drivers within the meaning of Missouri agency law cannot be resolved by simple reference to the Operating Agreements and corporate policies. Missouri courts define the “right to control” with reference to the actual exercise of control, Leach v. Police Comm’rs,
105

118 S.W.3d at 649, which will require a driver-by-driver, terminal-by-terminal, supervisor-by-supervisor analysis that is unnecessary in most other states. Thus, while the question of law is common to the class, it isn’t the predominant question. It consists of too many other issues that cannot be decided on a classwide basis.
Accordingly, the court denies the Missouri plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
OREGON The Oregon plaintiffs in the Slayman case seek certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for their claims for illegal deductions from wages, OR. REV. STAT. § 652.610, and rescission of the Operating Agreement, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for their claim for declaratory relief. These plaintiffs don’t seek injunctive relief, though another set of plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in another case (Jon Leighter, et al. v. FedEx Ground Ground Package System, Inc., Civil No. 3:07-CV-328-RLM-CAN (OR)). The Oregon Slayman plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 20, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Oregon.
106

The parties’ arguments over class certification track those from other states and, to the extent the arguments are the same, are no more or less persuasive with respect to the Oregon Slayman plaintiffs than they have been with respect to other class certification motions. Apart from differences in governing state law, the argument unique to this case relates to named plaintiff Dennis McHenry, who has a separate state court suit pending against FedEx Ground, in which he makes allegations that FedEx Ground reads as inconsistent with the allegations in this case. The court does not perceive such inconsistencies as to make Mr. McHenry an inadequate class representative.
The Oregon Slayman plaintiffs say Oregon courts use the common law “right to control” test to decide whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, considering (1) the right to, or the exercise of, control; (2) the method of payment; (3) the furnishing of equipment; and (4) the right to fire. Under Oregon law, any contractual characterization of the relationship is not controlling, and the fact-finder is entitled to look beyond the terms of any contract and at the parties’ behavior to determine the true nature of the relationship. The Oregon Slayman plaintiffs say the right to control inquiry can be resolved solely by reference to the Operating Agreement and FedEx Ground policies and procedures.
In their unjust enrichment claim, the Oregon Slayman plaintiffs say the Operating Agreement is illegal because it treats drivers as employees but calls them independent contractors, and a party to an illegal contract that is not equally at fault or blameworthy may repudiate the bargain and recover for the
107

value of the party’s performance. They say they will have to show a benefit conferred upon FedEx Ground, awareness by FedEx Ground that it has received a benefit, and that it would be unjust under the circumstances to allow FedEx Ground to retain the benefit without paying for it. They say that to show an injustice, they will have to show one of the following: (1) the driver had a reasonable expectation of payment; (2) FedEx Ground reasonably should have expected to pay; or (3) nonpayment would defeat society’s reasonable expectations of security of person and property.
To prove the drivers to be employees, FedEx Ground says, the Oregon Slayman plaintiffs will have to demonstrate that FedEx Ground had the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result, a decision that considers the right to, or the exercise of, control; the method of payment; the furnishing of equipment; the right to fire; and the terms of any contract between the parties. No single factor is dispositive, so FedEx Ground says each driver’s individual situation must be evaluated.
FedEx Ground also says that some of the Oregon Slayman plaintiffs’ claims, such as the unpaid wage, are governed by Oregon’s “economic realities” test, which requires analysis of the degree of control the alleged employer exercised, the extent of the worker’s investment, the worker’s chance for profit or loss, skill and initiative the work requires, and the relationship’s permanence.
As the court reads the parties’ cited cases, Oregon law might vary somewhat depending on the nature of the claim, but would not require individual, driver-by-
108

driver analysis to determine whether the drivers are employees or independent contractors. See Schaff v. Ray’s Land & Seafood Co., Inc., 45 P.3d 936, 941-942 (Or. 2002) (tort suit against driver’s alleged employer: applying RESTATEMENT (SECOND) AGENCY § 220); Wallowalla Valley Stages, Inc. v. Oregonian Publ’g Co., 386 P.2d 430, 433-434 (Or. 1963) (same); Presley v. Bureau of Labor and Indus., 112 P.3d 485, 487-488 (Or. Ct. App. 2005) (claim for unpaid wages: court applied “economic reality” test only because no one objected to its use by state agency); Perri v. Certified Languages Int’l, LLC, 66 P.3d 531, 535-536 (Or. App. 2003) (alleged violation of wage and overtime laws: “Oregon courts generally have used a common law “right to control” test in determining the status of a worker. The principal factors under that test are (1) the right to, or the exercise of, control; (2) the method of payment; (3) the furnishing of equipment; and (4) the right to fire. No one factor is dispositive; they are to be viewed in their totality.” (internal citations omitted)); Chard v. Beauty-N-Beast Salon, 941 P.2d 611, 613-614 (Or. Ct. App. 1997) (suit for unpaid wages; using state agency’s eleven questions to determine whether requisite right to control existed); HDG Enters. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 856 P.2d 1037, 1040 (Or. Ct. App. 1993) (liability for workers compensation premiums: “We conclude, under the facts found, that employer had the right to exercise control over how the installations were done, and in most cases exercised that control through the use of specifications in the work order.”); Nichols v. Baggarley, 719 P.2d 914, 915-916 (Or. Ct. App. 1985) (defense to foreclosure of construction lien: “In Oregon, the principle common law
109

test for ascertaining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor is the employer’s right to exercise control over the manner and means of accomplishing the result.”); Lockard v. Murphy Co., 619 P.2d 283, 284 (Or. Ct. App. 1980) (personal injuries at work site: “The critical inquiry is whether the right of control exists and not whether the control is actually exercised. The principal factors demonstrating right of control are (1) direct evidence of right or exercise of control; (2) method of payment; (3) the furnishing of equipment; and (4) the right to fire.” (internal citations omitted)).
FedEx Ground further says Oregon law doesn’t allow rescission of an executed contract without a showing of actual fraud, accident, mistake, or insolvency. Even if a contract has been fully executed, though, Oregon courts allow a party who is not equally blameworthy to repudiate the bargain and recover for the value of the party’s performance that was already provided. Mt. Joseph Cattle Co. v. Makin Farms, Inc., 42 P.3d 331, 334 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
The court grants the Oregon Slayman plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
SOUTH DAKOTA The South Dakota plaintiffs bring statutory claims for failure to indemnify, S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 60-2-1, and unfair labor practices, S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 609A-12, common law claims for rescission of the Operating Agreement and an accounting. They seek damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. The South
110

Dakota plaintiffs report there were 46 drivers in South Dakota when they filed their motion; FedEx Ground says that when former drivers are included, the class would consist of about 84 members. The South Dakota plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since March 16, 1999, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of South Dakota. In addition to arguments common to other state class certification motions that already have been discussed in the Kansas ruling and this order, the parties disagree about whether South Dakota law will require individualized analysis and whether the proposed class is sufficiently numerous as to make joinder impractical. FedEx Ground is correct that several courts have rejected proposed classes with less than 100 members as insufficiently numerous, see, e.g., Spectrum Fin. Cos. v. Marconsult, Inc. 608 F.2d 377, 382 (9th Cir. 1979); Roman v. ESB, Inc., 550 F.2d 1343, 1349 (4th Cir. 1976), and the assumed geographical concentration of the proposed class adds another ingredient against class certification. Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264, 267 (5th Cir. 1980). The issue under Rule 23, though, isn’t whether joinder is impossible; the issue is whether joinder would be impractical, and the concept of impracticality encompasses inconvenience. Robidoux v. Celani,
111

987 F.2d 931, 935 (2d Cir. 1993). If the South Dakota plaintiffs are correct that each driver’s employment status can be ascertained by reference to the Operating Agreement and FedEx Ground policies, there would be nothing practical about four score individual suits each presenting the same issue.
The court cannot agree with the South Dakota plaintiffs, though, that South Dakota law demands no individual inquiry.
South Dakota applies a two-part test to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor. The first part of the test is whether the worker is free, both under any contract and in fact, from control or direction over how the services are performed. Egemo v. Flores, 470 N.W.2d 817, 821 (S.D. 1991); In re Hendrickson’s Health Care Serv., 462 N.W.2d 655, 658-659 (S.D. 1990). South Dakota courts look to a variety of factors in resolving this issue. See, e.g., Davis v. Frizzell, 504 N.W.2d 330, 331 (S.D. 1993) (“The right of control test includes consideration of the following factors: ‘(1) Direct evidence of the right of control; (2) The method of payment; (3) The furnishing of major items of equipment; and (4) The right to terminate the employment relationship at will and without liability.’” (quoting Egemo v. Flores, 470 N.W.2d 817, 821 (S.D. 1991))); Steen v. Potts, 61 N.W.2d 825, 826-828 (S.D. 1953) (considering contract’s existence, fixed price, employment of assistance, furnishing of tools, control of progress, and other factor listed in RESTATEMENT, AGENCY, § 220). As is true of most of the other states discussed today, that part of the South Dakota test can
112

be resolved by looking solely at the Operating Agreement and FedEx Ground policies.
The second part of the South Dakota test, though, poses an inquiry that may be unique to South Dakota. The courts ask whether the worker or workers are customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. Davis v. Frizzell, 504 N.W.2d at 331; Egemo v. Flores, 470 N.W.2d at 82. For the worker to be so “customarily engaged” requires “an enterprise created and existing separate and apart from the relationship with the particular employer; an enterprise that will survive the termination of that relationship. The individual must have a proprietary interest in the enterprise to the extent that she can operate it without [hindrance] from any other individual.” In re Hendrickson’s Health Care, 462 N.W.2d at 659 (internal citation omitted).
This issue cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis; it requires driver-bydriver examination. In Hendrickson’s Health Care, the court considered whether the workers held themselves out to the public as engaged in an independent business, whether they advertised their health care services, whether they had any separate clientele, and whether they had business premises or business cards. 462 N.W.2d at 659. In Egemo v. Flores, the court considered such things as whether the worker sought unemployment benefits upon termination and whether the worker had a proprietary interest in his equipment. 470 N.W.2d at 823.
113

To defend the South Dakota plaintiffs’ claim of employee status, then, FedEx Ground must be allowed to present evidence of which drivers purchased their own equipment, drove their own equipment before (or after) signing the Operating Agreement, were incorporated, and so on. The common question — whether the Operating Agreement leaves the drivers free from control or direction over how the services are performed — does not predominate over other questions affecting other members of the proposed class within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Because of the role individualized findings may play in determining the requests for declarative and injunctive relief, certification of a class also is improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
Accordingly, the court denies the South Dakota plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
INDIANA Indiana plaintiffs Roger Riewe, David Stacy, Jeff Shelton, Harold Bennett, and Rodney Owens, all former FedEx Ground Ground pickup and delivery drivers, seek certification of a statewide Indiana class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) to pursue claims for compensatory damages under Indiana’s wage payment statutes, IND. CODE §§ 22-2-4-4 and 22-2-6-1, et seq., for
114

rescission of the Operating Agreement, and for declaratory and injunctive relief.4
Their proposed class definition under both rules is:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since June 28, 1999, to provide package pick–up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the State of Indiana.
The Indiana plaintiffs contend the court’s Rule 23(a) analysis in the Kansas
order applies equally to their motion for class certification; their claims under the
Indiana wage payment statutes and Indiana common law satisfy the requirements
of Rule 23(b)(3) for the same reasons that the Kansas drivers asserting similar
statutory and common law claims satisfied the requirements; and their claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).
They contend their claims are premised on the same fundamental common
questions of law and fact as the Kansas plaintiffs because they all signed
Operating Agreements with FedEx Ground that identify them as independent
contractors and they all challenge the agreements’ interpretation, execution, and
enforceability. Like the Kansas plaintiffs, the Indiana plaintiffs assert that all of
their claims hinge on whether they are employees under state law and that
Indiana determines the employment relationship by the existence of the right to
exercise control, not the actual control FedEx Ground exercised over some
4 The plaintiffs asserted a fraud claim on behalf of the class in their amended complaint, but didn’t include that claim in their motion for class certification or address it in their supporting and supplemental memoranda.
115

employees. Expressway Dodge, Inc. v. McFarland, 766 N.E.2d 26, 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). The plaintiffs argue that while Indiana’s substantive law on rescission diverges from Kansas law and doesn’t require a showing of fraudulent misrepresentation or substantial performance, their position on class certification doesn’t differ from the position addressed in the Kansas Order.
FedEx Ground argues two issues distinguish the Indiana plaintiffs from the Kansas plaintiffs and weigh against class certification: (1) the named plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and are inadequate class representatives, O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-496 (1974); Robinson v. Chicago, 868 F.2d 959, 968 (7th Cir. 1989); and (2) individual questions predominate over common questions in determining employment status for purposes of the plaintiffs’ statutory and common law claims. Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d 1007, 1009-1010 (Ind. 2001); Mortgage Consultants, Inc. v. Mahaney, 655 N.E.2d 493, 496 (Ind. 1995). FedEx Ground also contends its defenses require individualized treatment and class certification is not a superior method for litigating the claims because there is no trial plan, the class definition is unmanageable, and the class members have a strong interest in controlling the outcome.
The court addressed and rejected FedEx Ground’s challenges to certification of a class with respect to the plaintiffs’ equitable claims in its ruling on the Tennessee plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and those challenges are no more persuasive in this case. FedEx Ground’s arguments with respect to the need
116

for extrinsic evidence and individualized analysis are similar to those raised and rejected by the court in numerous other cases (including New Jersey, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) and are equally unpersuasive here.
FedEx Ground argues that the right to control is but one factor to be considered in determining employment status under Indiana law, “on par” with intent of the parties, and the extent of control, intent, and other fact-intensive factors (such as length of employment, kind of occupation, and who supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and place of work ) can’t be resolved by reference to the Operating Agreement alone. Mortgage Consultants v. Mahaney, 655 N.E.2d at 496. When the Indiana plaintiffs have put contract interpretation “squarely in issue,” as FedEx Ground contends they have in this case, extrinsic evidence will be required. See First Fed. Sav. Bank of Indiana v. Key Markets, Inc., 559 N.E.2d 600, 603 (Ind. 1990) (where a contract is ambiguous or uncertain in its terms, the intent of the parties must be determined by extrinsic evidence). Because the Indiana plaintiffs’ claims turn on a multitude of common law factors that vary materially among class members, FedEx Ground concludes that class certification is inappropriate. Reich v. Homier Distrib. Co., 362 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1013-1014 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (denying certification because “liability depended on an individual determination of each employee’s duties”). The court disagrees.
Whether one acts as an employee or an independent contractor generally is a question of fact. Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d at 1009; Mortgage Consultants v. Mahaney, 655 N.E.2d at 496. When the applicable statutes don’t define the
117

term “employee,” Indiana courts interpret the term in accordance with the
common law definition and use the ten-factor analysis outlined in RESTATEMENT
(SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220(2) (1958) to distinguish employees from independent
contractors. Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d at 1009-1010. Those factors include:
(a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work;
(b) whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;
(c) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision;
(d) the skill required in the particular occupation; (e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; (f) the length of time for which the person is employed; (g) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; (h) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the employer; (i) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant; and (j) whether the principal is or is not in business.
757 N.E.2d at 1010 (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220(2) (1958)).
While no single factor is dispositive, the right to control is the most
important factor and is given the greatest weight in determining employment
status. Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d at 1010; GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397,
402 (Ind. 2001); Carter v. Property Owners Ins. Co., 846 N.E.2d 712, 718 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006); Jennings v. St. Vincent Hosp. and Health Care Ctr., 832 N.E.2d 1044,
1052 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). It is the right, and not the actual exercise of control,
that is significant. Stone v. Pinkerton Farms, Inc., 741 F.2d 941, 943 (7th Cir.
118

1984); Expressway Dodge v. McFarland, 766 N.E.2d at 30; Dague v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 647 N.E.2d 1138, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995); Gibbs v. Miller, 283 N.E.2d 592, 595 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972).
In Moberly and Reich, two of the cases upon which FedEx Ground relies, there was no employment contract or formal agreement, so it was necessary to consider other evidence in determining liability. But when a formal contract exists, as it does in this case, the right of control and other relevant factors pertaining to employment status often can best be determined by the contract’s terms. See GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d at 401; Myers v. Myers, 560 N.E.2d 39, 44 (Ind. 1990); Jennings v. St. Vincent Hosp. and Health Care Ctr., 832 N.E.2d at 1052.
Mortgage Consultants v. Mahaney, 655 N.E.2d 493 (Ind. 1995), doesn’t hold otherwise or support FedEx Ground’s assertion that Indiana law requires the court to engage in an individual analysis of each driver in determining employment status. Mortgage Consultants involved a statutory claim under one of Indiana’s wage payment statutes, IND. CODE § 22-2-5-2, by an individual who executed an “Independent Contractors Agreement,” but alleged that he was an employee entitled to benefits under the statute. The trial court found that Mr. Mahaney was an employee as a matter of law and granted summary judgment in his favor. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, and the mortgage company petitioned for transfer. The Indiana Supreme Court held that “while the parties’ clear expression of intent normally controls in questions involving employment contracts, it is but one factor of many considered in determining whether a hired
119

party is entitled to statutory benefits, unless the statute indicates otherwise.” 655 N.E.2d at 496. The court agreed generally “that an employer-employee relationship may be found despite intent to create only an independent contractor relationship if enough indicia of an employer-employee relationship exist,” but found the contract itself evidenced an express intent to create an independent contractorprincipal relationship and provided for payment by commission (factors favoring independent contractor status) and created genuine issues of fact precluding the entry of summary judgment in Mr. Mahaney’s favor. 655 N.E.2d at 496-497. The court accordingly reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The court grants the Indiana plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with respect to their claims for compensatory damages under Indiana’s wage payment statutes, rescission, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
IOWA Iowa plaintiffs Tim Johnson and Aaron Ver Steeg, former FedEx Ground Ground pickup and delivery drivers dispatched out of terminals in Iowa, seek certification of a statewide Iowa class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) to pursue claims for violations of Iowa’s wage deduction statute, IOWA CODE § 91A.5, rescission, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, and declaratory and injunctive relief.5 The proposed class definition is:
5 The Iowa plaintiffs assert a claim of fraud on behalf of the class as their Second Cause of Action, but didn’t include that claim in the motion for class certification.
120

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since August 16, 1999, to provide package pick–up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the State of Iowa. Like their counterparts, the Iowa plaintiffs’ claims hinge on whether they are employees under state law — a determination the Iowa plaintiffs contend turns on whether FedEx Ground had the right to control the drivers’ work, not the actual control FedEx Ground exercised over some employees, Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d 537, 542 (Iowa 1997); Nelson v. Cities Serv. Oil Co., 146 N.W.2d 261, 264-265 (Iowa 1966), and that determination can be made on the basis of the terms of the agreement and common objective criteria. See Breedlove v. Tele-Trip Co., No. 91 C 5702, 1993 WL 284327 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 1993); LaFleur v. LaFleur, 452 N.W.2d 406, 409 (Iowa 1990). The Iowa plaintiffs contend the Kansas Order also provides the complete framework for rejecting FedEx Ground’s challenges to the Iowa plaintiffs’ adequacy of representation and standing to pursue claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. In response, FedEx Ground reasserts its position that: (1) as former contractors, the named plaintiffs have no stake in the future conduct at which claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are targeted, and so lack standing to pursue those claims and are inadequate class representatives, O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974); Robinson v. City of Chicago, 868 F.2d 959, 968 (7th Cir. 1989); and (2) individual questions predominate over common questions in
121

determining employment status, wage deductions, and statute of limitations defenses and can’t be resolved by reference to the Operating Agreement alone. FedEx Ground contends that Iowa courts consider multiple factors, including the parties’ intent, Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d at 543; D & C Express, Inc. v. Sperry, 450 N.W.2d 842, 844 (Iowa 1990); no single factor is determinative, Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323-324 (1992); Peterson v. Pittman, 391 N.W.2d 235, 237 (Iowa 1986); and the fact-finder will need to go beyond the Operating Agreement’s terms and conduct an individualized inquiry into the parties’ intent, method of payment, degree of independence, extent to which drivers furnish their own tools, and right to control. Clinton Physical Therapy Servs., P.C. v. John Deere Health Care, Inc., 714 N.W.2d 603, 615 (Iowa 2006); Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d at 543-544; LaFleur v. LaFleur, 452 N.W.2d at 408-409.
The court addressed and rejected FedEx Ground’s arguments about the plaintiffs’ standing and adequacy of representation in its ruling on the Tennessee plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and the arguments are no more persuasive here.
Iowa courts apply a multi-factor test in determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor, but the number of factors and the importance of those factors varies. See Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d at 542-43; Peterson v. Pittman, 391 N.W.2d at 237; Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Shook, 313 N.W.2d 503, 505 (Iowa 1981). In Peterson v. Pittman, 391 N.W.2d
122

at 238, the court considered the nature of the purported employee’s business, who
had the right to control the work, who was responsible for payment of wages, and
who provided the equipment to accomplish the work. In Caterpillar Tractor Co. v.
Shook, 313 N.W.2d 503 (Iowa 1981), the court considered:
(1) the right of selection, or to employ at will, (2) responsibility for payment of wages by the employer, (3) the right to discharge or terminate the relationship, (4) [the] right to control the work, and (5) the identity of the employer as the authority in charge of the work or for whose benefit it is performed.
313 N.W.2d at 505. In Nelson v. Cities Serv. Oil Co., 146 N.W.2d 261 (Iowa 1966),
and Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 1997), the five factors
just quoted were considered, as well as eight more factors bearing on independent
contractor status:
(1) the existence of a contract for the performance by a person of a certain piece or kind of work at a fixed price; (2) independent nature of the business or distinct calling; (3) his employment of assistants, with the right to supervise their activities; (4) his obligation to furnish necessary tools, supplies, and materials; (5) his right to control the progress of the work, except as to final results; (6) the time for which the workman is employed; (7) the method of payment, whether by time or by job; (8) whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer.
Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d at 543 (quoting Nelson v. Cities Serv.
Oil Co., 146 N.W.2d at 264-265). While the parties’ intent is yet another factor to
be considered, “the primary focus is on the extent of control by the employer over
the details of the alleged employee’s work.” Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572
N.W.2d at 542-543; see also LaFleur v. LaFleur, 452 N.W.2d at 408; Nelson v.
Cities Service Oil Co., 146 N.W.2d at 265.
123

As is true in South Dakota and most of the other states, a determination of employment status using the five-factor test identified in Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Shook could be made solely on the basis of the Operating Agreement and generally applicable FedEx Ground policies. See LaFleur v. LaFleur, 452 N.W.2d at 407-410.. Inquiry into the additional factors considered in Nelson v. Cities Serv. Oil Co. and Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, however, would require a driver-bydriver examination and could not be resolved on a class-wide basis. To defend the plaintiffs’ claim of employee status, FedEx Ground must be allowed to present evidence of which drivers were incorporated, purchased and used their own equipment, hired and supervised assistants, and so on. The common question — whether the Operating Agreement leaves the drivers free from control or direction over how the services are performed — does not predominate over other questions affecting members of the proposed class within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Certification of a class with respect to the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) would also be improper, given the role individualized findings may play in determining the type of relief available.
Accordingly, the court denies the Iowa plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
WEST VIRGINIA
124

The West Virginia plaintiffs — two former Home Delivery drivers — bring claims for damages under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. VA. CODE § 46A-1-101, et seq., and under W. VA. CODE § 21-5-1, et seq. involving wage deductions, and a claim for unjust enrichment. They also seek the Operating Agreement’s rescission, an accounting, and declaratory and injunctive relief. They seek certification of the following class under Rule 23(b)(2) for their declaratory and injunctive claims and under Rule 23(b)(3) for the remaining claims:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since September 25, 2001 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of West Virginia. The West Virginia plaintiffs’ arguments for class certification parallel those of the plaintiffs in most other states: (1) the class is sufficiently numerous, with 56 active drivers at the time of their motion; (2) the issue of their employment status under the Operating Agreement and FedEx Ground policies (employees or independent contractors) is common to the class; (3) the West Virginia plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the absent class members; (4) the West Virginia plaintiffs are adequate class representatives; (5) the issue of their employment status under the Operating Agreement and FedEx Ground policies predominates over other issues; (6) the class action is superior to other methods of resolution of the West Virginia drivers’ claims; and (7) with respect to treatment of the drivers as employees or
125

independent contractors, FedEx Ground has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class. Apart from the provisions and impact of West Virginia law, the West Virginia plaintiffs’ arguments are identical to those raised in other states.
FedEx Ground responds with the same arguments it used in other states: (1) the plaintiffs, former single-work-area Home Delivery drivers from the same terminal (a) are situated differently than other putative class members, (b) lack standing to seek prospective relief, (c) cannot represent multiple work area drivers and have interests at odds with other single work area drivers, and (d) cannot represent Ground drivers or drivers from other terminals; (2) the class is too illdefined because it requires individualized determination of who was “full-time”; (3) the class (which FedEx Ground calculates as including 73 former drivers, as well) is insufficiently numerous; (4) West Virginia law requires a driver-by-driver determination of status as employee or independent contractor, and (if the drivers are found to be employees) individual determination of the state law claims; (5) class certification isn’t appropriate where contractor status is at issue; and (6) a class action is not a superior method of proceeding because (a) the West Virginia plaintiffs offer no trial plan, and (b) putative class members have a strong interest in controlling the litigation’s outcome. Apart from the provisions and impact of West Virginia law, FedEx Ground’s arguments against a West Virginia class are identical to those raised in other states.
126

This opinion (in tandem with the Kansas ruling) already has addressed the parties’ arguments to the extent they are not based on West Virginia law, and those discussions needn’t be repeated.
FedEx Ground bases its position on the proposition that, when determining whether a worker is an employee, West Virginia law gives the right to control strong, but not dispositive, weight and requires analysis of each of the four factors in the common law test under a case’s individual facts. The West Virginia plaintiffs argue that the power of control — not the exercise of control or the other factors in the common law test — is the determinative inquiry.
The court’s reading of West Virginia law matches that of the West Virginia plaintiffs. West Virginia courts look to four factors in deciding the issue — selection and engagement of the servant, the method of compensation, the right to fire, and the power of control — but the power of control is “determinative.” Burless v. West Virginia Univ. Hosps., Inc., 601 S.E.2d 85, 91 (W. Va. 2004). FedEx Ground says West Virginia courts don’t view the right to control as determinative, and says that in Mountain Lodge Ass’n v. Crum & Forster Indem. Co., 558 S.E.2d 336, 344 (W. Va. 2001), the court explained that the language in cases that the right to control is the “controlling” factor means that it is the “major” factor. Mountain Lodge says no such thing. In the cited passage, the court wrote, largely quoting an earlier case (Myers v. Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 148 S.E.2d 664 (W. Va. 1966)), that:
127

This Court has stated that “[t]o ascertain whether a workman is an employee or an independent contractor each case must be resolved on its own facts and ordinarily no one feature of the relationship is controlling, but all must be considered together.” Syl. Pt. 1, Myers, 150 W.Va. at 563, 148 S.E.2d at 665. However, we have identified the major factor: “In determining whether a workman is an employee or an independent contractor, the controlling factor is whether the hiring party retains the right to control and supervise the work to be done.” Syl. Pt. 2, Myers, 150 W.Va. at 563, 148 S.E.2d at 665.
Mountain Lodge Ass’n v. Crum & Foster, 558 S.E.2d at 344.
The Mountain Lodge court had no need to offer FedEx Ground’s
hypothesized explanation to square its holding with the Myers case. The Myers
court had provided its own explanation:
The controlling factor in determining the status of a workman is whether the hiring party retains the right to control and supervise the work to be done. Whether the control is actually exercised is unimportant. The right to exercise control and supervision is the determinative element.
Myers v. Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 148 S.E.2d at 667. Other cases in which
FedEx Ground finds hopeful language are to the same effect. Sipple v. Starr, 520
S.E.2d 884, 888 (W. Va. 1999) (“‘If the right to control or supervise the work in
question is retained by the person for whom the work is being done, the person
doing the work is an employee and not an independent contractor, and the
determining factor in connection with this matter is not the use of such right of
control or supervision but the existence thereof in the person for whom the work
is being done.’”); Spencer v. Travelers Ins. Co., 133 S.E.2d 735, 739 (W. Va. 1963)
(“If the right to control or supervise the work in question is retained by the person
128

for whom the work is being done, the person doing the work is an employee and not an independent contractor. The determining factor to be considered in connection with this case or any other of like nature is whether the right of control or supervision over the work done existed in the person for whom the work was done, and not the use of such control or supervision.” (internal citations omitted)); accord Fitzwater v. Harding, 510 S.E.2d 286, 288 (W. Va. 1998) (“‘[T]he fourth [factor], the power of control, is determinative.’” (quoting Paxton v. Crabtree, 400 S.E.2d 245, 252 (1990))).
FedEx Ground cites C & H Taxi Co. v. Richardson, 461 S.E.2d 442, 446 (W. Va. 1995), for the proposition that West Virginia courts analyzing the right of control “often” look beyond the parties’ contract to see what the parties do in the real world. C & H Taxi, though, was a worker’s compensation case. In worker’s compensation cases in West Virginia, “[i]t is ordinarily considered when one person is retained to render a service for another that the relationship of employer and employee exists. To overcome this presumption it is incumbent upon the one who hired the workman to show that the latter is an independent contractor.” Myers v. Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 148 S.E.2d at 666 (internal citations omitted). This case is not a worker’s compensation case.
Nor can the court find anything in the cited cases to persuade it that if the West Virginia plaintiffs prevail on their contention that the Operating Agreement and generally applicable FedEx Ground policies make the drivers employees,
129

individual analysis will be required on the West Virginia plaintiffs’ state law claims.
One additional point needs to be addressed. In most of its class certification briefs, FedEx Ground argues that fully executed contracts cannot be rescinded. FedEx Ground offers but a single, hilariously imaginative citation of West Virginia authority for that proposition: Washington v. Burnett, 4 W. Va. 84 (W. Va. 1870). Supreme court decisions don’t expire of their own terms, and can have remarkable shelf lives if not limited or overturned by a statute, rule, or subsequent judicial opinion. One would not expect an inconsistent statute, rule, or judicial opinion to threaten the cited case’s holding. Washington was a suit to rescind a bond that could be paid in Confederate dollars — an arrangement that became less favorable to the bondholder after General Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House. The court held:
The doctrine, therefore, clearly deducible from this case is, that whenever a contract in confederate currency has been executed between the parties, it will leave them to rest in the condition in which they have placed themselves. Washington v. Burnett, 4 W. Va. at 95. The court doesn’t understand FedEx Ground to have paid any of its West Virginia drivers in Confederate money. Whether the West Virginia drivers are employees or independent contractors under West Virginia law can be resolved solely by reference to the Operating Agreement and generally applicable FedEx Ground policies. That common issue predominates over all other issues. This holding, combined with the earlier
130

dispositions in this opinion and the Kansas opinion of the parties’ other arguments, leads the court to conclude that the West Virginia’s class certification motion should be granted.
VIRGINIA The Virginia plaintiffs seek class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for their common law claims for rescission and quantum meruit recovery for services rendered and their claim for declaratory relief. The plaintiffs also ask the court to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for their declaratory relief claims. They seek certification of the following class under both rules:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 3, 1998, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Virginia. The Virginia plaintiffs say their proposed class meets the numerosity requirement. Three hundred sixty-eight drivers currently are under contract with FedEx Ground, and even more drivers entered into agreements during the class period but no longer drive for FedEx Ground. As to commonality, the Virginia plaintiffs argue that the categorical determination of whether they are employees rather than independent contractors under Virginia law raises common questions of law and fact. The Virginia plaintiffs claim they are entitled to rescission and may recover compensation under the principle of quantum meruit because the
131

standard form Operating Agreement violates Virginia’s public policy against knowingly coercing an individual to falsely declare employment status. VA. CODE ANN. § 58.1- 485.1. Similarly, the Virginia plaintiffs seek a declaration that they have been misclassified as independent contractors under Virginia law. The named plaintiffs say they are members of the class and their claims are typical of the class they seek to represent. They also claim they are adequate class representatives and their counsel is experienced and competent.
The Virginia plaintiffs present the same arguments as most other plaintiffs in the docket with regard to the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3): they argue that common issues of law and fact predominate and class adjudication is superior to other available methods of resolution; they also argue their request for declaratory judgment supports certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2).
FedEx Ground raises several arguments against class certification. First, FedEx Ground claims the Virginia named plaintiffs are inadequate representatives. FedEx Ground notes that both named plaintiffs worked as Home Delivery, rather than Ground, drivers, and FedEx Ground contends that Ground and Home Delivery drivers operate different delivery networks, interact with different management, and are subject to different Operating Agreements. Specifically, Home Delivery drivers have a proprietary interest by zip code, while Ground drivers are interested in entire geographic regions, leaving large areas in which no Home Delivery driver has a proprietary interest. Home Delivery drivers don’t participate in the Flex Program, and Ground drivers don’t experience driver
132

audits. FedEx Ground also maintains the named plaintiffs are inadequate because both are single area contractors who can’t represent the interests of multiple area contractors, whose business differs from that of a single area contractor in terms of investment in the business, hiring of employees, and ability to profit. The court addressed a nearly identical objection made by FedEx Ground to the Alabama class certification, finding that the differences between Ground and Home Delivery drivers and between single work area and multiple work area contractors are not so significant as to weigh against class certification. For the reasons previously stated, there is no reason to believe the named Virginia plaintiffs will not vigorously pursue their claims on behalf of the class as required by Rule 23(a)(4).
FedEx Ground also argues Virginia law requires individualized evidence to resolve the issue of independent contractor status. FedEx Ground claims that while the right to control is one factor to consider, courts ultimately must look beyond the employment contract to the parties’ actual conduct to determine employment status. In its supplemental memorandum on class certification, FedEx Ground cites Atkinson v. Sachno, 541 S.E.2d 902, 905 (Va. 2001), for this proposition, noting that “the individual circumstances of each case play an important part in answering” whether the relationship in question is that of an independent contractor or an employee. While the Atkinson court noted the use of four factors to resolve the employment issue: “(1) selection and engagement; (2) payment of compensation; (3) power of dismissal; and (4) power to control the work of the individual,” the court explained that “[i]t is well established that the
133

fourth factor, the power of control, is determinative.” Id. (citing Hadeed v. Medic24, Ltd., 377 S.E.2d 589, 594-595 (Va. 1989)). Despite this holding, the court looked beyond the detailed consulting contract and examined the intent of the parties as well as their actual conduct. Atkinson v. Sachno, 541 S.E.2d at 906 (“It is only by consideration of all the facts pertaining to the relationship in any case, including provisions of the contract, the actual conduct of the parties, and the conditions of the business in which they are engaged, that it can be determined whether the [individual] is endowed with that control over his own methods and means of doing work which is the test of an independent contractor.”).
FedEx Ground also points to Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Gill, 294 S.E.2d 840 (Va. 1982), in which the court considered whether a route carrier for the plaintiff newspaper corporation was an employee or an independent contractor for workmen’s compensation purposes. Similar to Atkinson, the court noted that the “power of control is the most significant indicium of the employment relationship; other factors merely help to elucidate the manner and degree of control.” 294 S.E.2d at 843. In examining the newspaper’s power to control, the court looked not only at the written contract between the parties but also at “the evidence concerning performance under that contract,” including the testimony of several witnesses. Id. Although the court found the contract was indicative of the newspaper’s power to control the result sought to be accomplished, it concluded that the circumstances surrounding the parties’ actual conduct revealed that the newspaper exercised virtually no control over the means and methods employed
134

by the route carrier. Id. at 845. Specifically, the court addressed the newspaper’s control over when and where deliveries were made, work hours, and the engagement of helpers and found that the route carriers were operating as independent contractors.
Similarly, the parties’ written contract was not dispositive in McDonald v. Hampton Training Sch. for Nurses, 486 S.E.2d 299 (Va. 1997), in which the court concluded that a physician was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the defendant hospital. In addition to reciting the four factor test for establishing employment status, the McDonald court added that “[i]t is immaterial whether the employer exercises this control; the test is whether the employer has the power to exercise such control.” Id. at 301 (citing Smith v. Grenadier, 127 S.E.2d 107, 111-112 (Va. 1962)); see also Virginia Empl. Comm’n v. A.I.M. Corp., 302 S.E.2d 534, 539-540 (Va. 1983) (“The potential power of control, not the actual exercise of control, is the important element.”). Instead of focusing solely on the contractual right to control, however, the court considered other factors, such as payment, and concluded that employment status was a question of fact properly left to the jury for determination. McDonald v. Hampton Training Sch., 486 S.E.2d at 304; see also Intermodal Servs., Inc. v. Smith, 364 S.E.2d 221, 224 (Va. 1988) (“The extent of the reserved right of control may be determined by examining the performance of the parties in the activity under scrutiny.”)
More recently, the Virginia Supreme Court reiterated “that there are abundant tests and criteria that can be used to determine whether the
135

relationship between the individual and [the alleged employer] is that of an independent contractor or an employee.” Ogunde v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 645 S.E.2d 520, 523 (Va. 2007) (citing Atkinson v. Sachno, 541 S.E.2d at 905)). Virginia federal courts have applied this same reasoning and turned to actual conduct in determining employment status. In Stith v. Thorne, 488 F. Supp. 2d 534, 550-551 (E.D. Va. 2007), for example, the court relied heavily on the parties’ written contract, but also took into consideration that the alleged employer did not monitor its employees’ behavior or establish guidelines for how they were to meet their goals even though it had the power to do so.
While a determination of employment status could be made solely on the basis of the standard Operating Agreement, Virginia law requires a driver-bydriver examination in light of the circumstances of the particular case — an examination that cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis. Under the Virginia standard, FedEx Ground must be allowed to present evidence of who sets the drivers’ schedules, ownership of equipment, and so on, which may necessitate the use of extrinsic evidence. The common question of whether the standard Operating Agreement provides FedEx Ground the right to control the work of its drivers does not predominate over other questions affecting members of the class within the meaning of Rule 23(b)(3). Given the role of extra-contractual evidence in determining employment status under Virginia law, certification of a class with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims under 23(b)(2) would also be improper. Accordingly, the court denies the Virginia plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
136

ILLINOIS The named Illinois plaintiffs — former drivers for Ground and Home Delivery — bring claims for damages for violations of the Illinois Wage Act, 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 115/1, et seq., and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 505/1, et seq., and claims for rescission, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. They seek to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for the declaratory and injunctive relief claims, and a class under Rule 23(b)(3) for their statutory and rescission claims. They seek to certify the following class under both rules:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since April 20, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Illinois. The Illinois plaintiffs raise familiar arguments in support of their certification motion: the class is sufficiently numerous (443 active drivers when the motion was filed, with more former drivers); joinder is impractical; questions of law and fact (whether the Operating Agreement makes drivers employees or independent contractors) are common to the class and predominate over individual questions; the named plaintiffs’ claims are typical of absent class members because the named plaintiffs have suffered the same types of injury, and the named plaintiffs are adequate representatives; a class action is superior to other methods of resolution because it provides a single forum to determine the
137

drivers’ status, makes resolution feasible for those with small claims, and protects drivers who might fear retaliatory termination; and through use of the Operating Agreement, FedEx Ground has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class. Other than the state law-sensitive arguments, these arguments are identical to those raised in other cases in this docket.
FedEx Ground, too, raises familiar arguments — identical to those raised in other cases in this docket — in opposition to class certification: as former drivers, the named plaintiffs lack standing to seek (and so cannot represent a class seeking) prospective relief and have differing interest from current drivers that would be in the class; as single work area drivers, the named plaintiffs are inadequate representatives for multiple work area drivers; Illinois law will require driver-by-driver analysis to determine whether any drivers are employees; class certification is inappropriate when contractor status is at issue; the Illinois plaintiffs offer no trial plan and, by failing to define “full time,” have offered an unmanageable class definition. As with the Illinois plaintiffs’ arguments, FedEx Ground’s arguments (other than those dependent on state law and one discussed in the next paragraph) are identical to those raised in other cases in this docket. All of the arguments mentioned to this point concerning certification of an Illinois class have been discussed in this opinion or the Kansas class certification order and resolved in favor of class certification. Those rulings apply to the Illinois motion, as well.
138

FedEx Ground also argues that named plaintiff Diane Gordon gave false interrogatory responses and erstwhile named plaintiff Michael Griffin turned out not to work for FedEx Ground. As with the false interrogatory answers given (and corrected) by the New Jersey plaintiffs, FedEx Ground’s argument about Ms. Gordon’s responses don’t persuade the court that the she can’t represent the class adequately. Mr. Griffin’s situation would be a matter of far more serious concern were Mr. Griffin seeking to represent the Illinois class (he apparently deceived even his attorney), but he is no longer a named plaintiff.
The Illinois class certification issue, then, turns on whether the drivers’ status as employees or independent contractors can be determined solely by reference to the Operating Agreement and FedEx Ground policies. The Illinois plaintiffs’ claims trigger two different tests for determining whether one is an employee.
The Illinois Wage Act contains its own definition of employee. It provides that “any individual permitted to work by an employer in an occupation” is an employee, and then creates an exemption to the Act’s coverage for any person who is free — both under the contract and in practice — from control and direction over the work’s performance, whose work is performed either outside the employer’s usual course of business or outside the employer’s places of business, and who is in an independently established business. 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 115/2. Each element of the exemption must be present for the service provider to be an independent contractor for purpose of the Wage Act. Novakovic v. Samutin, 820
139

N.E.2d 967, 973 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004); Byung Moo Soh v. Target Mktg. Sys., Inc., 817 N.E.2d 1105, 1109 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). Because the putative employer must demonstrate the exemption’s applicability, the Wage Act creates a nearpresumption that a worker is an employee rather than an independent contractor. See Adams v. Catrambone, 359 F.3d 858, 864 (7th Cir. 2004)
The Illinois plaintiffs’ other claims rely on the state’s common law definition of employee. “Common-law factors to consider in examining a worker’s potential status as an employee include ‘the amount of control and supervision, the right of discharge, the method of payment, the skill required in the work to be done, the source of tools, material or equipment, and the work schedule.’ Of these, control of the manner in which work is done is considered the most important.” Mitchell v. Department of Corr., 856 N.E.2d 593, 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (internal citations omitted); see also Roberson v. Industrial Comm’n, 866 N.E.2d 191, 200 (Ill. 2007) (“whether the employer may control the manner in which the person performs the work; whether the employer dictates the person’s schedule; whether the employer pays the person hourly; whether the employer withholds income and social security taxes from the person’s compensation; whether the employer may discharge the person at will; and whether the employer supplies the person with materials and equipment. [W]e have also considered whether the employer’s general business encompasses the person’s work.” (internal citation omitted)); Warren v. Williams, 730 N.E.2d 512, 518 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (“Many factors in the relationship of the parties are to be considered in making the decision, and no
140

single one is determinative. The most important factor is the right to control the manner in which the work is done. Others include the method of payment, the work schedule, the right to discharge, who provides the tools, materials or equipment, the skill required in the work to be done, whether the worker’s occupation is related to that of the employer, and who deducts or pays for insurance, social security and taxes.” (internal citations omitted)).
In the context of other states, this opinion has noted that courts looking for either a right to control or actual exercise of control reasonably look beyond the “employment” agreement for actual control if the agreement doesn’t establish a sufficient right to control, but needn’t look further if the agreement creates a right to control. Such situations are among the Illinois cases the plaintiffs and FedEx Ground cited.
For example, In Roberson v. Industrial Comm’n, 866 N.E.2d at 200-201, the agreement didn’t create an employment relationship, but the court found ample actual exercise of control to uphold the finding that Roberson was an employee. Similarly, in Mitchell v. Department of Corrections, 856 N.E.2d at 601-602, the agreement between the Department of Corrections and Mitchell’s employer (Prison Health Services) provided the Department with a right to exercise considerable control over Mitchell’s training, conduct of examinations, hours, and absences, but didn’t provide enough control over the manner in which Mitchell performed his duties to make him the Department’s employee. The court examined noncontractual aspects of the relationship between the Department and Mitchell to
141

evaluate the control actually exercised. In Warren v. Williams, 730 N.E.2d at 517518, a village attorney’s contract with the village provided too little control over the attorney to establish an employment relationship, so the court examined whether the attorney had other clients, whether the attorney had his own office, how the attorney billed the village, and how much control the village actually exercised over the manner or detail used in the attorney’s work for the village.
But unlike the laws of several other states already discussed in this opinion, Illinois law seems to contemplate that even when the “employment” agreement vests enough control in the hiring party to create an employment relationship, the inquiry still must extend into the parties’ extracontractual relationship.
For example, in Wenholdt v. Industrial Comm’n, 447 N.E.2d 404, 406 (Ill. 1983), Wenholdt claimed to be an employee because a clause of his contract gave the hiring party “the right to control the manner, means and details of the performance of services by the musicians including the leader as well as the ends to be accomplished.” The court examined the actual working relationship nonetheless, and upheld the Industrial Commission’s finding that Wenholdt was an independent contractor. Similarly, in Area Transp. Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 465 N.E.2d 533, 536-537 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984), the court noted that the agreement (an equipment lease) “clearly place[d] the right to control in” the hiring party, but still went beyond the equipment lease in finding evidence sufficient to support the Commission’s finding that Fiedler was an employee.
142

Further, the structure of the Illinois Wage Act virtually requires a court to go beyond the terms of an agreement claimed to create an employment relationship. As already noted, the Wage Act creates something akin to a presumption of employment, see Adams v. Catrambone, 359 F.3d at 864, and casts upon the hiring party the burden to establish three requisite facts to rebut the presumption. Those requisite facts include the nature of the hired party’s business or profession, which is unlikely to be determined by the contract itself. As was true in Massachusetts, Illinois law broadens the scope of relevant evidence by placing a burden on the party claiming not to be an employer.
Illinois law poses questions upon which FedEx Ground must be allowed to present driver-by-driver evidence. When the inquiry broadens beyond whether the right to control is established in the FedEx Ground Operating Agreement, analysis under Illinois law might deem some, but not all, drivers to be employees. Or it may deem some, but not all, drivers to be employees under the statutory test that governs the Wage Act claim but not under the common law test that covers the Consumer Fraud Act and rescission claims.
The effects of the Operating Agreement’s terms do not predominate over the individual circumstances of 400 to 1,000 present and former drivers in Illinois. The Illinois plaintiffs’ motion for class certification must be denied.
FLORIDA
143

The Florida plaintiffs seek class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) of their claims for actual damages for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, rescission of the standard Operating Agreement, and declaratory relief. They further seek certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief under the Trade Practices Act and declaratory judgment. They seek certification of the following class under both rules:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since June 28, 2000, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Florida.6 The Florida plaintiffs’ arguments in support of class certification are similar to those in most other states. The Florida plaintiffs assert that the proposed class is sufficiently numerous, as there are 744 current drivers in Florida, not including additional proposed class members who drove in Florida during the class period but have since left. They further contend the issue of their employment status presents questions of law and fact common to the class under each of their theories of recovery, namely: rescission, declaratory and injunctive relief, and actual damages under the Trade Practices Act. The named plaintiffs say their claims are typical of the absent class whom they seek to represent, and they are adequate class representatives.
6 The plaintiffs propose a class period that begins four years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit based on the statute of limitations applicable to their claims under the FDUTPA.
144

The Florida plaintiffs also present the same arguments as most other plaintiffs in the docket with regard to the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), maintaining that common issues of law and fact predominate over other issues and class adjudication is superior to other available methods of resolution of the Florida drivers’ claims. They argue their request for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief under the Trade Practices Act supports certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2).
In response, FedEx Ground argues that the plaintiffs’ Trade Practices Act claims raise issues that will require individualized evidence. Specifically, the Florida plaintiffs allege that FedEx Ground classified its drivers as independent contractors in the standard Operating Agreement, but treated them as employees, constituting deceptive or unfair trade practices as defined by the Trade Practices Act. FedEx Ground contends the plaintiffs must show an actual injury to recover under the Trade Practices Act, which would require driver-specific evidence regarding whether FedEx Ground’s alleged misclassification deceived a particular driver. Relying on Hutson v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 837 So. 2d 1090, 1091-1092 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003), FedEx Ground argues that because they read the provisions of the standard Operating Agreement, the Florida plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding FedEx Ground’s alleged deception and so suffered no loss under the Trade Practices Act.
The Florida plaintiffs correctly state that proof of reliance is not required under the Trade Practices Act. Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971, 974 (Fla.
145

Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (“[T]he question is not whether the plaintiff actually relied on the alleged deceptive trade practice, but whether the practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting reasonably in the same circumstances.”); see also Turner Greenberg Assocs., Inc. v. Pathman, 885 So. 2d 1004, 1009 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (A “demonstration of reliance by an individual consumer is not necessary in the context of FDUTPA.”). Contrary to FedEx Ground’s suggestion, Hutson “did not apply a reliance standard,” but, rather, clarified that class members who understood the allegedly deceptive product label at issue would be unable to prove actual damages. 837 So. 2d at 1092-1093.
In contrast to Hutson, the Florida plaintiffs could not have read the standard Operating Agreement and made an appropriate conclusion regarding their true employment status. Further, the Davis court held that class actions for damages under the Trade Practices Act don’t require an allegation that individual members of the class relied on the allegedly unlawful practice. 776 So. 2d at 974. In Davis, the court reversed the denial of class certification, finding that because all of the plaintiffs’ claims involved damages based on the same defective practice, “the plaintiffs’ inability to show reliance in every case cannot be used to justify a finding that individual issues will predominate over the class claims.” Id at 975. Similarly, in this case, all of the Florida drivers claim FedEx Ground’s systematic misclassification damaged them. As such, the Florida plaintiffs’ Trade Practices Act claims will turn on common questions relating to causation, damages, and whether FedEx Ground’s actions constitute unfair trade practices.
146

FedEx Ground also reasserts its position that individualized evidence is needed to resolve independent contractor status. FedEx Ground argues that while Florida frames employment status in terms of the right to control, that factor isn’t dispositive, and the parties’ actual conduct is essential to determining whether, and to what extent, such a right exists. FedEx Ground also claims the Florida plaintiffs have alleged that many of the standard Operating Agreement’s terms are open to interpretation, requiring the court to examine the course of dealing between the parties as well as their intent.
Under Florida law, courts examine several criteria, as formulated by the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220, to determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor, including: “(1) the extent of the employer’s control over the details of the work; (2) whether the person employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (3) the kind of occupation involved, and whether the work is done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision; (4) the skill required in the particular occupation; (5) whether the employer supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work; (6) the length of time the person is employed; and (7) whether the work is part of the employer’s regular business.” Goodwin v. Blu Murray Ins. Agency, Inc., 939 So. 2d 1098, 1103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Carroll v. Kencher, Inc., 491 So. 2d 1311, 1312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)). Although Florida courts look at numerous factors, “[i]t is well-established that the main test in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship is whether the employer has
147

direction and control over the employee.” Verchick v. Hecht Inves., Ltd., 924 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006); 4139 Mgmt., Inc. v. Department of Labor and Employment, 763 So. 2d 514, 517 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (“The first element of the Cantor [v. Cochran, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1966)] test, control, is a primary indicator of status.”). In fact, “[a]t common law, four elements were considered in making a determining whether a master and servant relationship exists—the selection and engagement of the servant, the payment of wages, the power of dismissal, and the control of the servant’s conduct—the essential element being the right of control and the right to direct the manner in which the work shall be done .” Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v. Dunn, 438 So. 2d 116, 120 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983).
Similar to Kansas, “it is the right to control, rather than actual control, that may be determinative” of employment status under Florida law. Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 853 (Fla. 1997); see also Nazworth v. Swire Florida, Inc., 486 So. 2d 637, 638 (Fla. Dist Ct. App. 1986) (“The standard for determining whether an agent is an independent contractor is the degree of control exercised by the employer or owner over the agent. More particularly, it is the right of control, and not actual control, which determines the relationship between the parties.” (internal citations omitted; emphasis in original)). Although FedEx Ground contends the right to control depends upon all of the circumstances between the parties, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that employment status should be determined by “initially look[ing] to the agreement
148

between the parties, if there is one, and honor[ing] that agreement, unless other provisions of the agreement, or the parties’ actual practice, demonstrate that it is not a valid indicator of status.” Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 1995). There is a distinction between the Keith case, in which the parties’ written contract vested no right to control in the defendant, and this case, in which the Florida plaintiffs argue that the standard Operating Agreement vests such right to control in FedEx Ground as to make the drivers employees. Unlike the Keith court, which looked to evidence of actual control because a sufficient right did not exist in the contract, the court in this case need not examine the parties’ actual practice to find a right to control. See Id. at 172 (holding that there was no evidence to suggest that the actual practice of the parties was inconsistent with their intent to form an independent contractor relationship).
FedEx Ground’s argument that the court must look beyond the right to control to the other RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY factors is unpersuasive. As noted when addressing the New Hampshire class certification motion, individual analysis of these factors is unnecessary because the Florida plaintiffs don’t contend that these factors make them employees, but, rather, maintain that employment status may be determined primarily based on the terms of the Operating Agreement. The additional RESTATEMENT factors cannot affect that contention.
Based on this standard, the extent of FedEx Ground’s control over its drivers depends on an analysis of the terms of the standard Operating Agreement,
149

as well as FedEx Ground’s centralized practices and procedures that are systematically applicable to all of the Florida plaintiffs. The common questions regarding FedEx Ground’s right to control the work of its drivers predominates over other questions affecting members of the class within the meaning of Rule 23(b)(3). Likewise, certification of a class with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims under 23(b)(2) would be proper. Accordingly, the Florida plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is granted.
RHODE ISLAND The Rhode Island plaintiffs (former and current drivers for Home Division) seek certification of the following class for their claims for rescission of the Operating Agreement (under Rule 23(b)(3)) and for declaratory relief (under both Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)):
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 19, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Rhode Island. The Rhode Island plaintiffs make no arguments for class certification (other than those dependent on state law) that have not already been discussed in this opinion. FedEx Ground argues the class is too vaguely defined (“full time”) and insufficiently numerous (FedEx Ground estimates the class would consist of 58 current and 66 former drivers) to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1); the named plaintiffs aren’t
150

representative of the class because too few of the class want to be categorized as employees, none of the named plaintiffs drove for FedEx Ground rather than Home Division, and the interests of multiple work area drivers conflict with those of single work area drivers; the class action is not superior to individual litigation because the Rhode Island plaintiffs haven’t offered a trial plan and putative class members have a strong interest in controlling the litigation’s outcome; and the declaratory relief claim is unfit for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Each of those arguments has been found unpersuasive elsewhere in this opinion; none is more persuasive with respect to Rhode Island.
The parties disagree as to whether a classwide determination can be made of whether the drivers are independent contractors or employees or whether a driver-by-driver analysis will be needed. Rhode Island courts decide the nature of the relationship based on the hiring party’s power to exercise control over the method and means of performing the work. See Absi v. State Dep’t of Admin., 785 A.2d 554, 556-557 (R.I. 2001); Pasetti v. Brusa, 98 A.2d 833, 834 (R.I. 1953) (“The petitioner contends correctly that the test whether a person is an independent contractor is based on the employer’s right or power to exercise control over the method and means of performing the work and not merely the exercise of actual control.”). In deciding whether such a power to control exists, Rhode Island courts consider the ten factors found in the RESTATEMENT (SECOND), AGENCY § 220. Estate of Perry v. Green Card, Inc., No. PC/03-4671, 2006 WL 3479056, at *4 (R.I. Super. Dec. 1, 2006). It is the right, not the exercise of the power that matters,
151

Shore v. Steinhauser, No. NC860157, 1990 WL 10000357, at *1 (R.I. Super. Feb. 14, 1990), though surrounding circumstances are examined to decide whether a contract purporting to yield the power of control truly surrendered the power. Croce v. Whiting Milk Co., 228 A.2d 574, 576-577 (R.I. 1967).
FedEx Ground cites Absi v. State Dep’t of Admin., 785 A.2d 554, for the proposition that the failure to exercise a right to control may produce an independent contractor relationship, but Absi involved a different body of law. Absi involved application of Rhode Island’s Merit System Act, R.I. GEN. LAWS § 372-72, and the state’s authority to enter into procurement contracts.
For purposes of class certification, Rhode Island law compels driver-bydriver analysis no more than other states that employ the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) § 220 test, such as Arkansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Indiana, and Florida. For the reasons set forth in the discussion of the motions to certify classes of drivers in those states, as well as the other discussions in this opinion and the Kansas opinion rejecting FedEx Ground’s other objections to certification of a Rhode Island class, the court grants the Rhode Island plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
C. As noted throughout this opinion, in each class certification motion, the plaintiffs seek certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2) for their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief (and in a few cases, for accounting), and
152

certification of the same class under Rule 23(b)(3) for their damages claims and declaratory relief claims. In each instance (other than the California FMLA claim, as to which no class was certified), the claimed damages flow directly from FedEx Ground’s asserted liability to the class as a whole on the claims forming the basis for injunctive or declaratory relief. As such, the damages claims are incidental to the dominant claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, within the meaning of Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 415 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, as in the Kansas opinion, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) alone is preferable.
D. Two more points must be made before setting forth the orders to be entered. First, FedEx Ground expressed concern in its briefing of these motions that once classes are certified, the plaintiffs will turn their focus from the Operating Agreement to anecdotal evidence and the experiences of individual drivers. The court boasts no ability to divine a party’s unexpressed intent, and so assumes the plaintiffs have no such intent, that (for example) mention in briefs that the individual plaintiffs believed themselves to be treated as employees was nothing more than fighting FedEx Ground’s class certification fire with fire. Based on that assumption, the court has resolved these motions with the correlative assumption that the plaintiffs will not, at the summary judgment or trial stages, present evidence other than the Operating Agreements and generally applicable FedEx policies. If this correlative assumption is mistaken, several of
153

today’s rulings must be reconsidered. The court affords the plaintiffs 20 days from the date of this order within which to inform the court if this correlative assumption is mistaken.
Second, in case after case in which these rulings are made, the court has marveled at the elasticity of the holdings in the cases FedEx Ground cited for various propositions. Today’s opinion sets forth several of the most remarkable examples. Based on this experience of reviewing 40 pages of FedEx Ground briefs in each of 29 cases, the court urges whatever counsel signs future FedEx Ground briefs to carefully read both the authorities cited in those briefs and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
E. For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-600 [Tennessee], the court GRANTS IN PART the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 599] and certifies the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims for violations of Tennessee’s Consumer Protection Act of 1977 and seek an accounting, rescission, and declaratory and injunctive relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since June 22, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Tennessee.
154

2. In Cause No. 3:06-CV-393 [Montana], the court DENIES the plaintiffs’
motion for class certification [doc. # 600].
3. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-593 [Mississippi], the court DENIES the plaintiffs’
motion for class certification [doc. # 598].
4. In Cause No. 3:06-CV-209 [Arkansas], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 603] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
for violations of Arkansas’s overtime statute and asserts claims for fraud,
rescission, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since January 17, 2001, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Arkansas.
5. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-666 [Kentucky], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 602] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
for violations of Kentucky’s wage deduction statute, rescission and unjust
enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since September 13, 2000, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement;
155

and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal located in Kentucky or provide(d) pick-up and delivery services within Kentucky.
6. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-540 [Texas], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 601] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
for rescission and declaratory relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since March 6, 2001 to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Texas.
7. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-601 [Wisconsin], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 582] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
for wage payment statute, rescission, and declaratory relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since August 18, 1999, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Wisconsin.
8. In Cause No. 3:06-CV-428 [Alabama], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 583] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
for rescission, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief:
156

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 11, 2000, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Alabama.
9. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-538 [New York], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 548] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
for New York’s wage statutes and unlawfulness of the Operating Agreement:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since October 27, 1998, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New York.
10. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-531 [Massachusetts], the court DENIES the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 553 and 563 (corrected version)].
11. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-528 [California], the court GRANTS IN PART AND
DENIES IN PART the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 547 and 561
(corrected version)] as follows:
a. the court DENIES the motion to the extent it seeks to certify
a class under the Family Medical Leave Act;
b. the court certifies the following class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims under
California law:
157

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since November 17, 2000, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of California.
c. the court certifies the following sub-class under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims for
overtime:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since November 17, 2001, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of California; and 4) at any time during the class period operated a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds.
12. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-595 [New Jersey], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 552] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
under New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law, N.J. STAT. ANN. § 34:11-4.1, et seq., and
Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-1, et seq., breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing within the Operating Agreement, rescission of the
Operating Agreement, quantum meruit damages for services performed, and
declaratory and injunctive relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES) for the first time on or after May 19,
158

1999; 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 19, 1999, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New Jersey.
13. In Cause No. 3:06-CV-485 [Maryland], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [(doc. # 546] and certifies the following
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’
claims for violation of Maryland’s wage statutes, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory and injunctive relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 5, 2003, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Maryland.
14. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-532 [Michigan], the court DENIES the plaintiffs’
motion for class certification [doc. # 581].
15. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-533 [Minnesota], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 576] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
under Minnesota’s Illegal Deductions from Wages Law, MINN. STAT. § 181.79, subd.
1, Failure to Keep Records Law, MINN. STAT. § 177.30, and Consumer Fraud Act,
MINN. STAT. § 325F.69, subd. 1, for rescission, quantum meruit, and declaratory
and injunctive relief:
159

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since April 5, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Minnesota.
16. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-597 [Pennsylvania], the court GRANTS IN PART
the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 579] and certifies the following
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’
claims claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, damages for violation of the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and for rescission:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 25, 2001, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
17. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-534 [New Hampshire], the court GRANTS IN PART
the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 580] and certifies the following
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’
claims for failure to pay overtime, 3 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 279:21 VII, and to
provide meal breaks, 2 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:30-a, unauthorized deductions
from compensation, 4 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:48, failure to reimburse
expenses, 5 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:57, violation of the Unfair Business
160

Practices Act, N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. ch. 358-A, et seq., rescission, failure to
reimburse employee expenses, and declaratory relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since April 27, 2002, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New Hampshire.
18. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-668 [South Carolina], the court GRANTS IN PART
the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 578] and certifies the following
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’
claims for unlawful wage deductions, S.C. CODE ANN. § 41-10-40, rescission and
unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since September 6, 2002, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of South Carolina.
19. In Cause No. 3:06-CV-337 [Missouri], the court DENIES the plaintiffs’
motion for class certification [doc. # 577].
20. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-596 [Oregon], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 557] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
161

for illegal deductions from wages, OR. REV. STAT. § 652.610, rescission, and
declaratory relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 20, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Oregon.
21. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-539 [South Dakota], the court DENIES the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 555].
22. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-390 [Indiana], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 556] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
for compensatory damages, IND. CODE §§ 22-2-4-4 and 22-2-6-1, et seq.,
rescission, and declaratory and injunctive relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since June 28, 1999, to provide package pick–up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the State of Indiana.
23. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-652 [Iowa], the court DENIES the plaintiffs’
motion for class certification [doc. # 554].
24. In Cause No. 3:06-CV-826 [West Virginia], the court GRANTS IN PART
the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 595] and certifies the following
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’
162

claims for damages for unjust enrichment and under W. VA. CODE § 46A-1-101,
et seq., and W. VA. CODE § 21-5-1, et seq., for rescission, an accounting,
declaratory and injunctive relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since September 25, 2001 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of West Virginia.
25. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-541 [Virginia], the court DENIES the plaintiffs’
motion for class certification [doc. # 597].
26. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-529 [Illinois], the court DENIES the plaintiffs’
motion for class certification [doc. # 575].
27. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-664 [Florida], the court GRANTS IN PART the
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 584] and certifies the following class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims
for damages for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
rescission, declaratory and injunctive relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since June 28, 2000, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Florida.
28. In Cause No. 3:05-CV-599 [Rhode Island], the court GRANTS IN PART
the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [doc. # 596] and certifies the following
163

class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for purposes of the plaintiffs’ claims for rescission and declaratory relief:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 19, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Rhode Island. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: March 25, 2008
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Robert L. Miller, Jr., Chief Judge United States District Court
164

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

3:05-CV-596 (Slayman - Oregon)

)

3:07cv120 (Nevada)

)

3:07cv272 (Arizona)

)

3:07cv322 (Connecticut)

)

3:07cv324 (Givens - FLSA)

)

3:07cv325 (Vagas - MCSA)

)

3:07cv326 (North Carolina)

)

3:07cv328 (Leightner - Oregon)

)

3:08cv336 (Ohio)

)

3:07cv411 (Georgia)

)

3:07cv412 (Vermont)

)

3:07cv478 (Colorado)

)

3:08cv193 (Boudreauz - Louisiana) )

3:08cv53 (Utah)

)

_____________________________________ )

CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM (MDL-1700)

OPINION AND ORDER In orders dated October 15, 2007 (Doc. # 906) and March 25, 2008 (Doc. # 1119), the court resolved motions for class certification for the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These were the motions in the first three waves of such motions. The reader’s

familiarity with the earlier orders is assumed. The parties made similar arguments in most of those first three waves of
class certification motions. Most of the rulings turned on whether, under the law governing the claims of a particular class, the plaintiffs’ claims ultimately could be resolved on the basis of common evidence such as the drivers’ Operating Agreement with FedEx and commonly applicable FedEx policies. Critical in those decisions was whether a particular state’s law looked to the right to control as distinct from the actual exercise of control, and whether evidence unique to less than all drivers might affect the ultimate decision on whether a class of drivers were, under governing law, employees or individual contractors.
Class certification motions in the fourth and fifth waves are ripe for ruling. Resolution of these motions is long overdue, having been delayed by a doubling of the assigned judge’s felony docket due to a district judgeship vacancy that has lasted more than twenty months. The parties have identified few issues not related to governing state law that were not addressed in the October 2007 and March 2008 orders, and the court adopts the reasoning of those orders to the extent the current motions pose the same arguments. Analysis focuses primarily on whether the substantive law governing the motion allows resolution, without extrinsic evidence, of whether the Operating Agreement and policies applicable to the entire class create an employment relationship, and whether a would-be employer’s conduct can convert an employment relationship (as defined in the employment contract) into an independent contractor relationship.
2

The plaintiffs moved for oral argument on the fourth wave motions. The court has been able to work through those motions without argument, so the court denies that motion as moot.
Arizona (Gibson) Named Arizona plaintiffs Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, and Joe Shipp bring claims for illegal wage deductions, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 23-352, rescission, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Joe Shipp is a driver for FedEx Home. Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, and Solomon Rachmin are former drivers for FedEx Home. They seek to represent the following class. All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES) and/or provided or will provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to an executed Operating Agreement; 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 11, 2004, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Arizona. When the motion was filed, this class would have included at least 197 drivers. FedEx opposed class certification because (among other reasons adequately discussed with respect to other states) individualized evidence would be needed to evaluate the extent of actual control, each driver’s intent, the method of payment and furnishing of equipment, the right to hire and fire, and the characteristics of each driver’s business operations. The Arizona wage deduction statute protects employees, and define as
3

“employee” as “any person who performs services for an employer under a contract of employment wither made in this state or to be performed wholly or partly within this state.” ARIZ. REV. STAT.§ 23-350(2). In deciding whether an agent is an employee or an independent contractor, Arizona law looks to the principal’s right to control the agent or supervise the method of reaching a specific result. Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. Indus. Comm’n, 713 P.2d 303, 307 (Ariz. 1986). To evaluate that right to control, Arizona courts look to the totality of the circumstances, Central Mgmt. Co. v. Indus. Com’s of Arizona, 781 P.2d 1374, 1376-1377 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989), leading FedEx to argue that courts must consider the actual exercise of control in additional to any contractual right of control. FedEx has cited no Arizona case in which a lack of control in fact trumped a contractual right sufficient to establish an employment relationship.
As in other states, such as Arkansas, Arizona law looks to the factors contained in the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220. St. Luke’s Health Sys. V. State Dept. of Law, 884 P.2d 259, 263-264 (Ariz. App. 1994). Nothing in FedEx’s submission leads the court to question its holdings with respect to those states that common questions preponderate when an agent claims a contract creates such control as to make an agency one of employment when the governing state law draws on the Restatement factors.
For the reasons set forth in earlier discussions of motions to certify classes in Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon (Slayman), and Rhode Island, the court GRANTS the Arizona
4

plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Colorado (Flores) The Colorado plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since August 1, 2004, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Colorado. The plaintiffs report that the class would consist of 228 drivers, as of the time of the motion’s filing. The named plaintiffs are Horacio Flores (a former FedEx Ground driver) and Mark Niles (a current FedEx Ground driver). They seek to present claims under Colorado’s illegal deductions from wages statute, COLO. REV. STAT. § 8-4-101, 105, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-105 et seq., for rescission, and for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court can’t agree with the Colorado plaintiffs that common questions predominate in their claims under the Colorado Wage Act. Colorado Revised Statute § 8-4-101(4) creates a presumption that one who performs services for another is an employee. Carpet Exchange of Denver, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Ofc., 859 P.2d 278, 281 (Colo. App. 1993). To overcome this presumption, the principal must prove that (1) the worker is free from the principal’s control both under the agency agreement and in fact, and (2) the worker is customarily engaged in a trade or business related to the service performed. Speedy Messenger
5

Delivery Svs. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Ofc., 129 P.3d 1094, 1096 (Colo. App. 2005). The plaintiff drivers say FedEx won’t be able to show the required lack of control under the agreement.
As under Massachusetts law considered in the second and third waves of class certification motions, Colorado law places a burden of proof on FedEx that the plaintiffs see as insurmountable. Indeed, the plaintiffs see the Colorado burden as even higher because Colorado law, as the plaintiffs understand it, will require FedEx to prove that it doesn’t command when, where, and how much labor or services shall be performed—a higher burden than FedEx bears under the law of Massachusetts, or Illinois, or South Dakota, or Montana.
The Colorado plaintiffs might be right that FedEx won’t be able to manage such a showing, but the court can’t decide that issue at this stage of the proceedings. The court must focus instead on what would happen if FedEx makes that showing—which would result in two additional hurdles for FedEx, both of which would require proof outside the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable policies. FedEx would be entitled to present evidence from the field rather than the Operating Agreement to prove that the drivers are free from FedEx control in fact (and the drivers would be entitled to present proof to the contrary). Whether a driver is (or, with respect to former drivers, was) customarily engaged in a trade or business related to the driver’s work for FedEx necessarily would require examination of each of the 228 drivers.
As a practical matter, since any of the three issues might be dispositive, all 6

likely would be briefed together for summary judgment purposes. Thus, even if the Colorado drivers are correct that FedEx can’t show their freedom from control under the Operating Agreement, the other issues (and the individual and fieldbased proof those issues entail) likely would be part of the summary judgment inquiry. Right to control under the Operating Agreement is not a preponderant issue.
The Colorado plaintiffs’ remaining claims flow from the contention that the Operating Agreement’s description of the drivers as independent contractors is, given the Agreement’s other terms, false or against public policy. Given the centrality of the Wage Act claim to those arguments, the same analysis applies.
The court denies the Colorado plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Connecticut (Magno) Named Connecticut plaintiffs Thomas Magno and Neville Edwards bring claims for violation of the Connecticut minimum wage act, rescission, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. They seek to certify the following class: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 22, 2001 to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Connecticut. They seek to certify the following sub-class under FED R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) for unpaid
7

overtime in violation of Connecticut Minimum Wage Act: All persons who: (1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and form OP-149 RES); (2) drove or will drive a vehicle over forty hours per week at any time during the class period to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; (3) at any time after August 10, 2005, operated vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds; and (4) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Connecticut.
The named plaintiffs are current drivers for FedEx Home. At the time of the class certification motion, there were 168 drivers in Connecticut.
FedEx argues that the named plaintiffs don’t adequately represent Connecticut drivers. The court rejected that argument with respect to other states, and finds the argument no more persuasive as to the Connecticut drivers.
At least with respect to the claims under the state’s minimum wage act, CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 31-71a-71i, Connecticut uses the “ABC” test in which the putative employer must prove that a) the agent is, was, and will be free from the principal’s control and direction in the performance of duties, both under the contract and in fact, b) the service is performed either outside the usual course of the principal’s business or outside all the principal’s places of business; and c) the agent is customarily engaged in an independently established trade occupation, profession or business of a sort that involved in the service provided. Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 651 A.2d 1286, 1290 n.8 (Conn. 1995). The plaintiffs speak of a common law test concerning some of their other claims, but the cited cases give the court no sound basis to believe Connecticut applies
8

different tests for different purposes when workers would be covered by the minimum wage act.
As has been explained in greater detail with respect to other states that use similar tests that place burdens on the putative employer to prove a variety of things in addition to lack of contractual control, the court can’t limit FedEx’s proof to the operating agreement and commonly applicable policies. To prevail on the named plaintiffs’ claims under Connecticut law, FedEx will have to prove much more than simply lack of contractual control, including lack of control in fact and the nature of each driver’s customary work. The plaintiffs might be correct that FedEx can’t prove lack of control under the contract, and so will fail in its ultimate burden of proof. Or the plaintiffs may be wrong. Today is not, however, the occasion to evaluate the sufficiency of FedEx’s ultimate proof.
The court can’t say that the case will be limited to common proof. The potential for extensive individualized evidence makes a class action inappropriate for the would-be Connecticut class. The court DENIES the Connecticut plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
FLSA (Givens) The Givens plaintiffs seek to certify the following class for conditional certification: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle over forty
9

hours per week at any point during the class period to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; 3) operated, at any time after August 10, 2005, vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds; and 4) are not members of any state law overtime class certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The named plaintiffs, Troy Givens, Clarence Dalcour, Wesley C. Martin, Devon Nugent, Melissa Rohman, and Ralph Carl Veal, were pickup and delivery drivers for FedEx Ground who drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds between August 10, 2005 and the present. They claim FedEx misclassified them as independent contractors rather than employees and so violated the overtime compensation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 29 U.S.C. § 206(b) and 207(a)(1). The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated pickup and delivery drivers who operated vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds since August 10, 2005 who are not already protected by a state overtime statute and who are not subject to the Motor Carrier Safety Act (“MCSA”) exemption to the FLSA’s overtime requirements.1 When the Givens plaintiffs filed their motion, they estimated between 1,000 and 1,500 putative collection action plaintiffs could join in this FLSA action. Under § 216(b) of the FLSA, an employee may bring a collective action on behalf of himself and “other employees similarly situated” to recover unpaid overtime compensation; however, “[n]o employee shall be a party plaintiff to any
1 Therefore, the plaintiffs don’t intend this collective action to encompass any state where a state overtime claim for this subset of drivers is certified for class treatment under Rule 23.
10

such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Such an action is known as a collective action, Harkins v. Riverboat Servs., Inc., 385 F.3d 1099, 1101 (7th Cir. 2004) and is intended to avoid a multiplicity of duplicate actions and to promote the FLSA’s broad remedial goals. Mares v. Caesars Entm’t, Inc., 2007 WL 118877 at *2 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 10, 2007) (citing Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 172-174 (1989)). Unlike a Rule 23 class action, when a district court decides to certify a collective action under § 216(b), it may authorize notice to potential class members to inform them of the action and allow them the opportunity to participate by “opting in.” See Id. at 169-171; Woods v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 686 F.2d 578, 580 (7th Cir. 1982) (stating that the court in a FLSA collective action has a “modest duty and power . . . to regulate the content and distribution of the notice to potential class members.”).
In deciding whether to certify a Section 216(b) collective action, the court must first consider whether the named plaintiffs have made an initial showing that they are similarly situated to the employees whom they seek to represent. Mares v. Caesars Entm’t, Inc., 2007 WL 118877 at *2. While neither the FLSA, the Supreme Court, nor the Seventh Circuit have provided guidance on how to determine whether the representative plaintiffs are “similarly situated” to the potential plaintiffs, district courts in the Seventh Circuit have adopted a two-step approach. See id (citing Austin v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc’y, 232 F.R.D. 601, 605 (W.D. Wisc. 2006); Veerkamp v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc., 2005 WL 775931 at *2 (S.D. Ind.
11

Mar. 15, 2005)). First, the representative plaintiffs must “demonstrate a reasonable basis for believing that [they are] similarly situated to potential class members.” Austin v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc’y, 232 F.R.D. at 605. Second, “if the plaintiffs make this showing, the court conditionally certifies the class, authorizes notice, and the parties conduct discovery.” Id. At the close of discovery, the defendant may move for decertification, at which point the court examines in detail the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties on the question of similar situation and may dismiss certain plaintiffs without prejudice or decertify the entire class. Id.
To meet their burden at the conditional certification stage, the representative plaintiffs must show the existence of employees with similar positions. See e.g., Sheffield v. Orius Corp., 211 F.R.D. 411, 416 (D. Or. 2002); see also Belbis v. County of Cook, 2002 WL 31600048, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2002) (noting that a plaintiff may demonstrate that an employees are similarly situated “by showing that the plaintiff and the proposed potential plaintiffs were victims of a common policy, plan, or practice.”). According to the Givens plaintiffs, the putative class members are sufficiently similar to the named plaintiffs because they were categorically misclassified as independent contractors, are all subject to the same Operating Agreement, all routinely work overtime hours without overtime compensation, and none are members of any other state law overtime class. FedEx argues that the putative class members aren’t similarly situated for a number of reasons, that the named plaintiffs are inadequate class
12

representatives, and that the class claims present issues which require individualized determination.
Although the requirements of Rule 23 generally don’t apply to certification of an FLSA collective action, inadequacy of representation is nevertheless an equitable consideration at issue in determining whether to certify a putative class. Brown v. Money Tree Mortg., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 676, 682 (D. Kan. 2004) (“Although FLSA § 16(b) does not expressly incorporate Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy-ofrepresentation requirement, the adequacy of class counsel or a class representative is not necessarily irrelevant in a putative FLSA § 16(b) collective action because the court has an inherent interest in ensuring that opt-in plaintiffs are adequately represented.”). Problems exist regarding the adequacy of these named plaintiffs as representatives of this putative class.
First, the original named plaintiffs, Troy Givens and Clarence Dalcour, lack standing to pursue FLSA overtime claims on a representative basis because they don’t meet the proposed class definition. Neither Mr. Givens nor Mr. Dalcour drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds after August 10, 2005. They both drove P-1000 trucks, which have a gross vehicle weight of more than 10,001 pounds. Because Mr. Givens and Mr. Dalcour don’t meet the class definition and are exempt from overtime under the FLSA, they aren’t similarly situated to the putative class members they seek to represent. 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1). Therefore, the named plaintiffs don’t have standing to pursue FLSA claims on behalf of the putative class. See O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974) (holding that
13

there “must be a personal stake in the outcome” . . . such that “if none of the named plaintiffs purporting to represent a class establishes the requisite of a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class”) (citations omitted).
The plaintiffs try to remedy this problems by arguing that drivers who have filed consents to join the class may serve as additional named plaintiffs in the collective action. The plaintiffs haven’t sought to amend their complaint to add these individuals, see Harkins v. Riverboat Servs., Inc., 2002 WL 32406581, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2002) (“The filing of a written consent in and of itself is insufficient to join [a Section 216(b)] lawsuit.”), so the consenting drivers aren’t named class representatives. See, e.g., Becker v. S. Soils, 2006 WL 3359687, at *1, n.1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2006) (holding that leave to amend the complaint was required to add individuals as named plaintiffs to FLSA collective action).
Second, the Givens complaint asserted FLSA claims on behalf of a nationwide class of drivers, and the plaintiffs later moved the court to toll the statute of limitations on those nationwide claims. In their motion for certification of a collective action, however, the Givens plaintiffs define the proposed class as consisting of drivers who are not already protected by a state overtime statute, effectively abandoning the claims of the nationwide class as originally defined in the complaint. As a result, the named plaintiffs have created a conflict of interest between themselves and the putative class, who might stand to benefit from the abandoned claims. Therefore, class certification is inappropriate based on the
14

named plaintiffs’ inability to adequately represent the class as a whole. See In re Universal Serv. Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litig., 219 F.R.D. 661, 668 (D. Kan. 2004) (explaining that case law exists to support the proposition that certification is inappropriate where the class representatives opt to pursue certain claims on a class-wide basis while jeopardizing the class members’ ability to subsequently pursue other claims).
Moreover, to determine the employment status of the putative class members, the FLSA requires the court to apply an economic realities test, rather than considering the common law concepts of “employee” and “independent contractor.” Sec’y of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529, 1534 (7th Cir. 1987). In doing so, the court must focus on the economic realty of the nature of the working relationship, requiring a consideration of all the circumstances of the work activity, not just one isolated factor. Id. (citing Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 730 (1947)); see also Vanskike v. Peters, 974 F.2d 806, 808 (7th Cir. 1992) (“status as an ‘employee’ for purposes of the FLSA depends on the totality of the circumstances rather than on any technical label.”). Among the criteria considered are: 1) right to control; 2) opportunity for profit or loss; 3) investment in equipment or materials required for employment; 4) the degree of skill required; 5) the degree of permanency and duration of the working relationship; and 6) the extent to which the service rendered is an integral part of the employer’s business. Sec’y of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d at 1535. Accordingly, the court must take into consideration the actual history of the
15

parties’ relationship, necessitating an individualized examination of the multiple factors relating to each drivers’ employment. Because the evidence pertaining to such factors varies in material respects throughout the proposed class, there is a lack of substantial similarity among the putative class members sufficient to justify treatment as a collective action. See Reich v. Homier Distr. Co., Inc., 362 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1013-1014 (noting that “[m]any other courts, both in this circuit and others, have declined to find potential class members similarly situated where liability depended on an individual determination of each employee’s duties) (citing Pfaahler v. Consultants for Architects, Inc., 2000 WL 198888, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2000) (“[T]he court would be required to make a fact-intensive, individual determination as to the nature of each claimant’s employment relationship . . . Where this is the case, certification of a collective action under the FLSA is inappropriate.”)).
Accordingly, the court denies the Givens plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA [Doc. No. 873]and denies both the plaintiffs’ motion to equitably toll the statutory requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) [Doc. No. 825] and FedEx’s motion to strike late-filed Givens plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of their motion to equitably toll the statutory requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) [Doc. No. 857] as moot.
Georgia (White) The Georgia plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:
16

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and Form OP 149 RES) and/or provided or will provide package pick -up and delivery services pursuant to an executed Operating Agreement; 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full -time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 26, 200 1, to provide package pick -up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Georgia.
The named plaintiffs are a former FedEx FXG Ground driver and a current
FedEx Home driver. They estimate the size of the class as 388, at the time of the
motion. The named class representative is Earnest White, who formerly drove for
FedEx Ground. FedEx argues that Mr. White is an inadequate class representative
because he lacks standing to seek future relief, because he cannot adequately
represent a class that includes current FedEx Ground drivers and current and
former FedEx Home drivers, and because the circumstances of his departure
make him an inappropriate class representative.
The court has addressed the first two objections to adequacy as a class
representative with respective to classes in other states, but hasn’t considered the
third objection. That objection is based on the proposition that Mr. White’s ill will
toward FedEx will keep him from representing the proposed class adequately. The
court is unpersuaded that Mr. White’s feelings toward his former employer will
interfere with his ability to make litigation decisions on the class’s behalf, and
overrules that objection.
FedEx also argues that Georgia law presumes a contractual designation of
a worker’s status to be correct, and that the worker must overcome that
17

presumption by showing that the principal actually assumed control—control in every detail of how the worker performs the job—over the time, manner, or method of doing the job. The plaintiffs argue that Georgia law looks to the right to control, rather than to actual control.
The parties cite almost exclusively to decisions of the Court of Appeals of Georgia, and provide the court with no reason to think the state supreme court would view the law any differently than the intermediate court of appeals. The most recent of the parties’ principal citations (and one of the authorities FedEx cites in support of its reading of Georgia law) is Teachers’ Retirement Sys. v. Forehand, 506 S.E.2d 913 (Ga. App. 1998). After retiring as superintendent of a school system and beginning to draw retirement benefits, David Forehand was called back into service as a consultant, to hold a different school system together while the school system sought a new superintendent. The contract described Mr. Forehand as an independent contractor; were he an employee, his retirement benefits would be suspended. The trial court found that Mr. Forehand was an independent contractor—as the contract said—because the school board had no right to control the time, manner, and method of his work. The retirement board appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Quoting from McGuire v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 290 S.E.2d 487 (Ga. App. 1982), the court of appeals cited the language FedEx notes: “‘Where the contract of employment clearly denominates the other party as an independent contractor, that relationship is presumed to be true unless the evidence shows that the
18

employer assumed such control.’” 506 S.E.2d at 917. The court of appeals looked at other factors—who paid the respective shares of the Social Security contribution, who paid the federal taxes, whether there was unemployment compensation, worker’s compensation, or medical insurance, whether sick leave was accrued, whether there was tenure or a multi-year contract, and whether the contract was terminable for disability or illness—and concluded that the facts didn’t convert the relationship to one of employer-employee.
Georgia’s presumption in favor of the contractually defined relationship dates back more than half a century. In Morris v. Constitution Pub. Co., 67 S.E.2d 407 (Ga. App. 1951), the plaintiff had injured herself when she tripped over a bundle of newspapers a news carrier left in the entryway to the plaintiff’s home, and the plaintiff sued the publisher. The publisher’s contract with the carrier stated that the carrier was an independent contractor. The court of appeals stated (in language that appears to place a heavier burden on the party claiming an employment relationship than that of coming forward with evidence to the contrary), “that relation is presumed to be the true one unless the evidence shows that the employer assumed some control over the time, manner or method of doing the work despite the provisions of the contract to the contrary.” 67 S.E.2d at 409. The court of appeals reviewed evidence of the actual relationship between the carrier and the publisher, and found that it didn’t contradict the contract’s definition of the relationship. The carrier was an independent contractor.
Mark Six Realty Assoc., Inc. v. Drake, 463 S.E.2d 917 (Ga. App. 1995), was 19

a homeowner’s breach of warranty claim in which the homeowner sought to hold Mark Six, a realty company (among many others) liable for the wrongdoing of a salesperson (Matsis) associated with the company. Mark Six contended that Ms. Matsis was an independent contractor. The contract said Ms. Matsis was an independent contractor, placing the burden on the homeowner to rebut the presumption that the contract was right, by “showing that [Mark Six[ in fact assumed control over the time, manner, and method of [Ms. Matsis’s] work performance.” 463 S.E.2d at 919. Mark Six had required that Ms. Matsis work exclusively for Mark Six during the life of the contract, work specified hours (Mark Six designated another person to be present when Ms. Matsis was absent), following Mark Six procedures when negotiating a sale, use standard forms Mark Six provided, and work with a Mark Six account executive. Ms. Matsis also was subject to quarterly performance reviews by a Mark Six sales manager, who was authorized to make changes as necessary. The opinion leaves it unclear whether these indicia of control were found in the contract between Mark Six and Ms. Matsis, or simply were the way things were done.
The court of appeals described these facts as “some evidence . . . Mark Six retained the right to and did, in fact, exercise control over the time, manner, and method of Matsis’ performance of her duties.” 463 S.E.2d at 920. Because the case was before the court on appeal of a jury verdict in the homeowner’s favor, no further analysis was required; that evidence sufficed to support the verdict against Mark Six.
20

Brown v. Who’s Three, Inc., 457 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. App. 1995), reached the court of appeals from a grant of summary judgment to a hair salon on a customer’s personal injury claim, based in part on the trial court’s holding that an apprentice facial esthetician named Linda Al-Ansari was an independent contractor rather than the salon’s employee. The salon’s agreement with Ms. AlAnsari described her as an independent contractor. The court of appeals said nothing about any presumption; the court didn’t even mention the agreement until the end of its discussion. As the plaintiffs note, the court of appeals said instead, “Under Georgia law, any contractual characterization of the relationship is not controlling, and the fact-finder is entitled to look beyond the terms of any contract to the parties’ behavior in order to determine the true nature of the relationship.” 457 S.E.2d at 191. The court of appeals began its analysis by noting that the term “apprentice” ordinary connotes the master-servant relationship more akin to employment that an independent contract. The court further noted that Ms. Al-Ansari couldn’t act legally as an independent contractor, because she didn’t have the license required to work independently as an esthetician; she was required to apprentice under a licensed esthetician or cosmetologist. The court noted that the salon exercised control over Ms. Al-Ansari’s methods and means by approving the table she used. Based on the licensing laws, the traditional view of apprenticeship, and the salon’s exercise of some control, the court of appeals concluded that Ms. Al-Ansari was the salon’s employee.
The plaintiffs also cite language from Keefe v. Carpet & Upholstery Cleaning 21

by Houndstooth, Inc., 444 S.E.2d 857 (Ga. App. 1994), but that case provides
little beyond the language cited. The Keefes had called Carpet & Upholstery to
clean their carpet, and Marion Johnson showed up to do the work. Mr. Keefe
slipped and fell on water Mr. Johnson had left on the floor, and the Keefes sued
Carpet & Upholstery, which claimed Mr. Johnson was an independent contractor.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Carpet & Upholstery. In the
course of discussing the Keefes’ apparent authority argument, the court of appeals
noted that a trier of fact could find that Carpet & Upholstery distributed jobs to
carpet cleaners, provided the cleaners with business cards, told the cleaners to
identify themselves as being “with” Carpet & Upholstery, and required the cleaners
to use Carpet & Upholstery invoice forms that required checks to be made payable
to Carpet & Upholstery. The court of appeals’ full discussion actual agency
contains the language the plaintiffs cite to this court, but not much more:
2. Turning to the question of whether Marion Johnson was an actual agent of defendant, we find that the traditional or “true” test of whether a person is a servant or an independent contractor has been stated in terms of whether the employer has the right to direct the time, the manner, the methods, and the means of execution of the work, as contrasted with the right to insisting upon results according to specifications of the contract. Other cases rely upon the list of 10 factors to be considered pursuant to Restatement of Agency 2d, § 220(2). Applying the factors from both of these tests to the uncontroverted facts in the cases sub judice, we do not find that either alternative answer is compelled by the evidence. Therefore, we conclude that the state court did not err in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of actual agency.
444 S.E.2d at 859 (citations omitted). The court made no mention of any written
contract between Carpet & Upholstery and Mr. Johnson, much less whether such
22

a contract designated Mr. Johnson as an employee or an independent contractor. In Murphy v. Blue Bird Body Co., 429 S.E.2d 530 (Ga. App. 1993), Blue
Bird contacted Michael Jenkins to fix a suction fan in a Blue Bird plant, and Mr. Jenkins hired James Murphy to do the job. Mr. Jenkins used a forklift to raise Mr. Murphy to fan level, and Mr. Murphy fell and was injured. Mr. Murphy sued Blue Bird, contending that Blue Bird exercised sufficient control over Mr. Jenkins to make Mr. Jenkins Blue Bird’s employee. The court of appeals turned to the ten RESTATEMENT (SECOND) § 220(2) factors and ultimately concluded that Mr. Jenkins acted as an independent contractor on day Mr. Murphy held. The court made no reference to any written contract between Blue Bird and Mr. Jenkins.
Similarly, interesting language but little guidance is found in Hall v. Buck, 426 S.E.2d 586 (Ga. App. 1992), which was (in pertinent part) an appeal from a jury verdict against the owner of a trailer filled with logs, whose driver collided with another motorist. The trailer owner (A & G Timber Company) argued that it should have been directed out because the plaintiff presented too little evidence to support respondeat superior liability. The court of appeals briefly summarized the evidence of A & G’s control over the driver, then quoted language from an earlier case: “‘Where one is employed generally to perform certain services for another, and there is no specific contract to do a certain piece of work according to specifications for a stipulated sum, it is inferable that the employer has retained the right to control the manner, method and means of the performance of the contract, and that the employee is not an independent contractor. The test is not whether the
23

employer did in fact control and direct the employee in the work, but it is whether the employer had that right under the employment contract.’” 426 S.E.2d at 591, quoting Atlanta Braves v. Leslie, 378 S.E.2d 133 (1989) (emphasis supplied by Hall court). Since the FedEx drivers have a specific contract, Hall is of limited help.
FedEx, then, is correct that the provision in its Operating Agreement establishes a rebuttable presumption that its drivers are independent contractors, thus placing a burden on the plaintiffs to come forward with evidence to the contrary. The plaintiffs already have indicated the evidence to the contrary they intend to use: other provisions of the Operating Agreement and generally applicable FedEx policies. At that point, the issue under Georgia law will become the same one that has to be resolved in states in which the court has certified classes—whether FedEx has the right, with respect to the class of drivers as a whole, to control the methods, manners, and means by which the drivers perform the contracted tasks, such as to make the drivers employees rather than the independent contractors the Operating Agreement declares. As is true in other states in which the court has certified classes, that issue will turn on the tenfactor test of RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220(2).
Georgia’s rebuttable presumption creates a procedural sidetrack unique from the other states, but ultimately, whether the plaintiff drivers are employees rather than individual contractors can be resolved by common facts. The court grants the plaintiff drivers’ motion to certify the proposed Georgia class.
24

Louisiana (Boudreaux) The Louisiana plaintiffs seek to certify a damages class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) as to their claims for rescission (third cause of action), violation of Louisiana Revised Statute §§ 23:631 and 23:634 (fourth cause of action), violation of Louisiana Revised Statute § 23:635 (fifth cause of action), violation of Louisiana Revised Statute § 23:963 (seventh cause of action), breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings (eighth cause of action), and declaratory relief (ninth cause of action), for the following defined class: All persons who, at any time after February 8, 2002, entered into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES) and drove a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) to provide package pick-up and delivery services in Louisiana pursuant to that Operating Agreement. The plaintiffs also seek to certify a non-damages class under Rule 23(b)(2) for their ninth cause of action seeking declaratory relief, for the following defined class: All persons who have since February 8, 2002, entered, or will enter, into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as Form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES) and currently drive, or will drive, a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to that Operating Agreement. When the class certification motion, there were more than 150 FedEx drivers in Louisiana. Plaintiffs Ryan Boudreaux and Timothy Bellow are former
25

FedEx Ground drivers in Louisiana.2 Both performed services for FedEx under the standard Operating Agreement at issue in the Kansas class certification and are subject to FedEx’s standardized policies and procedures. To succeed on their claims, the Louisiana drivers will need to show, first, they were FedEx employees rather than independent contractors and second, that they are entitled to relief pursuant to the various Louisiana statutes and common law theories they assert.
FedEx argues that the Louisiana plaintiffs are inadequate class representatives because the Louisiana drivers are so varied, but the court rejected similar arguments in the October 15 and March 25 orders and does so again here for the same reasons. FedEx also contends that a class action isn’t the superior method for litigating the claims of each potential class member because there is no manageable definition of “full-time” driver and the plaintiffs didn’t present a trial plan. Again, the court previously addressed, and rejected, similar arguments in its March 25 order, and does so again here.
Like most of the other motions for class certification, the Louisiana plaintiffs’ claims hinge on whether FedEx misclassified its drivers as independent contractors. FedEx argues that Louisiana law requires individualized evidence to resolve the issue of independent contractor status, so class certification isn’t appropriate. FedEx acknowledges that Louisiana utilizes a “right to control” test,
2As FedEx points out, the Louisiana plaintiffs state in their memorandum that Mr. Bourdeaux is a former Home Delivery driver, but in Mr. Bourdeaux’s certification, it states that he was a contractor for Federal Express Ground. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs don’t clarify this fact in their reply brief; the court finds it appropriate to rely on the statement in Mr. Bourdeaux’s certification.
26

but says Louisiana’s application of this factor reveals that the actual experiences of each contractor will need to be examined. The court disagrees.
In Hickman v. S. Pac. Transport Co., 262 So.2d 385, 390-391 (La. 1972), the court found the following factors relevant in determining whether an independent contractor relationship existed: (1) whether there is a valid contract between the parties; (2) whether the work being done is of an independent nature such that the contractor may employ non-exclusive means in accomplishing it; (3) whether the contract calls for specific piecework as a unit to be done according to the individual’s own methods, without being subject to the control and direction of the principal, except as to the result of the services to be rendered; (4) whether there is a specific price for the overall undertaking agreed upon; and (5) whether the duration of the work is for a specific time and not subject to termination or discontinuance at the will of either side without a corresponding liability for its breach. This test is appropriate in claims arising under Louisiana Revised Statute § 23:631. Gordon v. Hurlston, 854 So. 2d 469, 472 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2003). The court should also consider the lack of tax withholdings, social security deductions, and typical employee benefits as indicators of independent contractor status. Knapp v. The Mgmt. Co., 476 So. 2d 567, 569 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1985); Course v. Fox Wolff Const., 987 So. 2d 277, 280 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008).
The principal test is the control over the work reserved by the employer. Hickman v. S. Pac. Transport, 262 So.2d at 391; see also Glover v. Diving Servs. Int’l, Inc., 577 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1991). “Whether an individual
27

is an employee or an independent contractor . . . depends primarily on the degree of control that the principal retains in the contract over the employee’s work.” Reynolds v. Paulson, 871 So. 2d 1215, 1218 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “It is not the actual supervision or control which is actually exercised by the employer that is significant, but whether, from the nature of the relationship, the right to do so exists.” Hughes v. Goodreau, 836 So. 2d 649, 656 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted); see also LeCroy v. Interim Health Care Staffing of North Louisiana, Inc., 980 So. 2d 838, 842 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008). Factors to consider when assessing the right to control include “the selection and engagement of the worker, the payment of wages and the power of control and dismissal.” Glover v. Diving Servs., 577 So. 2d at 1106 (citing Savoie v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 347 So. 2d 188 (La. 1977)); see also LeCroy v. Interim Health Care Staffing, 980 So. 2d at 842.
FedEx contends that while the right to control is important, Louisiana courts also consider actual control. FedEx notes that in Hickman v. S. Pac. Transport the court stated that “[t]he legal relationship between [the parties] is to be determined from the contract between them and from their intentions in establishing and carrying out that relationship as manifested in its performance and the surrounding circumstances.” 262 So. 2d at 390. FedEx notes that courts have looked at actual evidence of control to find a disputed question of fact of employee status even though the agreement established an independent contractor relationship, Honeycutt v. Deutschmann, 976 So. 2d 753, 755-756 (La.
28

App. 5 Cir.), writ not considered, 978 So. 2d 338 (La. 2008), and have looked at actual evidence of control to support a finding that an employee relationship existed even though the contract reserved the right to control, Glover v. Diving Servs., 577 So. 2d at 1106. The court doesn’t read those cases as supporting the proposition that when the contract establishes a right to control the court can disregard the contractual terms in light of the actual control exercised.
FedEx further contends that the control test requires determination of individualized questions of fact, such as the sequence of deliveries, the work schedule and hours, supervision, and provision of tools and equipment. As already addressed, the right to control relating to these factors can be determined by examining common evidence. The Louisiana drivers argue that the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable FedEx policies reserve to FedEx the right to control, making the drivers FedEx employees. The extent to which FedEx exercised its right to control with respect to any given employee won’t change the employeeindependent contractor analysis: while one might become an employer by exercising more authority than is contractually granted, FedEx has cited no authority that forbearance of the exercise of contractually granted power to control affects the analysis. FedEx’s cited cases don’t support its argument that Louisiana courts will look beyond a written contract that would have created an employment relationship to find independent contractor status based on actual control. See e.g., Adams v. Greenhill Petroleum Corp., 631 So. 2d 1231, 1234-1235 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1994) (relying on evidence showing right to exercise control as opposed to
29

evidence showing lack of actual control in determining employment status). FedEx raises several concerns involving plaintiffs’ intention to utilize individualized evidence to support their claims, but as indicated in the March 25 order, if the drivers intend to offer individualized evidence to establish liability, the court will reexamine class certification.
FedEx next argues that beyond the right to control, additional factors require evaluation of individual evidence—the existence of a valid contract and specific price for the overall undertaking. FedEx hasn’t disputed the validity of its agreement. The plaintiffs don’t dispute the validity of the agreement for purposes of determining employee status; they contend that the right to control in the agreement establishes an employee-employer relationship and not the independent contractor relationship the agreement claims to establish. Louisiana courts have found that even if the contract recites that the parties have entered into an independent contractor relationship, that term isn’t necessarily controlling where other terms in the contract establish an employee relationship. See Arroyo v. East Jefferson General Hosp., 956 So. 2d 661, 664 (La. App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 957 So. 2d 179 (La. 2007) (stating that the existence of an independent contractor agreement isn’t necessarily dispositive of the issue of employment status). The agreement’s validity for determining employment status requires no individualized determinations.3 The specific price for the overall undertaking can be evaluated
3The plaintiffs’ claim that the Operating Agreement is invalid and should be rescinded because the drivers are employees is a separate issue that will be addressed
30

by examining the agreement and policies and common evidence applicable to the class members. The schedule, calculation, and manner of payment can be determined from the Operating Agreement. Whether the employee received a large portion of compensation from “core zone” payments can be examined by categorical determinations as opposed to individualized analysis. See e.g., Kibodeaux v. Progressive Ins. Co., 4 So. 3d 222, 226 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2009), writ denied, 6 So. 3d 794 (La. 2009) (examining the structure and timing of payments after noting that the test calls for a specific price for an overall undertaking).
FedEx further argues that even if the employment status issue can be resolved on a class-wide basis, the plaintiffs’ substantive causes of action need individualized analysis. The plaintiffs seek class certification on their fourth cause of action for violations of §§ 23:631 and 23:634 of Louisiana Revised Statute. Section 23:631 requires earned wages to be paid to former employees on or before the next regular payday or no more than fifteen days after discharge or resignation, whichever occurs first. LA. REV. STAT. § 23:631. Section 23:632 provides that any employer who doesn’t comply with section 23:631 is liable to the employee for the lesser of ninety days’ wages at the employee’s daily rate of pay, or full wages from the time the employee’s demand for payment is made until the employer tenders payment. LA. REV. STAT. § 23:632. Section 23:634 prohibits an employment contract that requires the forfeiture of “wages” upon an employee’s
only if the court finds that the right to control in the agreement and policies establishes an employee-employer relationship.
31

resignation or discharge. LA. REV. STAT. § 23:634. FedEx contends that the drivers’ recovery on their fourth cause of action depends on when (if at all) each former driver demanded payment and when they received final settlement.
The court understands the plaintiffs’ argument to be that if the drivers are deemed “employees,” they are entitled to certain wages that must be paid upon discharge or resignation pursuant to § 23:631. These are “wages” that weren’t paid to terminated employees because of FedEx’s alleged wrongful classification of the drivers as independent contractors.4 Section 23:631 doesn’t require that the employee first demand payment to recover unpaid wages. The demand for payment may become relevant for determining penalties under § 23:632, but “[w]hen a defendant denies liability after suit is filed, technical deficiencies in a pre-suit demand are waived by him and will not defeat imposition of statutory penalties designed to enforce prompt payment.” Carriere v. Pee Wee’s Equip. Co., 364 So.2d 555, 557 (La. 1978); see also M & D Simon Co. v. Blanchard, 389 So.2d 401, 403 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1980) (indicating that lack of demand can be remedied by filing suit). The issue of demand can be addressed by categorical evidence common to the class.
“[A] good-faith non-arbitrary defense to liability for unpaid wages, i.e., a reasonable basis for resisting liability,” can “excuse the employer from the
4The plaintiffs should notify the court immediately if this understanding is incorrect. To the extent the plaintiffs intend to assert that individual plaintiffs weren’t paid their final settlement payments under the terms of the Operating Agreement, such claims would require individualized analysis and are not suitable for class certification.
32

imposition of additional penalty wages.” Carriere v. Pee Wee’s Equip., 364 So.2d at 557. “Where there is a bona fide dispute over the amount of wages due, courts will not consider failure to pay as arbitrary refusal and generally will refuse to award penalties.” Winkle v. Advance Prod. & Sys., Inc., 721 So.2d 983, 991 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). “Reliance on an unlawful company policy however does not constitute a good faith non-arbitrary defense to liability for unpaid wages.” Beard v. Summit Inst. of Pulmonary Medicine and Rehab., Inc., 707 So.2d 1233, 1237 (La. 1998) (addressing a situation where the employer attempted to rely on a policy despite the plethora of cases finding that similar policies violated the statute). FedEx contends that it wasn’t required to pay “wages” to the drivers because they were independent contractors. Whether this is a good-faith non-arbitrary defense can be determined on a class-wide basis.
FedEx notes that § 23:631 doesn’t apply to members of the putative class who continue to contract with FedEx; § 23:361 applies only to drivers who have been discharged or resigned. The plaintiffs’ class definition for this claim includes both current and former drivers and is therefore too broad. A “class must not be defined so broadly that it encompasses individuals who have little connection with the claim being litigated.” O'Neill v. Gourmet Sys. of Minnesota, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 445, 451 (W.D. Wis. 2002) (citation omitted). To obtain certification for this claim, the plaintiffs must define a sub-class that includes only those drivers that can seek relief pursuant to § 23:631.
The plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action for illegal deduction pursuant to 33

Louisiana Revised Statute § 23:635 prohibits employers from “assess[ing] any fines against [its] employees or deduct[ing] any sum as fines from their wages.” LA. REV. STAT. § 23:635. FedEx notes that this statute doesn’t generally prohibit deductions from wages, but only those deductions that are made to punish or penalize. Samson v. Appollo Res., Inc., 242 F.3d 629, 637 (5th Cir. 2001) (applying Louisiana law). “The few cases discussing § 23:635 restrict employers from levying fines on the employee (via deduction from wages) for failing to follow workplace procedures and regulations.” Id. at 637-638 (finding no fine where the deductions weren’t arbitrarily fixed and assessed as punishment against the employee for violating a workplace rule or regulation). Further, an employer may deduct the actual cost of damage to the employer’s property as a result of the willful or negligent conduct of an employee. Cupp v. Banks, 637 So. 2d 678, 679 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1994); LA. REV. STAT. § 23:635 (“This section shall not apply in cases where the employees willfully or negligently damage goods or works, or in cases where the employees willfully or negligently damage or break the property of the employer . . .”)
The plaintiffs seem to argue that only one type of FedEx deduction—cargo claims—violates this Louisiana law. They allege in their complaint that “[d]rivers are subject to deduction from their earned wages of the value of any package lost or stolen or damaged . . . . These deductions are taken without a finding of negligence or fault on the part of the driver and despite the driver following all company policies regarding the care and security of packages.” (document # 1647-
34

5, ¶ 108 ). FedEx argues that a finding of liability pursuant to § 23:635 will require individualized analysis as to whether each cargo claim was assessed by FedEx as a result of negligent or willful behavior by the putative class member. The plaintiffs respond that whether FedEx’s policies regarding deductions violate the Louisiana statute is a question that may be answered by examining common evidence applicable to all drivers.
The court agrees with FedEx that a finding of liability pursuant to § 23:635 requires individualized analysis to determine if FedEx deducted wages for lost or stolen packages in the absence of driver negligence or willfulness. The statute prohibits the assessment of fines and whether a deduction constitutes a fine can only be determined by examining the conduct of the individual class members. There might be cases in which FedEx properly deducted wages and other instances where it was improper. The plaintiffs contend that this can be addressed at the damages stage, but whether the deduction was proper isn’t a damage issue; it’s an issue of liability. Unlike simple problems of calculation of damages for a driver who worked for a known period of time, this issue can’t be resolved systematically because it depends on FedEx’s application of its policy to individual drivers and the drivers’ conduct in each instance. The court therefore declines to certify this claim.
FedEx similarly contends that the plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action arising from alleged violations of Louisiana Revised Statute § 23:963 requires individualized analysis. Section 23:963 prohibits employers from coercing or
35

requiring its “employees to deal with or purchase any article of food, clothing or merchandise of any kind whatsoever from any person . . . .” LA. REV. STAT. § 23:963. FedEx contends that this claim isn’t founded on whether it had the right to dictate that contractors use certain vendors, but rather, whether FedEx actually coerced them. FedEx notes that the Operating Agreement is silent as to how contractors must fulfill their obligation to provide suitable vehicles and meet certain insurance requirements.
In its reply memorandum, the plaintiffs state that the evidence is undisputed that the only place for a driver to obtain a scanner or FedEx software was from FedEx, so this can be determined on a class wide basis. The plaintiffs further state that FedEx’s strict requirements with regard to the specifications for trucks virtually preclude any meaningful choice as to the source of trucks. Assuming the plaintiffs’ claim under § 23:963 to be limited to this theory, whether FedEx violated § 23:963 can be determined by evaluating common evidence and making categorical determinations. All employees were subject to the same requirements in the Operating Agreement and related policies. Common evidence can be reviewed to establish the availability of vendors capable of meeting these requirements, and categorical determinations can be made to determine which employees obtained equipment and supplies in compliance with the contract specifications.
FedEx also contends that the plaintiffs’ third cause of action for rescission requires individualized analysis. The plaintiffs allege that the Operating Agreement
36

is void as being illegal or against public policy, and so should be rescinded. Louisiana Civil Code article 2030 states that “[a] contract is absolutely null when it violates a rule of public order, as when the object of a contract is illicit or immoral. A contract that is absolutely null may not be confirmed.” LA. CIV. CODE ART. 2030. The plaintiffs argue that article 2030 renders the contract absolutely null and void because it deprives the drivers of the protections Louisiana law provides to employees and unlawfully transfers the business’ operating expenses to its employees.
FedEx responds that the plaintiffs’ purported common evidence would, at most, only support rescission of portions of the Operating Agreement and not entitle the class to recover the entire value of their work under a theory of unjust enrichment. Article 2034 states that “[n]ullity of a provision does not render the whole contract null unless, from the nature of the provision or the intention of the parties, it can be presumed that the contract would not have been made without the null provision.” LA. CIV. CODE ART. 2034. The comments to article 2034 indicate that the statute “directs the court to consider the totality of the parties’ intentions before annulling the agreement when only a portion of it is null.” LA. CIV. CODE ART. 2034, 1984 Revision Comment; see also Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 344 So.2d 1353, 1358 (La. 1977) (“[A]n immoral or illegal condition within a contract annuls the entire agreement only to the extent to which the agreement depends on it.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); Rathborne Land Co. LLC v. Ascent Energy, Inc., No. 05-2452, 2006 WL 2726367, at *3, 5 (E.D. La.
37

Sept. 22, 2006) (explaining that “dissolution of a contractual provision because it goes against public policy does not necessarily dissolve the entire contract.”). The Operating Agreement contains a saving clause stating that “[i]f any part of this Agreement is declared unlawful or unenforceable, the remainder . . . shall remain in full force and effect.” (document # 1647-4, ¶ 15). “[L]ike other questions of contract interpretation, whether a[n] agreement is severable is controlled generally by the intent of the parties as expressed by the contract terms and/or language.” Hudson v. City of Bossier, 930 So.2d 881, 894 (La. 2006). “[T]he existence of a severability provision in a contract, while not always regarded as conclusive, will generally be given considerable weight.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).
The plaintiffs say that even if article 2034 applies, there is no evidence in the record that FedEx would have signed the Operating Agreement but for the misclassification, nor evidence that any Louisiana driver would have signed on to assume a truck lease payment and other obligations of the Operation Agreement but for the misclassification. The court agrees with FedEx that article 2034 applies to the plaintiffs’ claim for rescission. Hudson v. City of Bossier, 930 So. 2d at 894 (“[T]hat the agreements contain a provision that is void as against public policy does not mean that the agreements are invalid in their entirety.”). The plaintiffs apparently intend to argue that based on the nature of the alleged unlawful provisions, it can be inferred that FedEx wouldn’t have entered into the agreement without such provisions. FedEx, though, must have the opportunity to attempt to
38

rebut that inference, and Louisiana law appears to allow FedEx to go outside the Operating Agreement to do so. FedEx already has come forth with individualized evidence of some drivers’ intentions in other states, and no basis appears that would keep them from doing so on this Louisiana rescission claim. Class certification is inappropriate on this claim.
FedEx argues that because the plaintiffs request to certify a class beginning on February 8, 2002, the statute of limitations will bar some of their claims, but not all. The court has rejected similar arguments previously and does so again here. Individualized statute of limitations determinations weigh against certification under Rule 23(b)(3), but courts have rejected a per se rule that the presence of such issues compels a finding that individual issues predominate. See In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 305 F.3d 145, 162 (3rd Cir. 2002) (“[T]he mere fact that such concerns may arise and may affect different class members differently does not compel a finding that individual issues predominate over common ones.”) (citations omitted). The court isn’t persuaded that resolving the statute of limitations defense will require factually individualized analysis of the class members; this defense can likely be resolved by categorical determinations at the damages stage. In re Revco Sec. Litig., 142 F.R.D. 659, 663 (N.D. Ohio 1992); In re Plywood Anti-Trust Litig., 76 F.R.D. 570, 586 (E.D. La 1976).
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART the Louisiana plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The motion is DENIED with respect to claims under La R.S. § 23:635, DENIED with respect to claims for rescission,
39

DENIED with respect to claims of current drivers under La. R.S. § 23:631, and
DENIED with respect to claims under La. R.S. § 23:963 based on any theory of
coercion not arising from requirements in the Operating Agreement and commonly
applicable FedEx policies. The motion is GRANTED in all other respects, but the
court orders the plaintiffs to, within ten days of this order, revise the class
definition for claims arising under section 23:631.
Motor Carrier Safety Act (Vargas)
The Vargas plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle over forty hours per week at any time during the class period to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; 3) at any time after August 10, 2005, operated vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds; 4) were dispatched in a state for which the state’s overtime law adopts the FLSA’s Motor Carrier Safety Act exemption; and 5) who are not members of a certified Rule 23 state law overtime class in this MDL proceeding.
Named plaintiffs Genaro Vargas, Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Ya
Vang, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, and Ernest Neal III, are current and former
pickup and delivery drivers for FedEx Ground. They report that when they filed
their certification motion, there were several hundred drivers from twenty states
(Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri,
Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) who were
40

being deprived of overtime pay based on their alleged misclassification by FedEx as independent contractors. They claim FedEx violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as adopted by the twenty states in which the plaintiffs were employed, for drivers of vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds.
The parties dispute whether the Vargas complaint presents issues that are better resolved in a class action rather than in individual lawsuits. The first issue is whether FedEx misclassified its pickup and delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The second issue is whether the class members drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds during the class period in states which require overtime pay for such drivers.
The plaintiffs claim that both issues are common to all class members, reiterating their argument made in support of certification in the individual state actions—that all FedEx drivers sign the same operating agreement and are subject to the same standardized practices and policies. They contend that whether the class members are entitled to overtime pay is based on common proof because the twenty state overtime laws each require that employees receive one and a half times their normal hourly rate for each hour they work over forty per week. The plaintiffs note that the twenty named states incorporate the Motor Carrier Safety Act (“MCSA”) exemption contained in the FLSA, which provides that overtime requirements don’t apply to any employees with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has the power to establish qualifications and maximum hours or service (namely any gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more). 29 U.S.C. §
41

213(b)(1); 49 C.F.R. § 390.5. According to the Vargas plaintiffs, the state laws differ only in how they incorporate the MCSA exemption.
FedEx maintains that class certification is inappropriate because of the variations in the employment status classification laws of the various states as well as the differences in the substantive state overtime laws. FedEx points out that some states apply the common law right to control test, some apply variations of the economic realities test, and others apply ABC tests or haven’t yet determined the classification test to be used in regard to overtime claims. FedEx contends that these variations are material and would require a jury to determine the plaintiffs’ employment status under the divergent laws of twenty states, resulting in a fundamentally unmanageable class. FedEx argues that the plaintiffs can’t show that common issues predominate because of the substantial variations in the state overtime laws, including different exemptions, different definitions of hours worked, and different methods of computing overtime. Moreover, the states incorporate the MCSA exemption differently: some citing the limits on the Secretary of Transportation’s authority, some citing the FLSA overtime provisions, and others citing the MCSA directly.
Although the court has certified state overtime claims for class treatment in several of the states from which the Vargas class would be drawn, including Kansas, California, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and Oregon, certification was based on the law of the single state at issue as opposed to the multi-state class the Vargas plaintiffs propose. To certify a multi-state class, the laws of the various
42

states at issue must be sufficiently similar to be managed in a single case. See Flanagan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 242 F.R.D. 421, 431-432 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (certifying multi-state class under Rule 23(b)(3) upon finding predominance requirement satisfied by the similarity between the elements of a breach of contract claim under the state laws at issue); see also Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1300-1302 (7th Cir. 1995) (declining to certify multi-state, negligence class action based on an amalgamation of the negligence standards of the 50 states and the District of Columbia where the laws at issue were non-identical).
The laws of the various states in the Vargas complaint are too dissimilar enough to be managed in a single case. An essential element of the overtime drivers’ claim is that they were misclassified as independent contractors, rather than employees; the test used to determine employment status varies by state and requires examination of different types of evidence (even among the states that apply the right to control test, for example, some states use differing tests as to what amounts to sufficient control to make an agent an employee). The plaintiffs’ proposed class definition includes plaintiffs from states in which the court denied class certification in its March 25, 2008 order (Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Montana) based on the determination that individualized issues would predominate in the employment status inquiry. In these states, the agency determination will turn on a variety of issues and a variety of proof from individual plaintiffs, making the proposed Vargas class unmanageable. The plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Vargas class might be divided into subclasses based on the
43

particular classification test suffers the same defects. Accordingly, the court denies the Vargas plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Nevada (DeCesare) Named Nevada plaintiffs Mike DeCesare and Michael Meno sue under the Nevada False Claims Act, NEV. REV. STAT. § 357.010-.250, Nevada tax liability statutes, NEV. REV. STAT. § 363B.110(2), and employee benefits statutes, NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 608, for violation of statutory duties as to unemployment and workers compensation, rescission, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Mr. Decesare and Mr. Meno both are former FedEx Home drivers. They seek to certify the following class: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since August 1, 2001 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Nevada. FedEx asserted in its removal petition that the class definition would have included more than 200 people at the time the petition was filed. FedEx opposes class certification, arguing that (1) Nevada uses an “economic realities” test to decide the nature of the principal-agent relationship, and that test requires the evaluation of individualized evidence; (2) the named plaintiffs lack standing and can’t adequately represent so diverse a group of drivers; and (3) class certification is inappropriate under the Nevada False Claims
44

Act. The court has addressed similar arguments concerning the adequacy of
former drivers as class representatives in other states; for the reasons set forth in
those discussions, Fed Ex’s arguments as to Mr. DeCesare and Mr. Meno are
unpersuasive.
Controlling Nevada law is murky at best. That reasonable minds can differ
seems eloquently shown by the Nevada plaintiffs’ three briefs that each propose
a different rules as the law of Nevada. FedEx’s two briefs are consistent, but
ultimately unpersuasive, on the governing law: FedEx cites Prieur v. D.C.I. Plasma
Ctr. of Nevada, Inc., 726 P.2d 1372 (Nev. 1986), for the proposition that Nevada
has adopted the “economic realties” test of the FLSA. FedEx bases its argument
on the following passage:
Both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Nevada Wage and Hour Law require an “employer” to pay minimum wage to an “employee” under specific circumstances; therefore, an entitlement to minimum wage must be predicated on the existence of an employment relationship. See NRS 608.250; 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1) (1982). See also Urban v. Continental Convention & Show Management, 68 N.W.2d 633 (Minn.1955). To determine whether an employment relationship exists, the “economic reality” of the relationship must be considered. Goldberg v. Whitaker House Coop., Inc., 366 U.S. 28, 81 S.Ct. 933, 6 L.Ed.2d 100 (1961); Carter v. Dutchess Community College, 735 F.2d 8, 12 (2nd Cir.1984).
Id. at 1373. FedEx assumes that since the first sentence speaks of both Nevada
law and the FLSA, so must the second sentence. This court believes that had the
Nevada Supreme Court intended to adopt a test entirely different from any found
in its cases before (or since), the seven-paragraph Prieur opinion would have done
so more explicitly. Prieur held that inmates whom the state Department of Prisons
45

farmed out to a private blood plasma laboratory were employees of the Department of Prisons rather than the private laboratory, and so were not entitled to the federal minimum wage rather than less than thirteen cents an hour.
In a footnote in Boucher v. Shaw, 196 P.3d 959, 963 n.27 (Nev. 2008), the Nevada Supreme Court clarified that the “economic reality” test isn’t part of Nevada law insofar as necessary to resolve this case.
In the Nevada plaintiffs’ opening class certification brief, they argued that Nevada courts look to the amount of control the principal exercises over the agent when deciding whether the agent is an employee or an independent contractor, and that five factors guide that examination:
(1) the degree of supervision exercised by the putative employer over the details of the work; (2) the source of the worker's wages; (3) the existence of a right on the part of the putative employer to hire and fire the worker; (4) the extent to which the worker's activities further the ‘general business concerns' of the putative employer; and (5) the putative employer's right to control the hours and location of employment. Williston v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 848 P.2d 1062, 1063 (Nev. 1993) (quoting Leslie v. J.A. Tiberti Constr., 664 P.2d 963, 965 (Nev. 1983). In later discussions of supplemental authority, Fed Ex argued that this five-factor test looks to actual control, and so weighs against class certification. Williston arose under Nevada’s worker compensation laws. In their reply brief, the Nevada plaintiffs argued that the Nevada courts had abandoned the “actual control exercised” test in favor of the “normal work” test articulated in Meers v. Haughton Elevator, 701 P.2d 1006, 1007 (Nev. 1985), and
46

codified in the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act, NEV. REV. STAT. § 616B.603. Under that test, a principal is not an if employer if who he enters into a contract with an independent enterprise that is not in the same trade, business, profession or occupation as the principal. NEV. REV. STAT. § 616B.603.
In their supplemental statement following the court’s March 2008 class certification opinion, the Nevada plaintiffs argued that while the “normal work” test governs their claims under Nevada statutes, their common law claims are based on Nevada’s pre-codification/Meers “right of control” case law, citing Antonini v. Hanna Indus., 573 P.2d 1184, 1186 (Nev. 1978), and Nevada Indus. Com’n v. Bibb, 374 P.2d 531, 534 (Nev. 1962).
Part of the elusiveness of Nevada law flows from statutory amendments in 1985 to its worker compensation laws. Those amendments made independent contractors employees if the work being done normally is carried out through employees in that business. See Meers v. Haughton Elevator, 701 P.2d 1006. These amendments brought more workers within the worker compensation laws and broadened the protection against tort liability of those who, in other states, would not be employers or co-employers. It seems fair—and not unkind—to say that the Nevada courts have struggled to apply these unusual and challenging statutes. See, e.g., Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, 148 P.2d 684 (Nev. 2006) (replacing previous analytical distinction between construction and nonconstruction case with new test).
Under Nevada’s Industrial Insurance Act, an employee is a “person in the 47

service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire.” NEV. REV. STAT. § 616A.105. To prove that an agent is not his employee, a principal must demonstrate both that the agent is an “independent enterprise” and that the principal and agent are not involved in the “same trade, business, profession, or occupation.” Hays v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada, 31 P.3d 367, 370 (Nev. 2001); NEV. REV. STAT. § 616B.603(1). Nevada’s statutory test, then, pays no attention to control, whether contractual or actual; it looks at the nature of the work of the principal and the agent. FedEx has advanced no reason why that cannot be done on a class-wide basis. The possibility has been raised that Nevada might recognize no private right of action with respect to one or more of the drivers’ claims under the Industrial Insurance Act, see Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96 (Nev. 2008), but that issue, too, is common to the class.
Questions of fact and law common to the class preponderate with respect to claims under the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act; class certification is appropriate as to those claims.
The Nevada courts have provided no reason to think the Industrial Insurance Act test applies to any of the plaintiffs’ common law claims. In their most recent submissions, the Nevada plaintiffs argue that pre-Act case law continues to govern those claims. The Nevada plaintiffs argue that the pre-Act cases focused on the principal’s right to control the agent, citing Antonini v. Hanna Indus., 573 P.2d 1184, 1186 (Nev. 1978); Nevada Indus. Comm’n v. Bibb, 374 P.2d 531, 534 (Nev. 1962); Jackson v. Southern Pacific Co., 285 F. Supp. 388,
48

389 (D. Nev. 1968) (applying Nevada law). The plaintiffs might be correct that Nevada common law would provide the rule of decision to the non-Industrial Insurance Act claims, but the cited cases provide no guidance on what the common law might be. The cited cases each sought to apply the predecessor Industrial Insurance Act—they are exercises in statutory construction, not exemplars of Nevada common law.
When the state’s highest court hasn’t spoken, a court sitting in diversity must try to predict how that court would decide, Abstract & Title Guar. Co., Inc. v. Chicago Ins. Co., 489 F.3d 808, 811 (7th Cir. 2007), but the parties haven’t provided the court with any basis for predicting the rule the Nevada Supreme Court would apply to common law determinations as to whether an agency relationship is that of employer and employee. As this court’s rulings on the myriad class certification motions in this docket demonstrate, the several states have adopted a wide range of rules, and the Nevada briefs equip this court for nothing better than a guess about what Nevada’s highest court might do.
As movants for class certification, the plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that the elements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23 have been satisfied. Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 797 (7th Cir. 2008) (“A plaintiff seeking class certification must satisfy all of the criteria enumerated in Rule 23(a) . . . and fall within at least one subsection of Rule 23(b).”). To satisfy those requirements in the cases in this docket, as this and previous orders explain, plaintiff drivers must demonstrate that the governing law allows the nature of the agency to be
49

determined without reference to experiences or circumstances of individual drivers. The Nevada plaintiffs have not carried that burden with respect to their claims that don’t arise under NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 608.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Nevada plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with respect to their claims under NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 608, but DENIES the motion in all other respects.
North Carolina (Whiteside) The North Carolina plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full -time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 2, 2003, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of North Carolina. At the time of the class certification motion, 405 drivers would have been in the class. The named plaintiffs are four current FedEx Home Delivery drivers and two former FedEx Ground drivers. They seek the Operating Agreement’s rescission as illegal and void as against public policy and to recover the value of their services and expenditures as employees. They also seek certification for a claim under the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75 1.1(a), and a declaratory judgment that they are employees. FedEx argues that the North Carolina plaintiffs are inadequate class representatives because the North Carolina drivers are so varied, but the court
50

rejected similar arguments in the March 2008 order and does so again here, for the same reasons.
FedEx also argues that North Carolina law requires evaluation of each of eight factors, looking beyond the Operating Agreement to determine the parties’ intent and communications with each driver when that driver signed on. FedEx says the overall degree of control—not just the right of control—over a particular driver controls the driver’s status as an employee, so some of its drivers will be independent contractors even if others are employees.
North Carolina employs an eight-factor test to decide whether one is an employee or an independent contractor: whether the person is engaged in an independent business, calling or operation; is to have independent use of his special skill, knowledge or training in performing the work; is doing a specified piece of work at a fixed price or on a quantitative basis; is subject to discharge for adopting one way of doing the work rather than another; is in the other contracting party’s regular employ; is free to use whatever assistants the person might think proper; has full control over such assistants; and selects his or her own time. Johnson v. The News and Observer Publishing Co., 604 S.E.2d 344, 347 (N.C. App. 2004) (quoting Hayes v. Elon College, 29 S.E.2d 137 (N.C. 1944). North Carolina courts consult this eight factor test in deciding whether the putative employer has the right of control that makes the other contracting party an employee. McCown v. Hines, 549 S.E.2d 175, 177-178 (N.C. 2001). “If the employer has the right of control, it is immaterial whether he actually exercises
51

it.” Youngblood v. North State Ford Truck Sales, 364 S.E.2d 433, (N.C. 1988). None of the cases cited in the briefs suggest that the drivers’ status couldn’t
be decided simply by consideration of the Operating Agreement with FedEx and commonly applicable FedEx policies. When no contract exists, North Carolina courts examine the parties’ intent and the control actually exercised. See, e.g.. McCown v. Hines, 549 S.E.2d 175; State Employment Security Com’n v. Paris, 400 S.E.2d 76 (N.C. App. 1991). Neither party identified a case in which a North Carolina court looked beyond a written contract that would have created an employment relationship. See, e.g., Johnson v. News and Observer Publishing Co., 604 S.E.2d 344 (N.C. App. 2004) (relying on contract provisions to reverse finding of independent contractor status).
The court grants the North Carolina plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Ohio (Kelly) Named Ohio plaintiffs Paul Kelly, Dean Johnson, Thomas Wenzlick, Kenneth R. Miller, Adelbert Lawrence, Russell Jackson and Robert Velo bring claims for unjust enrichment, fraud, constructive trust, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Mr. Kelly, Mr.Johnson, Mr. Wenzlick, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Velo drive for FedEx Ground. Mr. Miner is a former FedEx Ground driver. The Ohio plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and form OP-149-RES) and/or provide or will provide package
52

pick-up and delivery services pursuant to an executed Operating Agreement; 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 15, 2002 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of terminal in the state of Ohio. The Ohio plaintiffs report that when they filed their certification motion, the class would have included at least 750 people. FedEx opposes certification on several grounds. First, FedEx argues that Ohio law will require examination of individual issues including the parties’ actual conduct, actual control of the manner and means of performance, and interpretation of the operating agreement. These individual issues, FedEx says, will predominate in the analysis of plaintiffs’ employment classification. FedEx also contends that the fraud claim can’t be certified. FedEx also argues, as it has with respect to other states, that the named plaintiffs are inadequate class representatives because they seek remedies not sought by all class members and because they are abandoning drivers who might qualify as employees because of actual control (as distinct from the right to control). The court has addressed those arguments with respect to the adequacy of representatives of other classes, and finds FedEx’s arguments equally unpersuasive in Ohio. The court rejected FedEx’s argument concerning the fraud claim with respect to the Kansas class certification, and does so here for the same reasons. The Supreme Court of Ohio tells us that the key factual determination in deciding whether an agent is an employee “is who has the right to control the
53

manner or means of doing the work.” Bostic v. Connor, 524 N.E.2d 881, 884 (Ohio 1988). That decision, the court says, is made by examining a set of factors that echoes those cited in RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220:
The factors to be considered include, but are certainly not limited to, such indicia as who controls the details and quality of the work; who controls the hours worked; who selects the materials, tools and personnel used; who selects the routes travelled; the length of employment; the type of business; the method of payment; and any pertinent agreements or contracts. Id. (citing Gillum v. Indus. Comm., 48 N.E.2d 234, 237-238 (Ohio 1943). Similar tests have led the court to certify classes in several other states, including Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island. FedEx argues for a different outcome by citing language from a variety of intermediate appellate court decisions, but none of those cases involved an extracontractual factor making an independent contractor out of an agent over whom a written contract bestows upon the principal the right to control the manner or means of the agent’s performance of the contractual duties. See See Napier v. Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Employment Servs., No. 89 AP-741, 1990 WL 31774, at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 22, 1990) (RESTATEMENT factors applied; employment relationship found); Harmon v. Schnurmacher, 616 N.E.2d 591, 593 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (RESTATEMENT factors applied; employment relationship found); Bee v. Prof. Courier Int’l, Inc., No. S-99-030, 2000 WL 376310, at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2000) (equipment lease agreement stipulated independent
54

contractor relationship, but actual control created fact issue); Jones v. Trademark Cos., No. 1-99-46, 1999 WL 692603, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 1, 1999) (employment contract stipulated independent contractor relationship, but actual control created fact issue); Clouse v. Quick Air Freight, Inc., 1994 WL 714498, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 22, 1994) (equipment lease agreement stipulated independent contractor relationship, but actual control created fact issue); Silver v. Statz, 849 N.E.2d 320 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (newspaper driver’s employment contract stipulated independent contractor relationship, but actual control created fact issue).
FedEx places special reliance on two Ohio cases, but they differ too greatly from this one to be of value. FedEx says that in Hoegler v. Auto Site Recovery Service Inc., No. 2459-M, 1996 WL 148631 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 3, 1996), the court of appeals discounted the significance of the employment agreement when deciding whether the agreement was erroneously excluded from evidence at trial. As with many of the cases just cited, though, the contract described the agent as an independent contractor, while evidence of ample actual control over the agent supported the jury’s finding that the agent was an employee. A lack of contractual control doesn’t offset an otherwise sufficient exercise of actual control under Ohio law—given enough actual control, the agent is an employee no matter what the contract says. But that doesn’t support the inference, which is the proposition FedEx needs to defeat class certification: that forbearance of sufficient contractually-granted actual control produces an independent contractor under
55

Ohio law. FedEx cites Ogier v. Stewart Brothers, Inc., No. 96APE12-1732, 1997 WL
447652, at *1 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 5, 1997), for the proposition that an unexercised contractual right of control may be disregarded. Perhaps so, but Ogier doesn’t say it may be disregarded in this case. The issues in Ogier were twofold: whether Mr. Ogier was an independent contract or an employee, and if he was an employee, whose employee he was. Mr. Ogier’s employment contract with LandAir created an employment relationship. LandAir’s contract with Stewart appeared to delegate to Stewart some control over Mr. Ogier, but the actual performance of LandAir-Stewart contract defeated argument that Stewart also was Mr. Ogier’s employer. That holding falls well short of saying courts may disregard an otherwise sufficient right to control found in the control between the principal and the agent.
The court grants the Ohio plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Oregon (Leighter) Named Oregon plaintiffs Jon Leighter and David Spicer seek to certify a damages and unjust enrichment class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for violation of Oregon Revised Statute § 652.610 (illegal deductions for wages) and rescission of the Operating Agreement. They also seek to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for declaratory and injunctive relief.
56

The plaintiffs’ proposed class is defined as:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 20, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Oregon.
The plaintiffs further seek to certify two damages subclasses. The first subclass
includes drivers who have been denied overtime premium pay and is defined as:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Oregon; and 4) who, at any time after August 10, 2005, operated vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds.
The second subclass includes former drivers who have claims for statutory penalty
wages under Oregon Revised Statute § 652.150 and is defined as:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Oregon; and 4) whose Operating Agreement was terminated any date after July 20, 1999.
The named plaintiffs were Home Delivery drivers for FedEx during the
proposed class period and performed services for FedEx under the FedEx standard
Operating Agreement and common applicable policies. Mr. Leighter stopped
57

driving for FedEx in August 2007 and Mr. Spicer stopped driving for FedEx in April or May 2007. Both plaintiffs drove trucks with gross weight ratings under 10,001 pounds and both routinely worked for FedEx in excess of eight hours per day and forty hours per week.
At the time of the class certification motion, there were 140 FedEx drivers in Oregon; of these, 42 were Home Delivery drivers who drove trucks under 10,001 pounds. The record establishes numerous other drivers who entered into Operating Agreements during the class period, but who have since ceased working for FedEx.
FedEx argues that the Oregon plaintiffs are inadequate class representatives because the Oregon drivers are so varied, but the court rejected similar arguments in the October 2007 and March 2008 orders and does so again here for the same reasons. FedEx further maintains that extrinsic, parol evidence will be required to interpret the Operating Agreement, which will necessarily involve the evaluation of individualized evidence. Again, the court previously addressed, and rejected, similar arguments in its previous order, and does so again here.
Like most of the other class certification motions, the Oregon plaintiffs’ claims hinge primarily on whether FedEx misclassified its drivers as independent contractors. FedEx argues that Oregon law requires individualized evidence to resolve the issue of independent contractor status, so class certification isn’t appropriate. As to the plaintiffs’ wage deductions, overtime, and non-payment of wages upon termination claims, FedEx acknowledges that this court has already
58

found that the applicable right to control test can be addressed on a class-wide basis. (See March 25, 2009 Opinion, pp. 108-110, Slayman plaintiffs). Although the court also previously certified the Slayman plaintiffs’ rescission claim under Oregon law, FedEx now asserts that this claim should be governed, at least in part, by Oregon Revised Statute § 670.600, which requires individualize analysis. The court’s previous order didn’t address the statutory definition of independent contractor found in § 670.600.
As indicated in the March 2008 order, Oregon courts generally utilize a common law “right to control” test to decide a worker’s status. Perri v. Certified Languages Int’l LLC, 66 P.3d 531, 534 (Or. Ct. App. 2003) (citation omitted). “While there is no simple measure of the extent to which an employer may control a worker in the performance of his task without creating a master-servant relationship, control over performance remains the principal test.” Schaff v. Ray’s Land & Sea Food Co., Inc., 45 P.3d 936, 939 (Or. 2002) (quoting Jenkins v. AAA Heating & Cooling, Inc., 421 P.2d 971 (1966)). “Generally, the test for determining whether one is a servant or an independent contractor is based not on the actual exercise of control by the employer, but on the right to control.” Cantua v. Creager, 7 P.3d 693, 700 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Great American Ins. v. General Ins., 475 P.2d 415 (Or. 1970)). Courts analyze the following factors under that test: (1) the right to, or the exercise of, control; (2) the method of payment; (3) the furnishing of equipment; and (4) the right to fire. Id. (citation omitted).
No single factor is dispositive, but a single factor indicating an employer59

employee relationship may be proof of an employment relationship, “whereas contrary evidence, indicating independent contractor status, is, at best, mildly persuasive and may have no effect at all to a determination of worker status.’” Stamp v. Dept. of Consumer and Bus. Servs., 9 P.3d 729, 733 (Or. App. 2000) (citation omitted). Oregon courts use the "right of control" test when evaluating whether a person is an employer under Oregon Revised Statute § 652. Ford-Torres v. Cascade Valley Telecom, Inc., 2008 WL 551503, at * 3 (D. Or. 2008). This test also applies to claims for overtime payments. Perri v. Certified Languages, 66 P.3d at 535 (applying “right to control” test to alleged violations of Oregon’s minimum wage and overtime statutes). This “right to control” test thus applies to the plaintiffs’ claims of wage deductions, overtime, and non-payment of wages upon termination. As the court has previously found, this test can be applied by examining the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable FedEx policies.5 See March 25, 2009 Opinion, pp. 109-110 (citing Oregon cases applying varying tests, but concluding that the applicable tests wouldn’t require individual, driver-bydriver analysis to determine employment status).
The plaintiffs’ rescission claim is based on FedEx’s alleged misclassification of its drivers as independent contractors to evade employment-related obligations such as providing workmen’s compensation insurance and unemployment
5 The court notes that the plaintiffs may have indicated a desire to introduce anecdotal evidence to support their claims in this action. If the plaintiffs intend to introduce anecdotal evidence of FedEx’s actual exercise of control to support their claims, they should inform the court immediately because this may require reevaluation of class certification.
60

insurance and the withholding of income tax. These obligations arise by statute
and don’t apply to “independent contractors.” Oregon Revised Statute § 670.600
sets forth a standard to be used when determining if an individual is an
independent contractor for purposes of Chapter 316 (personal income tax), 656
(workers’ compensation), and 657 (unemployment insurance).
Although Section 670.600 states a test for determining whether a worker is
an independent contractor, the Oregon Supreme Court in S-W Floor Cover Shop
v. Nat’l Council on Compensation Ins., 872 P.2d 1, 10 (Or. 1994) found:
A determination first is made as to whether one is a “worker” before a determination is made as to whether that “worker” is a “nonsubject” worker pursuant to one of the exemptions of ORS 656.027. The initial determination of whether one is a “worker” under ORS 656.005[] continues to incorporate the judicially created “right to control” test. One who is not a “worker” under that test is not subject to workers' compensation coverage, and the inquiry ends. The “nonsubject worker” provisions of ORS 656.027 never come into play. If the initial determination made under ORS 656.005[] is that one is a worker because one is subject to direction and control under the judicially created “right to control” test, then one goes on to determine under ORS 656.027 whether the worker is “nonsubject” under one of the exceptions of that statute.
Id. at 10. In discussing the “right to control test” in the workers’ compensation
context, the court stated that it “is based not on the actual exercise of control by
the employer, but on the right to control.”’ Id. at 5. Further, “[w]here the
relationship between the parties cannot be established by the ‘right to control’
test,” the court stated that it is “permissible to turn to the judicially created
‘nature of the work’ test to determine if an employment relationship exists.” Id. at
5, n.6 (citation omitted).
61

The S-W Floor Cover Shop holding made the criteria of Section “670.600 essentially irrelevant to determining whether a person is a worker under the Workers' Compensation Law.” Trabosh v. Washington County, 915 P.2d 1011, 1014 (Or. App. 1996) (“Because the definition of worker incorporates the right to control test without using the term “independent contractor” or otherwise referring to ORS 670.600, the traditional test of an independent contract remains the operative one; the exemptions of ORS 656.027, with their incorporation of ORS 670.600, never come into play.”). Since the Supreme Court's decision, courts “have applied the right to control and nature of the work tests to determine a person's status under the Workers' Compensation Law without reference to ORS 670.600.” Id.
“[W]hen an employer has the right to control a claimant’s performance in some respects but not others, it is essential that [the court] consider the factors which make up the ‘nature of work’ test in deciding whether the control that employer retains makes the relationship one of master and servant.” Rubalcaba v. Nagaki Farms, Inc., 43 P.3d 1106, 1111-1112 (Or. 2002) (citing Woody v. Waibel, 554 P.2d 492 (Or. 1976)) (although control is an “essential ingredient” in determining employment status, workers’ compensation statutes do not preclude consideration of nature of work factors when some evidence of control exists)). The right to control and nature of work tests aren’t independent and shouldn’t be applied hierarchically. Id. at 1112. When “there is some evidence suggesting that an employer retained the right to control the method and details of a claimant’s
62

work, a conclusion about the claimant’s status depends on the analytical factors relevant to both tests.” Id. When the right to control test conclusively establishes an employment relationship however, it may not be necessary to consider the nature of work factors. See Stamp v. Dept. of Consumer and Bus. Serv., 9 P.3d 729, 735 (Or. App. 2000). In evaluating the “nature of work” test, the court should “consider[] factors such as whether the work at issue is a regular part of the employer’s business, whether the work is continuous or intermittent, and whether the duration of the work is such that it qualifies as a hiring for a continuing service or as contracting for the completion of a particular job.” Schmidt v. Intel Corp., 112 P.3d 428, 432 (Or. App. 2005) (citation omitted).
The Oregon Supreme Court uses the right to control and nature of work test when determining employment status in worker compensation cases; these tests can likely be analyzed by evaluating common evidence applicable to the entire class. But this isn’t so when analyzing the unemployment insurance statute,6 because the test used in that context involves application of the statutory definition of independent contractor found in Section 670.600.
Oregon’s unemployment insurance statute only applies to “employment”, defined with certain exceptions as “service for an employer . . . performed for
6Determining employment status under the tax withholding statute likely requires individualized analysis, but because the application of Section 670.600 to this statute hasn’t been clarified in light of S-W Floor Cover Shop v. Nat’l Council on Compensation, the court limits its analysis to the unemployment insurance statute.
63

remuneration or under any contract of hire . . .” ORS § 657.030(1).7 There is a
statutory exception for services performed by an “independent contractor as that
term is defined in ORS 670.600.” ORS § 657.040(1). To be considered an
independent contractor, an individual must meet all applicable standards as
outlined in the statute. Each standard is conclusive. PacifiCab Co. v. Employment
Dept., 69 P.3d 774, 776 (Or. App. 2003). Section 670.6008 provides:
2). . . “[I]ndependent contractor” means a person who provides services for remuneration and who, in the provision of the services:
(a) Is free from direction and control over the means and manner of providing the services, subject only to the right of the person for whom the services are provided to specify the desired results; (b) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, is customarily engaged in an independently established business; (c) Is licensed under ORS chapter 671 or 701 if the person provides services for which a license is required . . . ; and (d) Is responsible for obtaining other licenses or certificates necessary to provide the services.
(3) For purposes of subsection (2)(b) of this section, a person is considered to be customarily engaged in an independently established business if any three of the following requirements are met:
(a) The person maintains a business location: (A) That is separate from the business or work location of the person for whom the services are provided; or (B) That is in a portion of the person's residence and that
7FedEx contends that it is exempted from this statute pursuant to ORS § 657.047(1)(b), which provides a blanket exemption for certain transportation related services. The court however needn’t decide that issue today.
8Section 670.600 underwent significant revisions that became effective in 2006. Oregon Laws Ch. 533, S.B. No. 323 (2005). See PacifiCab Co. v. Employment Dept., 69 P.3d at 697 (analyzing the prior version of the statute). The court recites the current version of the statute in this opinion, but notes that both versions would likely be applicable to individuals in the proposed class.
64

portion is used primarily for the business. (b) The person bears the risk of loss related to the business or the provision of services as shown by factors such as:
(A) The person enters into fixed-price contracts; (B) The person is required to correct defective work; (C) The person warrants the services provided; or (D) The person negotiates indemnification agreements or purchases liability insurance, performance bonds or errors and omissions insurance. (c) The person provides contracted services for two or more different persons within a 12-month period, or the person routinely engages in business advertising, solicitation or other marketing efforts reasonably calculated to obtain new contracts to provide similar services. (d) The person makes a significant investment in the business, through means such as: (A) Purchasing tools or equipment necessary to provide the services; (B) Paying for the premises or facilities where the services are provided; or (C) Paying for licenses, certificates or specialized training required to provide the services. (e) The person has the authority to hire other persons to provide or to assist in providing the services and has the authority to fire those persons.
ORS § 670.600(2) and (3). Once the claimant has established an employment
relationship, the employer has the burden to establish that the worker is an
independent contractor under the statute. Petersen v. Employment Dept., 898 P.2d
210, 217 (Or. App. 1995); Travel Networkers, LLC v. Employment Dept., 30 P.3d
416, 418 (Or. App. 2001) (“[T]he fact that Travel Networkers pays its agents for
their services means that they are deemed employees for unemployment tax
purposes, unless Travel Networkers can prove that its agents are independent
contractors, as that term is defined in ORS 670.600.”).
As has been explained in greater detail with respect to other states that use
65

similar tests that place burdens on the putative employer to prove a variety of things in addition to lack of contractual control, the court cannot limit FedEx’s proof to the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable policies. To prevail on the named plaintiffs’ claim for rescission under Oregon law, FedEx will need to prove much more than simply lack of contractual control, including lack of control in fact and engagement in an independently established business. The plaintiffs might be correct that FedEx can’t prove lack of control under the contract, and so will fail in its ultimate burden of proof. Or the plaintiffs might be wrong. As noted previously though, today is not the occasion to evaluate the sufficiency of FedEx’s ultimate proof. Even though the plaintiffs likely can present common evidence on FedEx’s alleged violation of the workers’ compensation statute, the court declines to certify their rescission claim because the claim rests in part on an alleged violation of the unemployment insurance statute, which requires application of Section 670.600.
The court takes this opportunity to reconsider its holding in Slayman (Case No. 3:05-CV-596 (OR)), on class certification of the plaintiffs’ claim for rescission. For the reasons stated above, the court decertifies the plaintiffs’ rescission claim in the Slayman action.
FedEx also claims that class certification should be denied on the plaintiffs’ proposed subclasses because the class members can’t be readily ascertained. The plaintiffs propose one subclass arising under Oregon Revised Statute § 652.150 (non-payment of wages upon termination). Section § 652.150 applies only to
66

situations where “an employer discharges an employee,” “when employment is terminated by mutual agreement,” or when “an employee who does not have a contract for a definite period quits employment.” ORS § 652.140. This class of plaintiffs can be readily ascertained by making categorical determinations relating to drivers’ termination from FedEx and doesn’t require individual factual analysis. Similarly, plaintiffs’ proposes subclass for overtime wages applies to drivers who operated trucks less than 10,001 pounds. This class is based on the objective standard of whether a driver’s truck weighs less than 10,001 pounds and can be readily ascertained without requiring the court to engage in individual factual analysis.
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the Oregon plaintiffs’ motion for class certification IN PART. The motion is GRANTED with respect to plaintiffs’ claims for damages and equitable relief relating to wage deductions, overtime, and non-payment of wages upon termination. The motion is DENIED with respect to plaintiffs’ claim for rescission.
Utah (Fishler) The Utah plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since November 16, 2003, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Utah.
67

At the time of the class certification motion, FedEx had contracts with ninety-one drivers in Utah. The named plaintiffs are three current pickup and delivery drivers dispatched out of terminals in Utah who performed services for FedEx under the terms of the same Ground Operating Agreement as the Kansas plaintiffs. Two of the named plaintiffs work full-time for FedEx and one of the plaintiffs worked full time until February 2008 and now works part-time. The plaintiffs claim that FedEx wrongfully classified them as independent contractors instead of employees and made improper withholdings and deductions from their wages in violation of the Utah Payment of Wages Act and related Utah Administrative Code. The plaintiffs also seek rescission of the Operating Agreement as void against public policy and, once those contracts are rescinded, quantum meruit for compensation of the business expenses the drivers were required to incur. They also seek a declaratory judgment that they are employees.
FedEx argues that the Utah plaintiffs are inadequate class representatives because the Utah drivers are so varied, but the court rejected similar arguments in the October 2007 and March 2008 orders and does so again here for the same reasons. FedEx also contends that a class action isn’t the superior method for litigating the claims of each potential class member because there is no manageable definition of “full-time,” driver,9 individualized litigation is feasible, and
9 FedEx also argued that “[t]he lack of a defined time period for class participation render[ed] the class too indefinite to permit class treatment.” The Utah plaintiffs modified the proposed class to include a time limitation.
68

the plaintiffs didn’t present a trial plan. Again, the court previously addressed, and rejected, similar arguments in its March 2008 order. FedEx further argues that the plaintiffs’ equitable relief claims are unfit for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) because they seek primarily monetary relief. The court has also previously considered and rejected a similar argument in its October 2007 order.
Like most of the other motions for class certification, all of the Utah plaintiffs’ claims hinge on whether FedEx misclassified its drivers as independent contractors. FedEx argues that Utah law requires individualized evidence to resolve the issue of independent contractor status, so class certification isn’t appropriate. FedEx reasons that Utah law requires the court to look beyond the Operating Agreement to determine the extent of control it actually exercised over the driver. FedEx acknowledges that Utah utilizes a “right to control” test in workers’ compensation cases, but says that the workers’ compensation cases are inapplicable because those cases address a specific statutory definition of “employee” that doesn’t apply to the statutory wage deduction and common law claims the Utah drivers assert. FedEx points out that “employee” isn’t defined in the Utah Payment of Wages Act or related provisions of the Utah Administrative Code and the court therefore should apply the judicially created agency test set forth in Thiokol Chemical Corp. v. Peterson, 393 P.2d 391 (Utah 1964).
Contrary to FedEx’s assertions, Utah courts have consistently applied a “right to control” analysis in non-workers’ compensation cases when determining employer-independent contractor status; nothing in Thiokol Chemical v. Peterson
69

suggests that the court intended to set forth a different rule. The issue in Thiokol Chemical v. Peterson was whether Thiokol was an agent or independent contractor of the county for purposes of determining Thiokol’s tax obligations. 393 P.2d at 392, 394-395. The court noted that the most fundamental criteria in making this determination is “the extent of control” and explained that “[i]f the employer exercises control over the means of accomplishing the result, this points toward an agent or servant relationship.” Id. at 394. The Thiokol court didn’t focus on the degree of control actually asserted, but instead relied on the terms in the parties’ contract to determine employment status. Id. at 394-395. The court found that the “main purport of the contract . . . is directioned toward requiring Thiokol to pursue its own course in accomplishing ‘the end result,’ rather than the Government having actual management and direction of the enterprise.” Id. The court concluded that under the facts shown and the terms of the contract, Thiokol was an independent contractor.
More recent cases confirm the “right to control” test is applicable. In Glover v. Boy Scouts of Am., 923 P.2d 1383, 1385 (Utah 1996), a case involving vicarious liability, the court stated that “[w]hether an employer-employee relationship exists under the first prong of this test is determined by whether the alleged employer had the right to control the employee.” Id. (citing Averett v. Grange, 909 P.2d 246, 249 (Utah 1996)). The court explained that “[t]he right-to-control concept comes from agency law,” and noted that this test has been applied most often in Workers’ Compensation cases. Id. The court relied on Foster v. Steed, 432 P.2d 60 (Utah
70

1967), a factually similar case, noting that its inquiry in Foster “was based on the general analytical model we use in applying the right-to-control test in workers' compensation situations, i.e., identifying specific facts which did or did not evidence the principal's right to control the agent.” Glover v. Boy Scouts, 923 P.2d at 1386 (citing Foster v. Steed, 432 P.2d at 62-63). The court stated that “it is not the actual exercise of control that determines whether an employer-employee relationship exists; it is the right to control that is determinative.” Id. at 1388 (citing Averett v. Grange, 909 P.2d 246, 249 (Utah 1995)).
Utah’s “right to control” test applies to this case. The court in Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning, 985 P.2d 243 (Utah 1999) explained that “[r]egardless of how the parties intended to structure their relationship, a worker is considered to have been an employee if the employer had the right to control the worker’s manner or method of executing or carrying out the work.” Id. at 246 (citations omitted). The court will consider the following when determining the parties’ relationship: “(1) whatever covenants or agreements exist concerning the right of direction and control over the employee, whether express or implied; (2) the right to hire and fire; (3) the method of payment . . .; and (4) the furnishing of equipment.” Id. (citations omitted). The court may also “consider the intent of the parties and the business of the employer.” See Glover v. Boy Scouts, 923 P.2d at 1386. Although all the factors are taken into consideration, “the first factor—‘the legal right of direction and control over [the employee],’—is the ‘critical element underlying an employment relationship.”’ Mitchell v. Rice, 885 P.2d 820, 821 (Utah
71

App. 1994) (citing Kinne v. Indust. Comm’n, 609 P.2d 926, 928 (Utah 1980)). FedEx contends that even if the “right to control” test applies, it requires
individualized determinations, pointing to the following statement in Utah Home Fire Ins. v. Manning: “In assessing a given relationship, not only do we consider whatever agreements exist concerning the right of control, but we also take into account the actual dealings between the parties and the control that was in fact asserted.” Utah Home Fire v. Manning, 985 P.2d at 247. The Manning court found that not only did the contracts in that case establish a right to control, but such control was actually exercised. Id. at 247. The court in Manning didn’t say or suggest that if the contract establishes a right to control, the court can disregard such contractual terms in light of the actual control exercised. As stated, it is not the exercise of control, but the right to control that is determinative. See Utah Home Fire v. Manning, 985 P.2d at 246.
FedEx further notes that the concept of right to control isn’t rigidly and narrowly defined and that many factors have been applied in determining the right to control, including “actual supervision of the worker, the extent of the supervision, the method of payment, the furnishing of equipment for the worker, and the right to terminate the worker.” Bennett v. Industrial Com'n of Utah, 726 P.2d 427, 430 (Utah1986). In Bennett, though, there was no written contract, so the court had to analyze the parties’ actual dealings to determine control. See Bennett v. Industr. Comm’n, 726 P.2d at 430. The court isn’t persuaded that actual control is relevant when the right to control in a contract is sufficient to
72

establish an employee-employer relationship, as the plaintiffs contend in this case. FedEx also relies on the court’s holding in Tasters Ltd. v. Dept. of
Employment Sec., 863 P.2d 12 (Utah App. 1993), to support its proposition that individual evidence is necessary to determine how the Operating Agreement actually was implemented. The Tasters court reversed a decision by the Board of Review of the Industrial Commission that persons demonstrating products in grocery and department stores were employees and under Utah's Employment Security Act). Id. at 27. The statute requires the Board to analyze twenty enumerated factors when deciding employment status. Id. at 17. The Board relied in part on a two-page instruction given to the demonstrators entitled, listing fourteen guidelines concerning attire, length of breaks, punctuality, and demonstration tactics. Id. at 22. The Board found that this list set forth binding requirements that indicated employee status. Id. The court of appeals reversed, partly because the list was subject to mixed interpretations and extrinsic evidence was needed to determine whether the instructions were mandatory or merely advisory. Id. at 23, 27. The court found that given the evidence presented, the record didn’t “support a finding that this list set forth mandatory requirements of the sort typical of a routine employment relationship.” Id. at 23.
The Tasters court relied on a statutory test that doesn’t apply to this case. Further, the Operating Agreements in this case are detailed agreements delineating the parties’ relationship, not advisory guidelines. If FedEx contends that some of the agreements’ terms or policies are merely advisory, it can point to common proof
73

of generally applicable policies and procedures to defend its interpretation of the agreements; individualized analysis isn’t necessary. See Tasters v, Employment Sec., 863 P.2d at 23 (making a determination for a class of people based on common evidence).
The extent to which FedEx exercised its right to control any given employee or terminal won’t change the analysis of employee-independent contractor status: while one might become an employer by exercising more authority than is contractually granted, FedEx hasn’t cited authority that forbearance of the exercise of contractually granted power to control affects the analysis. See Mitchell v. Rice, 885 P.2d at 822 (finding that even though the extent of actual control was disputed, the plaintiffs were able to establish employment status based on the right to control in the contract). The court understands the Utah plaintiffs’ argument to be that though the Operating Agreement labels the drivers as independent contractors, the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable FedEx policies reserve to FedEx the right to control, making the drivers employees. The cases don’t support FedEx’s argument that the Utah courts will look beyond a written contract that would have created an employment relationship to find independent contractor status based on actual control.
FedEx also argues that the right to control isn’t determinative and that the courts should look at all the factors when deciding the relationship of the parties, including the parties’ intent. See Gourdin By and Through Close v. Sharon's Cultural Educ. Recreational Ass'n, 845 P.2d 242, 245 (Utah1992) (considering
74

compensation, direction and control, intent, and business context; no single factor is completely controlling); see also Sutton v. Indust. Comm’n of Utah, 344 P.2d 538 (Utah 1959) (stating that intent is one of the most important factors). Although intent is a factor for the court to consider, recent cases haven’t placed much, if any, emphasis on intent, and there is little support that this factor would require the court to look beyond the terms of the Operating Agreement and common applicable policies.
Nothing suggests the court will need to engage in an individualized analysis when addressing the right to hire and fire, the method of payment and the furnishing of equipment—the other factors this court must consider. Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning, 985 P.2d at 246. The court addressed similar factors in its previous orders and found that such factors can be determined primarily by consulting the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable FedEx policies. Review of these factors will require analysis of common proof applicable to the class.
FedEx further contends that the plaintiffs’ rescission claims are unsuitable for class certification because FedEx is entitled to assert a defense of laches requiring individualized considerations. The court addressed a similar argument under Minnesota law and found that “[t]he variety of individual defenses . . . doesn’t eliminate the presence of a predominant common question of fact.” See LaFlamme v. Carpenters Local No. 370 Pension Plan, 212 F.R.D. 448, 455 (N.D. N.Y. 2003); Gaspar v. Linvatec Corp., 167 F.R.D. 51, 58 (N.D. Ill. 1996).” See also
75

Wagner v. NutraSweet Co., 95 F.3d 527, 534 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Typicality . . . should be determined with reference to the company’s actions, not with respect to particularized defenses . . . against certain class members.”). FedEx hasn’t pointed to anything about Utah law on laches that would lead this court to find differently here. Any inquiry concerning the defense of laches can be addressed by examining common evidence applicable to the class members. See Kelly v. City and County of San Francisco, 2005 WL 3113065, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (unreported).
FedEx further argues that the Utah plaintiffs seek to certify a class that will necessarily encompass persons who have time-barred claims under the Wage Payment Act, requiring individual analysis of its statute of limitations defense. The Utah plaintiffs seek to certify a class of full-time drivers since November 16, 2003 and explain that “[t]his time period is calculated based on the greater of the statute of limitations for rescission and quantum merit, McKean v. McBride, 884 P.2d 1314, 1317-1318 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (4 years), and the statute of limitations for Wage Payment Act claims, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-2-305 (3 years for statutory claims).” FedEx contends that the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class with a four-year time window means that there will be class members who have time-barred claims. The court isn’t persuaded that resolving the statute of limitations defense will require factually individualized analysis of the class members; this defense can likely be resolved by categorical determinations. The court directs the Utah plaintiffs to provide FedEx with the names of the class members they allege fall within the three year limitations period for relief under the Wage Payment Act once this
76

information can be ascertained. For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the Utah plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification.
Vermont (Gruhn) The Vermont plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP 149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 25, 2001 to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Vermont. The named plaintiffs are former FedEx Ground driver Frank Gruhn, former FedEx Home driver Kevin Draper, and current FedEx Home driver Jeremy MacDonald. They report that when they filed their certification motion, there were at least 42 drivers in Vermont. They claim FedEx violated the Vermont Independent Contractor Law, VT, STAT. ANN. tit. 21, §§ 341, 601(3), and also violated the Vermont Wage Laws, VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, §§ 342, by withholding from the drivers’ compensation amounts to which employees are entitled. The parties’ dispute over the propriety of certification of a Vermont class is fought on ground that already has been plowed. The parties agree that Vermont law places on FedEx the burden to establish that the drivers are not employees. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, § 341. FedEx must prove that (1) the individual has been and will continue to be free from control or
77

direction over the performance of such services, both under the contract of services and in fact; and (2) the service is either outside all the usual course of business for which such service is performed, or outside all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and (3) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, § 341(1-3). As with Massachusetts, Illinois, and Colorado, Vermont law places burdens on FedEx to prove things that cannot all be determined simply by examination of the Operating Agreement and common applicable policies. To meet its burden of proof, FedEx must prove that each driver was free from control or direction over the performance of the driver’s services in fact as well as under the contract, and that each driver is customarily engaged in an independently established calling. Perhaps, as the Vermont plaintiffs believe, FedEx will fail because it can’t prove the drivers’ freedom from control or direction under the Operating Agreement. But this is not the stage of proceedings to decide that issue, and if FedEx clears that hurdle, several dozen individualized findings would remain to be made on the issue of liability. For these reasons, the court denies the Vermont plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Certification For the reasons stated in the October 2007, the court continues to believe
78

that certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is the most appropriate course. Accordingly,
the classes certified in this order are certified under that Rule.
Conclusion
The court ORDERS as follows:
1. The court GRANTS the Arizona plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification (Doc. #866), and certifies the following class under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3):
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES) and/or provided or will provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to an executed Operating Agreement; 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 11, 2004, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Arizona.
2. The court GRANTS the Georgia plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification (Doc #868), and certifies the following class under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3):
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP -149 and form OP149 RES) and/or provided or will provide package pick -up and delivery services pursuant to an executed Operating Agreement; 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full -time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 26, 200 1, to provide package pick -up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Georgia.
79

3. The court GRANTS the North Carolina plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification (Doc #869), and certifies the following class under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3):
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full -time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 2, 2003, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of North Carolina.
4. The court GRANTS the Ohio plaintiffs’ motion for class certification
(Doc #1539), and certifies the following class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149-RES) and/or provide or will provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to an executed Operating Agreement; 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 15, 2002 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of terminal in the state of Ohio.
5. The court GRANTS the Utah plaintiffs’ motion for class certification
(Doc #1538), and certifies the following class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since November 16, 2003, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Utah.
80

6. GRANTS IN PART the Louisiana (Boudreaux) plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Doc #1540). The motion is DENIED with respect to claims under La R.S. § 23:635, DENIED with respect to claims for rescission, DENIED with respect to claims of current drivers under La. R.S. § 23:631, and DENIED with respect to claims under La. R.S. § 23:963 based on any theory of coercion not arising from requirements in the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable FedEx policies. The motion is GRANTED in all other respects, but the court orders the plaintiffs to, within ten days of this order, revise the class definition for claims arising under § 23:631;
7. GRANTS the Nevada plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Doc #870) with respect to their claims under NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 608, but DENIES the motion in all other respects. In doing so, the court certifies the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since August 1, 2001 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Nevada. 8. GRANTS IN PART the Oregon (Leighter) plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Doc #871). The motion is DENIED with respect to plaintiffs’ claim for rescission. The motion is GRANTED with respect to plaintiffs’ claims for damages and equitable relief relating to wage deductions,
81

overtime, and non-payment of wages upon termination, and the court certifies the proposed class and subclasses with respect to those claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
9. The court DENIES the certification motions filed with respect to Colorado (Doc #1537), Connecticut (Doc #867), Givens (FLSA) (Doc #873), Vargas (MCSA) (Doc #874), and Vermont (Doc #872);
10. DENIES the Givens plaintiffs’ motion to equitably toll the statutory requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) [Doc. #825];
11. DENIES AS MOOT FedEx’s motion to strike the late-filed Givens plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of their motion to equitably toll the statutory requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) [Doc. #857];
12. DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion for oral argument on the fourth wave [Doc. #1008); and
13. On reconsideration, decertifies the plaintiffs’ rescission claim in the Oregon Slayman action (3:05-CV-596). The court understands this ruling, combined with those of October 2007 and March 2008, to resolve all pending class certification motions. The court will turn its attention to the summary judgment motions and related issues. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: July 27, 2009
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Chief Judge
82

United States District Court 83

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

) CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

3:09-CV-60 (Rascon- Colorado)

)

_____________________________________ )

OPINION AND ORDER

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. removed this action — Kenneth Rascon

v. FedEx Ground, 3:09-CV-60 — to federal court under the Class Action Fairness

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiff Kenneth Rascon contends that this court lacks

jurisdiction under CAFA because FedEx didn’t meet its burden to show that the

jurisdictional prerequisites of at least 100 class members and more than $5

million in controversy were met. Mr. Rascon asks the court to remand the action

to Colorado state court. For the reasons that follow, the court GRANTS Mr.

Rascon’s motion to remand (doc.# 1746).

Mr. Rascon requested that the court hold oral argument on his motion for

remand (doc. # 1748), but the court declines, finding that this matter can properly

be addressed on the briefs submitted.

I. BACKGROUND Mr. Rascon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brought suit against FedEx in Colorado state court in August 2008 seeking relief under the Colorado Wage Claim Act. He alleges that certain FedEx drivers — those driving vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds delivering packages in Colorado — are employees and so are entitled to overtime pay. FedEx removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in September 2008 pursuant to CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), and Mr. Rascon moved to remand, contending that FedEx didn’t meet its burden to show that the numerosity and amount in controversy jurisdictional prerequisites were met. FedEx filed its opposition, attaching several declarations to establish jurisdiction. In February, 2009, before the District Court in Colorado ruled on the motion, the case was transferred to this court as part of the MDL-1700 litigation. Mr. Rascon filed a renewed motion to remand in May 2009. Mr. Rascon proposes a class consisting of all persons and entities who (1) entered into a FedEx Ground or FedEx Home form Operating Agreement for a single primary service area, (2) performed services pursuant to the agreement via a Light Truck, (3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the State of Colorado or whose primary service area was located in Colorado, and (4) performed such services at any time between August 27, 2005 and the date of final disposition of this action. (Compl., ¶ 33). In his complaint, Mr. Rascon says the exact number of class members is unknown, but “believes that there may be in excess of 200
2

similarly situated persons [that] have been engaged by Defendants throughout the State of Colorado during the Class Period, a number which may be better determined from records maintained by the Defendants.” (Compl., ¶ 40). Mr. Rascon seeks, among other relief, monetary damages to the fullest extent permitted under all applicable law, costs, attorney fees, and interest. Mr. Rascon didn’t move for class certification in this action and his time to do so has expired.
FedEx filed its notice of removal stating that upon information and belief, there are about 39 individuals who currently provide service on a regular basis using a Light Truck who may satisfy the plaintiff’s proposed class definition.1 FedEx doesn’t have records that would enable it to readily determine how many similar individuals there have been at any or all times since August 27, 2005, but based on the proposed class definition, believes that the number exceeds 100. FedEx further contends that based on the scope of the relief sought in the complaint and evidence as to the potential overtime liability to the putative class through 2010 (the anticipated trial date) it has provided a reasonable, good-faith estimate that the amount at stake in this action exceeds $5 million.
II. DISCUSSION CAFA provides federal jurisdiction over class actions when only minimal diversity exists between the parties, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million
1This number apparently includes the plaintiff, who at the time of the complaint was no longer working for FedEx.
3

in the aggregate and the number of members of all proposed classes is 100 members or more. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) & (d)(5)(B).The existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction in a case removed from state court must be assessed as of the time of removal. Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 510-511 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.2d 364, 367 (7th Cir. 1993)(stating that “jurisdiction depends on the situation at the time of removal”). The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving its existence. Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2006).
Mr. Rascon contends that this court doesn’t have jurisdiction because even though there is minimal diversity, FedEx hasn’t satisfied the amount in controversy requirement ($5,000,000 or more in the aggregate) or the numerosity requirement (100 or more members in the proposed class).
A. Governing Law Mr. Rascon applies Tenth Circuit case law in his motion to remand, while FedEx applies Seventh Circuit case law. Because the law of the circuit where the transferee court sits governs questions of federal law in MDL proceedings, In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Prods. Liab. Litig., 256 F. Supp. 2d 884, 888 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (citation omitted), the law of this circuit governs the removal and remand issues presented in this case. The court in In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, explained:
4

[B]ecause there is ultimately a single proper interpretation of federal law, the attempt to ascertain and apply diverse circuit interpretations simultaneously is inherently self-contradictory. . . . [I]t is logically inconsistent to require one judge to apply simultaneously different and conflicting interpretations of what is supposed to be a unitary federal law . . .The federal courts spread across the county owe respect to each other’s efforts and should strive to avoid conflicts, but each has an obligation to engage independently in reasoned analysis. Binding precedent for all is set only by the Supreme Court, and for the district courts within a circuit, only by the court of appeals for that circuit.
Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171, 1175-1176 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Ruth
Bader Ginsberg, J.), aff’d on other grounds, 490 U.S. 122 (1989)).
Our court of appeals has endorsed Korean Air Lines’ analysis. Eckstein v.
Balcor Film Investors, 8 F.3d 1121, 1126 (7th Cir. 1993). “Only where the law of
the United States is specifically intended to be geographically non-uniform should
the transferee court apply the circuit precedent of the transferor court.”
McMasters v. United States, 260 F.3d 814, 819 (7th Cir. 2001) (citing Eckstein v.
Balcor Film, 8 F.3d at 1126); see also StarLink Corn Prods. Liab. Litig., 211 F.
Supp. 2d 1060, 1063-1064 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (applying Seventh Circuit case law to
determine whether removal to federal jurisdiction was proper for a case that was
transferred into MDL action); In re Bridgestone Firestone Inc. Tires Prods. Liab.
Litig., 1:07-cv-5838, 2009 WL 103647, *2 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 9, 2009) (same).
B. Numerosity Requirement
FedEx contends that the allegations in Mr. Rascon’s complaint are enough
to show that the potential class size is at least 100 members. Mr. Rascon’s
5

complaint says the exact number of class members is unknown, but he “believes that there may be in excess of 200 similarly situated persons [that] have been engaged by Defendants throughout the State of Colorado during the Class Period, a number which may be better determined from records maintained by the Defendants.” (Compl., ¶ 40). FedEx notes that a plaintiff cannot change the damages allegations in his complaint to defeat federal jurisdiction after removal, and reasons that Mr. Rascon shouldn’t be allowed to contend that the class contains fewer than 100 members after alleging that there might be more than 200 members in the class. FedEx says the numerosity requirement found in § 1332(d)(5)(B) is an “exception” to jurisdiction under CAFA, so Mr. Rascon has the burden of proving that it applies.
Mr. Rascon disagrees that the party opposing federal jurisdiction has the burden to show that the numerosity requirement is met, reasoning that § 1332(d)(5)(B) isn’t an exception, but instead, a requirement that must apply for jurisdiction to exist. Mr. Rascon reasons that if FedEx wants to take advantage of the minimal jurisdictional provisions of CAFA to invoke federal jurisdiction, it must first show that those provisions apply, and § 1332(d)(5)(B) states that they don’t apply if the class consists of less than 100 members.
Mr. Rascon asserts that FedEx hasn’t met its burden because it provides no evidence as to class size, but merely states that it “believes” the number of potential class members exceed 100 individuals based on Mr. Rascon’s allegations in the complaint. Mr. Rascon says this is insufficient to establish the jurisdictional
6

requirement of a 100 or more class members when he expressly stated in the complaint that the exact number of class members is unknown and may be determined from FedEx’s own records.
The court agrees with Mr. Rascon that the burden to show that there are 100 or more class members rests on FedEx. The court in Hart v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2006) implied that the this was a jurisdictional requirement and not an exception like the home state or local controversy provisions. The court noted that CAFA gives “federal courts original jurisdiction in class actions where: (1) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; (2) any member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from any defendant (‘minimal diversity’); (3) the primary defendants are not states, state officials, or other government entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief; and (4) the number of members of the plaintiff class is 100 or more.” Hart v. FedEx Ground, 457 F.3d at 679 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) and (d)(5)). Section 1332(d)(2) states that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which . . . [minimal diversity exists].” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(d)(2). This paragraph “shall not apply to any class in which . . . the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is less than 100.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B).
7

The circuit courts disagree as to whether the requirement that a class has an aggregate of more than 100 members is part of CAFA's jurisdictional requirements or is one of CAFA's exceptions. Compare Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1020 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[S]atisfaction of § 1332(d)(5) serves as a prerequisite, rather than as an exception, to jurisdiction under § 1332(d)(2).”) with Frazier v. Pioneer Americas LLC, 455 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2006) (treating the 100 or more member requirement as an exception) and Garcia v. Boyar & Miller, PC, No. 3:06-CV-1936-D, 2007 WL 1556961, *4 (N.D. Tex. May 30, 2007). Because the removing party has the burden to establish jurisdictional requirements and the party seeking remand has the burden to prove exceptions, Hart v. FedEx Ground, 457 F.3d at 679, this is more than a formalistic dispute.
The court in Hart v. FedEx Ground held that the party opposing jurisdiction has the burden to show that the home state and local controversy exceptions in § 1332(d)(4) apply even though the language is mandatory. 457 F.3d at 681. Paragraph (d)(4) states that a “district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under paragraph (2)” when certain conditions are met, but paragraph (d)(5)(B) states that jurisdiction in (d)(2) does not apply to a class action with less than 100 proposed class members. Section 1332(d)(5) serves as a prerequisite, rather than an exception, to jurisdiction under § 1332(d)(2). Accordingly, the 100 or more class member requirement in (d)(5)(B) is a jurisdictional element that the party asserting jurisdiction must establish. See Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc., No. 07-cv-233-DRH, 2008 WL 3823710, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2008) (stating
8

without much discussion that the removing party has the burden to show 100 or more potential class members).
FedEx must show that 100 or more members fall within the definition of the class proposed in the complaint. Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc., 2008 WL 3823710 at *4, n. 3 (stating that the exact size of the class need not be determined until later; defendant's burden is simply to show that there are at least 100 potential class members). “[T]he term ‘class members’ means the persons (named or unnamed) who fall within the definition of the proposed or certified class in a class action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(D). “While plaintiffs undoubtedly possess some power to seek to avoid federal jurisdiction by defining a proposed class in particular ways, they lose that power once a defendant has properly removed a class action to federal court.” Hart v. FedEx Ground, 457 F.3d at 681 (quoting S. Rep. 14, 109th Cong. 1st Sess. 43 (2005), 2005 U.S.C. 3, 41). “Whether defendants have satisfied requirements of CAFA, including its 100-person minimum threshold, is determined at the time of removal.” Bullard v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 556 F. Supp. 2d 858, 860 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (citation omitted)).2
FedEx hasn’t met its burden to show that there were 100 or more potential class members at the time of removal. FedEx relies on the allegations in the
2Even though this matter won’t proceed as a class action because no motion for class certification was filed, “[f]ederal jurisdiction under CAFA doesn’t depend on certification.” Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc., No. 09-8042, --- F3d ---, 2010 WL 199627 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2010) (citation omitted). The general principle is that “jurisdiction once properly invoked is not lost by developments after a suit is filed . . .” Id. (citations omitted).
9

complaint that there may be more than 200 similarly situated persons (Compl. ¶ 40), but Mr. Rascon qualified this statement by asserting that he was unaware of the exact number of potential class members and that this information may be determined from FedEx’s records. The evidence provided by FedEx indicates that about 39 individuals currently provide service on a regular basis using a Light Truck and might satisfy the plaintiff’s proposed class definition. There are probably more than 39 potential class numbers because the class includes relevant drivers since August 27, 2005 through the date of final disposition of this action, but other than Mr. Rascon’s allegation that there may be more than 200 members in the class, FedEx presents nothing to suggest that the actual number exceeds 100. To say, in support of an argument that the potential class is too numerous for joinder to be practical, that there might be 200 or more in the class is one thing; to say there are at least 100 class members is something else entirely. The evidence is insufficient for this court to find that it is more likely than not that the proposed class includes 100 or more members.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons cited above, the plaintiff’s motion to remand (document # 1746) is GRANTED. This case is remanded to the District Court, County of Denver, State of Colorado. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: February 11, 2010
10

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Chief Judge United States District Court
11

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

) CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

Michael DeCesare, et al. v. FedEx Ground )

Package System, Inc.,

)

)

Cause No. 3:07-CV-120 RM (NV)

)

_____________________________________ )

OPINION and ORDER Fedx Ground Package System, Inc. has moved to clarify the Nevada (DeCesare) class certification decision dated July 27, 2009. In the July 27 order, this court granted class certification of the Nevada plaintiffs’ claims under the wage and hour laws, NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 608,but denied class certification in all other respects. As FedEx notes, the court’s legal analysis in its class certification order explained that only the plaintiffs’ claims brought under workers’ compensation law, Nevada Industrial Insurance Act, NEV. REV. STAT. Chs. 616A616D, were suitable for class certification, but then concluded that only claims under Chapter 608 were certified. The plaintiffs respond that the definition of “employment” is the same under both Chapter 608 and 616, so the court’s analysis under the NIIA, Chapter 616, applies equally to claims brought under Nevada’s wage and hour laws, Chapter 608. The plaintiffs assert that to the extent there is any misstatement found in the court’s order, it is that the court didn’t

expressly certified statutory claims under both Chapter 608 and Chapter 616. For the following reasons, the court grants FedEx’s motion for clarification and amends its July 27order to state that only claims arising under the NIIA, NEV. REV. STAT. Chs. 616A-616D, are proper for class certification.
The Nevada plaintiffs sought class certification for claims arising under the Nevada False Claims Act, NEV. REV. STAT. § 357.010.250, Nevada tax liability statutes, NEV. REV. STAT. § 363B.110(2), Nevada wage and hour laws, NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 608, and the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act, NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 616A616D. The drivers argued that their statutory claims are governed by the “normal work” test articulated in Meers v. Haughton Elevator, 701 P.2d 1006, 1007 (Nev. 1985) and later codified in the NIIA, NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 616B.603. As the court explained, to prove that an agent is not his employee under the “normal work” test, a principal must demonstrate both that the agent is an “independent enterprise” and that the principal and agent are not involved in the “same trade, business, profession, or occupation.” Hays Home Delivery, Inc. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada, 31 P.3d 367, 370 (Nev. 2001); NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 616B.603(1). The court concluded that “[q]uetions of fact and law common to the class preponderate with respect to claims under the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act; class certification is appropriate as to those claims.” Doc. 1770, p. 48.
The court further noted that the Nevada courts have provided no reason to think that the “normal work” test applicable in worker’s compensation cases under the NIIA also applies to the plaintiffs’ common law claims. While the drivers
2

“might be correct that Nevada common law would provide the rule of decision to the non-Industrial Insurance Act claims, . . . the cited cases provide no guidance on what the common law might be.” Doc. 1770, p. 49. The court held:
[To obtain class certification,] plaintiff drivers must demonstrate that the governing law allows the nature of the agency to be determined without reference to experiences or circumstances of individual drivers. The Nevada plaintiffs have not carried that burden with respect to their claims that don’t arise under Nev. Rev. Stat. Ch. 608. Doc. 1770, pp. 49-50. The court granted class certifications with respect to the drivers’ claims under NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 608, but denied it in all other respects. The court’s analysis shows that class certification should have been granted for claims arising under Chapter 616. The court now clarifies its order and grants class certification under the NIIA, Chapter 616. The drivers say the Chapter 616 test also applies under Chapter 608, so claims arising under either statute should be certified. The NIIA generally requires employers to purchase workers' compensation insurance for their employees. See MGM Mirage v. Nevada Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 209 P.3d 766, 769 (Nev. 2009). The NIIA “generally immunizes employers, who must procure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees, from common law liability for workplace injuries.” Harris v. Rio Hotel & Casino, Inc., 25 P.3d 206, 207 (Nev. 2001) (citing NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 616C.215(2)(a)). Chapter 608, on the other hand, “governs employment compensation, wages, and hours, making ‘employers’ responsible for paying employee wages.” Boucher v. Shaw, 196 P.3d 959, 960 (Nev. 2008) (citing NEV. REV. STAT. Chs. 608.016, 608.018, 608.040(1),
3

608.050). The drivers are correct that both statutes contain a similar definition of “employee” (“person[s] in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire . . .” NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 608.010; NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 616A.105), but application of the “normal work” test doesn’t depend on that definition. The Nevada courts first applied the “normal work” test to worker’s compensation claims in Meers v. Haughton Elevator, 701 P.2d 1006. The legislature later codified this test in Chapter 616B.603, titled “Independent enterprises”. See Hays Home Delivery v. Employers Ins., 31 P.3d at 369-370 (“[T]he ‘normal work test[]’ articulated in our decision in Meers v. Haughton Elevator and codified in NRS 616B.603, determines whether independent contractors are “employees” under the NIAA.”) (internal footnotes omitted).
Chapter 616A.210(1) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in NRS 616B.603, subcontractors, independent contractors and the employees of either shall be deemed to be employees of the principal contractor for the purposes of chapters 616A to 616D, inclusive, of NRS.” NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 616A.210(1). Under Chapter 616B.603, “a person who enters into a contract with an independent enterprise in a different line of work, to perform work not normally carried out by the person’s own employees, is not considered a statutory employer.” Harris v. Rio Hotel & Casino, Inc., 25 P.3d at 212 (citations omitted); see also Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 148 P.3d 644, 688-689 (Nev. 2006) (developing and explaining application of the “normal work” test in worker’s compensation cases; “a nonlicensed principal contractor is a statutory
4

employer entitled to immunity only if the subcontractor or independent contractor does not fall within NRS 616B.603's definition of “independent enterprise.”’). The “normal work” test has only been applied in worker’s compensation cases. Chapter 608 doesn’t contain a similar exception for independent enterprises and there is no indication in the statutory text or case law that the “independent enterprise” exception is applicable in cases arising under Chapter 608.
As noted, an “employee” under Chapter 608 is a “person[] in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire . . .” NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 608.010. An “employer” “includes every person having control or custody of any employment, place of employment or any employee.” Nev. Rev. Stat. Ch. 608.011. There is a dearth of case law applying these definitions or explaining the test used to determine an “employment relationship” under Chapter 608. The absence of Nevada law construing the employment classification standard under Chapter 608 counsels against certification. The supplemental authority provided by the drivers doesn’t change this conclusion.
The court GRANTS FedEx’s motion for clarification (doc. # 1842) and now clarifies its July 27, 2009 order (doc. # 1770) as it applies to the Nevada (DeCesare) class. The court GRANTS the Nevada plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with respect to their claims arising under NEV. REV. STAT. Ch. 616, but DENIES the motion in all other respects.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: February 17, 2010
5

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court
6

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 1 of 43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

) CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

ALL ACTIONS

)

)

Currithers, 3:05-CV-532 (MI)

)

)

_____________________________________ )

OPINION and ORDER

The plaintiffs in several states have filed motions requesting the court,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), to amend its March 25,

2008 order (doc. # 1119) denying class certification and enter an order certifying

the plaintiffs’ proposed classes. The plaintiffs argue that (1) at the time of class

certification, one significant legal issue common to all the FedEx Ground Package

System, Inc. drivers1 didn’t exist: the collateral estoppel effect of the California

Estrada decision on the issue of employment status and (2) they have filed

motions for summary adjudication relying on common evidence to show that

FedEx not only reserves the right to control but actually controls its drivers. In

this order, the court addresses the Michigan plaintiffs’ motion to amend (doc. #

1318) as it relates to the second argument — use of common evidence to show

1 The court intends the terms “driver” and “contractor” to be synonymous, and the use of either term isn’t meant to contain any connotations with respect to a person’s status as an “employee” or “independent contractor.”

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 2 of 43
actual control — with the acknowledgment that this court’s ruling on the Michigan plaintiffs’ motion will provide the court with a basis for ruling on the other states’ pending motions to amend class certification.
After reviewing the Michigan plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication of employment status and the parties’ related briefs and supporting evidence, the court finds that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class don’t predominate over questions affecting only individual members and so denies the Michigan plaintiffs’ motion to amend on this ground. The court will address class certification on the collateral estoppel issue by separate opinion.
I. BACKGROUND FedEx Ground, together with its operating division FedEx Home Delivery, provides small-package pick-up and delivery services through a network of pick-up and delivery drivers/contractors. FedEx Home Delivery provides small package delivery service primarily to residential customers, and FedEx Ground focuses on the pick-up and delivery of small packages to businesses. The named plaintiffs are three former single-work area contractors who entered into Operating Agreements with FedEx Home Delivery. Percival Currithers was a contractor from May 2005 through December 2005; Tyrone Hawkins was a contractor from May 2002 through May 2008; and Daniel LaVake was a contractor from May 2004 through March 2006. They all worked out of the Sterling Heights/Warren FedEx Home Delivery terminal in Michigan under FedEx Senior Manager Lori Mayer.
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 3 of 43
The plaintiffs previously sought to certify the following proposed Michigan
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for their claims of breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment:
All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since October 25, 1998, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Michigan.
In the March 25, 2008 order (doc. # 1119), the court denied the Michigan
plaintiffs’ request for class certification. The court found that “[t]o decide whether
one party is another’s employer, Michigan courts use an ‘economic reality test’
that entails consideration of control, payment of wages, hiring and firing, and the
responsibility for the maintenance of discipline[; n]o single factor is dispositive.”
Doc. # 1119, pp. 80-81. Most instructive to the court’s analysis was Kidder v.
Miller-Davis Co., 564 N.W.2d 872 (Mich. 1997) — a case governed by Michigan’s
economic realities test. In Kidder v. Miller-Davis, even though a contract existed,
the court examined the control each potential employer actually exerted over the
workers — not just over the plaintiff, but over all the workers at the site. 564
N.W.2d at 880. This court found:
[W]hile FedEx Ground’s right to control its drivers under the Operating Agreement is an issue common to all class members, that common issue does not predominate because individual issues will have to be considered — matters of actual control, not just the right to control — for each of more than 350 class members.
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 4 of 43
Doc. # 1119, pp. 83-84. Accordingly, the court found that class treatment was inappropriate.
The plaintiffs in Michigan seek to amend the class certification order arguing, in part, that the issue of actual control can be proven by common evidence, so common issues predominate and class certification is warranted. The plaintiffs point to the summary judgment record and say that their use of common proof establishes that the plaintiffs are actually controlled in like manner by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. through its uniform Operating Agreement, policies and procedures, and consistent practices. They assert the facts relevant to the control test aren’t facts that vary from driver to driver or require any individualized evidence, and common proof will show that FedEx exercised systematic, consistent controls over its drivers. The plaintiffs point to Kidder v. Miller-Davis and reason that the court looked at the control the employer asserted over all workers, not the control exerted over each individual worker, and, therefore, proof of systematic control over the plaintiffs as a whole is all that is needed to support their claims.
FedEx responds that the employment classification question before the court can only be resolved by evaluating individual issues pertaining to the more than 350 putative class members. Hundreds of Michigan contractors operated out of nineteen different facilities run by nineteen different terminal managers within two separate divisions of the company. FedEx explains that not all Michigan
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 5 of 43
contractors are treated the same on a day-to-day basis and the terminal managers have considerable discretion to operate their terminals as they see fit.
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE The court details the parties’ evidence below to provide an understanding of the type of evidence that would be submitted to determine Michigan drivers’ employment status on a class-wide basis. Because the court is viewing the evidence in the context of the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, the court construes the facts in light of the summary judgment standard by construing all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of FedEx.2 The plaintiffs entered into a Home Delivery Operating Agreement with FedEx to provide daily delivery service and “to conduct his/her business so that it can be identified as being a part of the [FedEx] system.” OA, Background. The Operating Agreement states that “[b]oth [FedEx] and Contractor intend that Contractor will provide these services strictly as an independent contractor, and not as an employee of [FedEx] for any purpose.” OA, Background. The Operating Agreement is to “set forth the mutual business objectives of the two parties intended to be served by th[e] Agreement – which are the results the Contractor
2 The court acknowledges that the plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike FedEx’s separate statement of genuine issues for Michigan (doc. # 1588) and a motion to strike FedEx’s third statement of genuine issues and additional material facts (doc. # 1916) filed in support of FedEx’s opposition briefs to the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment. Because the court is addressing class certification, it is unnecessary to rule on the plaintiffs’ motions at this time. The court simply notes that it has reviewed the plaintiffs’ arguments and in setting forth the summary judgment evidence, relies on the designated evidence, as opposed to merely relying on the statement of facts set forth by the parties.
5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 6 of 43
agrees to seek to achieve – but the manner and means of reaching these results
are within the discretion of the Contractor.” OA, Background. “[N]o officer or
employee of [FedEx] shall have the authority to impose any term or condition on
Contractor or on Contractor’s continued operation which is contrary to this
understanding.” OA, Background. The “Contractor agrees to direct the operation
of the Equipment and to determine the methods, manner and means of
performing the obligations specified in this Agreement. [FedEx] shall be considered
to have such exclusive possession, use and control of the Equipment required by
D.O.T. regulation . . . . ” OA, ¶ 1.4.
FedEx agreed standards of service are specifically set forth in the Operating
Agreement. To achieve FedEx’s business objections, the drivers agree to:
(a) Provide daily pick-up and delivery service to consignees and shippers on days and at times which are compatible with their schedules and requirements within Contractor’s Primary Service Area, . . . and in such other areas as Contractor may be asked to service,3 all consistent with the competitive standards within the industry (provided, however, that on any day where the volume of packages available for delivery or pick-up in Contractor’s Primary Service Area exceeds the volume that Contractor can reasonably be expected to handle on such day, [FedEx] may reassign a portion of such packages to another contractor); (b) Make reasonable efforts to retain and increase the base of shippers and consignees served and the number of packages per shipper within Contractor’s Primary Service Area;
(c) Handle, load, unload and transport packages using methods that are designed to avoid theft, loss and damage;
3 The FXG OA states: “and in such other areas as Contractor may be asked to service, in the event Contractor elects to participate in the Flex Program . . .” (emphasis added).
6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 7 of 43
(d) Cooperate with [FedEx’s] employees, customers and other contractors, to achieve the goal of efficient pick-up, delivery, handling, loading and unloading of packages and equipment, and provide such electronic and/or manual data pertaining to package handling as is reasonably necessary to achieve this goal;
(e) Foster the professional image and good reputation of [FedEx] . . . including adhering to vehicle identification and operator appearance standards . . .;
(f) Conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances;
(g) Cause the Equipment to be operated safely and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations; and
(h) Conduct all business activities with integrity and honesty, in a professional manner, and with proper decorum at all times.
OA, ¶ 1.10. The parties agree that “Contractor shall be responsible for exercising
independent discretion and judgment to achieve the business objectives and
results . . . and no officer, agent or employee of [FedEx] shall have the authority
to direct Contractor as to the manner or means employed to achieve such
objectives and results.” FXHD OA, ¶ 1.14; FXG OA, ¶ 1.15. For example, FedEx
can’t “prescribe the hours of work, whether or when the Contractor is to take
breaks, what route the Contractor is to follow, or other details of performance.”
FXHD OA, ¶ 1.14; FXG OA, ¶ 1.15; see also FedEx Policy-007 (stating that the OA
and its addenda “must be adhered to by all officers, managers, agents and
employees” of FedEx and they don’t have “the authority to direct the contractor
as to the manner or means employed” to achieve the business objectives and
results specified in the OA).
7

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 8 of 43
FedEx drivers’ work is a regular part of FedEx’s business. In general, Home Delivery Contractors are responsible only for residential delivery of packages, not pick-ups; deliveries typically are made Tuesday through Saturday. Drivers must wear the FedEx uniform, and the Operating Agreement provides that the uniform should be “maintained in good condition” and the driver will “keep his/her personal appearance consistent with reasonable standards of good order as maintained by competitors and promulgated from time to time by [FedEx].” OA, ¶ 1.12. Although the Operating Agreement states that the driver “shall not be required to purchase or rent any products, equipment, or services from [FedEx] as a condition to entering into [the agreement,]” OA, ¶ 7, FedEx supplies most of the tools, instrumentalities and services the drivers use, including marketing, uniforms, scanners, shipping documentation, and D.O.T. inspections, that drivers can obtain through deductions pursuant to FedEx’s Business Support Package/Contractor Assistance Program; 99 percent of drivers participate in this program. FXHD OA, ¶ 7 and Addendum 6; FXG OA, ¶ 7 and Addendum 7.
The drivers are responsible for supplying their vehicles, but the vehicles must be painted “FedEx White,” bear FedEx logos and advertising, and meet FedEx’s minimum specifications — e.g., maximum height, width, and length; maximum bumper height; interior shelving requirements; and in some cases, age restrictions; among other specifications. The Operating Agreement provides that “subject to the determination of [FedEx] of its suitability for the service called for in this Agreement, the selection and replacement of the Equipment is within the
8

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 9 of 43
discretion of Contractor.” OA, ¶ 1.1. At least for some drivers, FedEx has been flexible with vehicle specifications and the drivers can determine what make and model of truck to purchase or lease. Lori Mayer, Sterling Heights/Warren area Senior Manager, declared that FedEx “does not require Contractors to buy any particular type of vehicle, nor does [FedEx] require Contractors to purchase or lease their vehicles from particular vendors.” Mayer Decl., ¶ 17 (stating that FedEx merely makes suggestions to contractors about what vehicles would be good and where they can be purchased). Senior Vice President of Terminal Operations, Michael Mannion, testified that FedEx reserves the right to approve or reject a particular vehicle because its size isn’t sufficient to provide service to the primary service area. Mannion Dep., p. 239. FedEx managers “look at every single situation separately with every contractor and really understand[s] what his business plan is going to be” when determining the proper size of a truck to be used to service a particular area. Mannion Dep., p. 239. There is also an exception process for vehicles that don’t meet FedEx’s minimum requirements. Flesher Dep., pp. 143-145.
The drivers can use their equipment for other purposes when not actually carrying FedEx packages as long as identifying marks and logos are masked or removed, OA, ¶ 1.5; Mayer Decl., ¶ 18 (“Contractors may use their vehicles for other business or personal uses as long as they cover up the [FedEx] logos.”); FedEx provides special paper to drivers that allow them to conceal the FedEx logo. Mayer Decl., ¶ 18.
9

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 10 of 43
FedEx inspects the drivers’ vehicles to ensure they comply with FedEx appearance standards and Department of Transportation (DOT) guidelines.4 OA, ¶ 1.12 (“[T]he Equipment shall be maintained in a clean and presentable fashion free of body damage and extraneous markings, in accordance with the standards of the industry.”); see also 49 C.F.R. § 396.3 (requiring inspection, repair, and maintenance of motor vehicles). DOT exercises oversight jurisdiction in this respect for vehicles of 10,001 or more pounds. Scapellato Rept. (Nov. 8, 2007), p. 11. For such vehicles, FedEx expert James Scapellato stated that FedEx, “as the responsible motor carrier, must periodically examine or inspect an owneroperator’s vehicle to determine safety compliance with vehicle parts and accessories standards and out-of-service criteria .” Scapellato Rept. (Jan. 8, 2007), p. 21. FedEx presents evidence that it’s within a terminal managers’ discretion whether to deadline a vehicle based on appearance standards and some terminal managers have allowed drivers to use their trucks even though they didn’t comply with these standards.
Drivers are paid weekly and compensation rates and formulae are set forth in Operating Agreement Addendum 3; they include daily rates, piece rates, and various bonuses, including a bonus for years of service. The compensation
4 For example, on June 2, 2006, after an annual inspection, a Michigan manager told the driver: “There were two things . . . marked out of service on your truck. . . . We’ll have to load you in another vehicle. . . . Your truck won’t be able to go back in service until these repairs are made.” Pl. Exh. 6:476. On January 28, 2005, a Michigan manager discussed maintenance reports with a driver: “You need to make sure they are done by the 10th of the month. You are taking a chance of having your vehicle deadline[d] for maintenance if you don’t.” Pl. Exh. 6:494.
10

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 11 of 43
amounts vary by individualized factors such as the type of vehicle used, number of packages delivered and stops serviced, weight and nature of the packages, mileage traveled, temporary core zone density, time of service, drivers’ willingness or ability to take on additional stops/routes, and bonuses. OA, ¶ 4 and Addendum 3. The temporary core zone density is paid for drivers providing services in lowdensity, low package volume areas; the core zone payment is reduced or eliminated as density or volume increases. Until 2007, core zone compensation was prorated if the driver provided pick-up or delivery services for less than seven hours in one day. FedEx removed the hours reference and now conditions full payment of the core zone settlement on the driver making a minimum number of stops in a given day, which generally factors in, at least in part, an assumption of expected daily work hours per driver. The compensation rates aren’t negotiated, except that drivers can choose not to sign yearly modified settlement addendum and others have requested and received changes to their core zone density settlement and core zone. See CRL-55, p. 2 (“A [driver] may . . . request a service ride to evaluate temporary core zone density settlement . . . and core zone.”).
Drivers also can receive a “Contractor Customer Service” bonus — a monthly performance-based bonus that drivers receive when they achieve certain safety and customer service goals — i.e., no at-fault accidents, no verified customer complaints. FXHD OA Addendum 8; FXG OA Addendum 6. FedEx notes that the CCS bonus structure has changed over time — certain requirements have been eliminated in the current version of the Operating Agreement — and the
11

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 12 of 43
bonus applies differently to Ground and Home Delivery drivers. For example, at Ground, there is also a weekly “Pick-Up Service Bonus” included in the CCS bonus. The requirements for the Pick-Up Service bonus also have changed over time; the current version indicates that drivers will receive the bonus when they don’t miss any pick-ups, all scheduled pick-ups are made within the drivers’ requested windows (with a twenty-minute grace period at the end of the pick-up window), and the scanner is used to process all pick-up stops (with the allowance of two instances of non-compliance per month for late pick-ups and/or manual reconciliations for improper use of the scanner). FXG OA, Addendum 6.
FedEx offers its drivers certain benefits, such as direct deposit, a retirement plan, matching contributions to a “Service Guarantee Account,”5 a college scholarship for drivers with children, and a time-off program based on seniority. FedEx has no responsibility to make deductions for, or to pay, health, welfare, and pension costs, withholding for income taxes, unemployment insurance premiums, social security taxes, or any other similar charges with respect to the drivers or drivers’ employees. OA, ¶ 4.2. The drivers are issued a Form 1099 at the end of each year. In accordance with that tax structure and for income-tax purposes, Mr. Currithers and Mr. LaVake maintained detailed records of their business expenses.
5 This is a program whereby FedEx maintains an interest-bearing fund for the driver to save for unexpected expenses, which may be withdrawn at the driver’s discretion. FXHD OA, ¶ 5; FXG OA, ¶ 8.
12

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 13 of 43
FedEx provides formal training to its drivers, but whether training is required varies from driver-to-driver. As of 2005, new FedEx drivers with six months’ verified experience as a commercial motor vehicle driver within the previous five years aren’t required to participate in Quality P&D Learning (QPDL), which, as FedEx explains, wasn’t widely available until 2003 and isn’t training, but a precondition to becoming a driver. Since November 2007, FedEx accepts training obtained from an “approved” FedEx vendor in lieu of prior experience or the FedEx QPDL course.
Before contracting with FedEx, each named plaintiff had some commercial driving experience. Mr. Currithers attended a truck-driving school and worked for different FedEx contractors for six months before he took over the route of another contractor at the terminal and purchased that contractor’s vehicle. Mr. Hawkins contracted with FedEx after working as a supplemental driver at the terminal for a little over a month and, before contracting with FedEx, he worked for the New York Times delivering newspapers for over six years. Before Mr. LaVake contracted with FedEx, he had driven for a construction company and held a commercial driver’s license. Mr. Currithers, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. LaVake all participated in some pre-contract classroom training; it appears only Mr. Currithers took the QPDL course.
The Operating Agreement provides that the “Contractor shall have the obligation to assure that all persons who operate the Equipment are fully trained and capable of meeting the customer service standards set forth in this
13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 14 of 43
Agreement.” FXHD OA, ¶ 1.13; FXG OA, ¶ 1.14. Contractors must participate in an orientation program during their first thirty days to become familiar with various service quality procedures. FXHD OA, ¶ 1.13; FXG OA, ¶ 1.14 (“[FedEx] shall, during the first 30 days of the term of this Agreement, familiarize Contractor with various quality service procedures developed by [FedEx].”); see also FedEx Owner-Operator Familiarization Program (Pl. Exh. 5:306) (stating that the program is approximately ten hours). For example, when Mr. Hawkins signed on with FedEx, his manager trained with him on the road for three days. They “covered the proper ways to make a delivery, leaving doortags, maps and turn by turns. . . . He was show[n] the proper way to scan and how to send data [when] he has completed scanning. . . .” MI Exh. 6:237. Further, drivers may enter the CARE training program to expunge a verified customer complaint from their record; managers often recommend that drivers attend such training for that purpose.
FedEx managers are expected to conduct at least two business discussions per year with each driver; the goal of having two business discussions per year was clarified as not mandatory in August 2005 because it is a procedure, not a mandatory policy. OPR 560 (procedure); UNV-001 (describing difference between policies and procedures). The business discussions are a means for managers to provide recommendations and counseling to drivers in the performance of their contracted work. Lori Mayer declared that FedEx’s business discussions weren’t mandatory, but mere suggestions, and FedEx doesn’t require contractors to even take part in these discussions. Mayer Decl., ¶ 21. The plaintiffs, however, have
14

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 15 of 43
filed a lengthy record of these business discussions and a sampling of such discussions with other Michigan drivers showing that at times the discussions appear mandatory and at other times they appear to be mere suggestions.
When the contractors were told during business discussions that they were in jeopardy of losing their contract for performance issues, FedEx says it was because the plaintiffs didn’t meet mutually agreed upon standards of service. For example, Mr. LaVake, Mr. Currithers, Mr. Hawkins, and other drivers were warned they were putting their contracts in jeopardy by having DNAs (packages where delivery was not attempted). See, e.g., MI. Exh. 6:230 (Manager to Mr. Currithers: “If you keep DNAing packages your contract will be in jeopardy. So I need you to provide service to our customers.”); MI Exh. 6:326 (Manager to Mr. Hawkins: “You are putting your contract in jeopardy by having DNA’s.”); MI Exh. 6:401 (Mr. LaVake: I will “deliver what I can[,] but I am not working past 6 p.m.” Manager: “By having DNA’s[,] you are putting your contract in jeopardy.”).
Further, the evidence shows that business discussions were at times initiated by the drivers and covered a wide-range of topics that varied from driverto-driver, including:
• acknowledging a job well done: MI Exh. 6:242-243 (Manager: "I told Ty [Hawkins] that I felt he did an excellent job of customer service . . ."); MI Exh. 6:228 (Manager to Mr. Currithers: “I did your audit two days ago, and you did very well hiding packages, and few of your stops/packages were placed inside the garage[;] that’s very good.”); MI Exh. 6:382 (Manager to Mr. LaVake: “I did your Driver Release audit yesterday, and you did . . . excellent. . . . [G]ood job . . .”).
15

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 16 of 43
• discussing customer complaints: MI Exh. 6:287 (Manager to Mr. Hawkins: “Ty, I received a complaint . . . She said she gets formula from you regularly and you usually leave it at the front door. This time you left it near the garage with no doortag. . . . You may lose your CCS bonus over this . . . I’m going to need you to retake the CARE class just as a reminder of what to do. . . .”);
• providing customer service: MI Exh. 6:318 (Manager: “Ty [Hawkins], you need to knock and/or ring the bell at all of your deliveries. This is the proper driver release procedure . . .”); MI Exh. 6:274 (Manager to Mr. Hawkins: “We are supposed to deliver evening deliveries between 5-8 . . . Just make sure you’re watching for these so that you . . . can get to them between the delivery hours . . . .”);
• making suggestions for improvement: MI Exh. 6:317 (Mr. Hawkins to manager: “I did what you told [me;] I went and delivered the businesses that were my last stops and had a good day afterward. . . .”); MI Exh. 6:233 (Manager: “I thanked Ray [Brown] and Tyrone [Hawkins] for their time, and hoped that the recommendations were helpful. Ray and Tyrone both agreed to attempt to use the information, and thanked me for taking the time to help Tyrone during the day.”);
• addressing drivers’ concerns: MI Exh. 6:389 (Manager to Mr. LaVake: “I spoke with Rick Harris yesterday in contractor relationships about your concern . . . whether or not you’re getting all the packages in your proprietary zip. . . . I hope you know that any time you have a concern you can come to me with it. . . . Are you getting all of the Lapeer packages now?”); MI Exh. 6:218 (Ty Hawkins: “Can you try to fix my maps/turn by turn[?]” Manager: “I will do that tomorrow; I will create start/end point, and that should take care of that problem. . .”);
• discussing safety issues: MI Exh. 6:224 (Manager to Mr. Currithers: "[Y]ou did a good job today and [were] also safe. You wear your seat belt, set your parking brake, hazards usage also good. . . . Also you have to watch your speed on the country roads. . . ."); MI Exh. 6:376 (Manager to Mr. LaVake: “I want to discuss a few issues . . . First is speed. You really need to slow down [-] on those rural roads especially[,] . . . to help protect our company image . . . Also you need to work on full stops @ stop signs. . . . If you get a complaint because of it you will [lose] CCS money!”); and
16

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 17 of 43
• explaining the need to flex: MI Exh. 3:384 (Mr. LaVake: “Now your flexing me into Capac? I only signed up for Lapper.” Manager: No[,] we have been through this before [-] that is your proprietary. You get that zip then your flexs. . . . [W]hen we signed your contract[,] I explained flexing to you.”); MI Exh. 3:400 (Mr. LaVake: I had DNAs because “I was over dispatched, so I didn’t go to Metomora.” Manager: Your contract “says we will flex other zip codes to you. . . . By not attempting to service the customers[,] you are putting your contract in jeopardy.”).
Although the cited business discussions were with the named plaintiffs, those
discussions are similar in nature to the business discussions that plaintiffs have
presented involving other Michigan drivers.
FedEx drivers’ performance is reviewed through various audits and
customer service rides. Managers should conduct daily van service audits of every
driver to ensure drivers are complying with FedEx procedures for undelivered
packages; the resulting reports reflect any packages the driver didn’t try to deliver
and the driver’s scanning compliance rate. FedEx also hires security specialists
to perform random in-route van security reviews in which they inspect drivers’
vehicles to verify that drivers are securing the vehicles when they deliver a
package, i.e., the vehicle isn’t left running, the bulkhead door is closed, and
packages are secured. See Loss Prevention Manual, Vehicle Security Review, at
18 (Pl. Exh. 4:587) (describing the procedure that should be followed by loss
prevention staff during vehicle security reviews). It appears Mr. LaVake was the
only named plaintiff subject to a van security audit.
Driver release audits were performed on each of the named plaintiffs. A
driver release audit involves a manager going out on a driver’s route for about ten
17

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 18 of 43
stops after the driver has left the terminal. The manager follows the driver, and sometimes interviews customers, to see whether customers’ packages are being driver-released safely and properly protected as required under the Operating Agreement. See HD Driver Release Audits Participant Manual, TM-406PRes (12/03) (Pl Exh. 4:521) (“The driver release audit program focuses on how to better serve the external customer by ensuring the proper methods are used when driver releasing packages. . . . As a service manager, you have an important role in communicating the most effective methods of driver releasing packages, and ensuring the contractors see the importance of being customer focused.”). After the driver-release audit, the manager generally offers suggestions for improvement. FedEx presents evidence that the procedure isn’t uniformly applied company-wide and terminal managers have discretion in enforcing the policies. The frequency of the audits also has changed during the relevant period from quarterly to yearly and the procedure is done only at residences, which constitute the bulk of Home Delivery routes, but typically not Ground routes.
The manager must conduct two, but not more than four, customer service rides each year. The customer service rides provide managers with a chance to see that the drivers are complying with FedEx’s customer service standards and to ensure that the drivers are safely operating their vehicles. FXHD OA, ¶ 1.13; FXG OA, ¶ 1.14 (“[Q]ualified [FedEx] terminal personnel may, at their option, visit customer locations with Contractor four times annually to verify that Contractor is meeting the standards of customer service provided in this Agreement.”); see
18

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 19 of 43
also CRL-555, p. 2 (two customer service rides are required annually for each driver). Robert Ostrov, FedEx Vice President, Contractor Relations, testified that “[g]enerally speaking, the customer service rides are an attempt to generally observe how the contractor is running his route, running his business, without drilling down on the specifics[,]” such as, how he turns the vehicle off, what he does with his keys, how he puts the scanner in his belt, how he enters the rear portion of the truck, etc. Ostrov Dep., pp. 244-245.
A standard FedEx Customer Service Ride Worksheet allows the manager and driver to report general information about the drivers’ performance in the following areas: package quality at delivery, quality assurance, driver release, professional appearance (uniform and vehicle), customer courtesy, and service. This worksheet was filled out for each of the named plaintiffs and other Michigan drivers. MI Exh. 6:9-85. FedEx managers conducting a customer service ride should also complete a worksheet entitled, “Primary Service Area Analysis Worksheet,” documenting the time the driver arrives/departs from each stop, the number of minutes between stops, the number of minutes at each stop, the last three digits of the drivers’ odometer reading at each stop, and the approximate distance the driver must walk from the vehicle to the locations where the driving is picking up or dropping off a package. CRL-555 at 3; see also MI Exh. 6:86-135. FedEx presents evidence that some managers vary in how they conduct customer service rides, the number of rides they perform each year, and what they review during the rides.
19

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 20 of 43
In addition to customer service rides, managers should also discuss the driver’s business plan annually. CRL-560, p. 3. In the annual business plan, managers “document discussion areas, problems, solutions agreed upon, predetermined flex(es), and the expectations of an individual contractor.” CRL560, p. 3. The documentation provides a record of the mutual commitments undertaken by FedEx and the driver. CRL-560, p. 3. Mr. Hawkins, a contractor for almost six years, and Mr. Currithers, a contractor for seven months, participated in such discussions; Mr. LaVake, a contractor for one year and ten months, did not.
The evidence tends to show that Michigan terminals generally were complying with FedEx’s policies requiring van service audits, customer service rides, and driver release audits, MI. Exh. 3:3-27; FedEx’s evidence doesn’t suggest otherwise. FedEx acknowledges the business discussions, customer service rides, and audits, but presents evidence that such procedures resulted in recommendations, not mandatory policies that must be followed. Mayer Decl., ¶ 23; Callahan Dep., p. 42 (“We make recommendations at the end of the day. Whether the contractor follows the recommendations, that’s strictly up to him.”); see also 2003 OPR 555, p. 2 (“Terminal management is to use [Contractor Customer Service Worksheet] as a consulting tool to provide recommendations to contractor.”). In 2005, FedEx’s policies underwent revisions, known as the Document Reengineering Initiative. As part of the process, FedEx reengineered CRL-555 (formerly, OPR 555) to make it clear that feedback based on customer
20

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 21 of 43
service rides constitutes “recommendations,”not mandatory instructions, and that “[t]he contractor is solely responsible for exercising independent discretion and judgment to achieve business objectives” addressed by possible recommendations. 2005 CRL-555, p. 1. Mr. McMurty testified that a contractor may refuse a customer service ride without consequence. McMurty Dep., pp. 95-96.
Similarly, Ms. Mayer stated that business discussions aren’t mandatory and drivers can’t be forced to participate in them or adopt any recommendations resulting from customer service rids, audits, or business discussions. Mayer Decl., ¶¶ 21, 23-24. Roger Newman, Managing Director, HD Great Lakes Region, testified that drivers “could run the work area the way that they choose.” Newman Dep, p. 121.
FedEx presents testimony that application of FedEx’s policies and procedures is left to the manager’s discretion and can vary from terminal to terminal and from driver to driver. Former FedEx CEO Dan Sullivan testified that he “would expect [FedEx drivers] to follow policy within general parameters but provide a certain amount of discretion in the administration of these policies and procedures depending upon terminal location, the issues in each facility, those kinds of things which are all different.” Sullivan Dep., p. 162. In explaining the manager’s reliance on FedEx policies, Mr. Sullivan stated:
Obviously, all policies are there for a reason. They should be considered by the management. The management should try to follow them, but the management also has discretion to do the right thing for the business, the right thing for the customer, the right thing for our people within the parameters of those policies and procedures .
21

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 22 of 43
. . so that they are administered somewhat differently in each circumstance. Sullivan Dep., pp. 163-164. FedEx’s Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Rodger Marticke testified that FedEx expects managers to “adhere to company policies to the extent that it makes good business sense.” Marticke Dep., p. 92. Division Vice President, Central Division, and Former Managing Director, Central Region, James Primm testified that FedEx confers discretion on its senior managers in how to apply procedures so long as that discretion doesn’t result in not achieving company results or violating federal law. Primm Dep., p. 212. FedEx presents evidence that drivers have certain autonomy in servicing their routes. Initially, FedEx notes that some drivers conduct business with FedEx through sole proprietorships or corporations. For example, Mr. Currithers contracted with FedEx through his sole proprietorship, PVC Enterprises, and Mr. Hawkins conducted business through his corporation, Deliveries by Ty, LLC. FedEx made payments to these entities, not the individuals. Further, there is evidence that contractors can choose to either run their own routes, hire helpers, or hire replacement contractors. Newman Decl., ¶¶ 15, 17. For example, Mr. Currithers and Mr. Hawkins hired others to help run their routes either occasionally or on a daily basis. Mr. Currithers spent more than three weeks training a friend to run his route and hired him as a replacement driver for a month. Mr. Hawkins hired a helper to assist with loading his vehicle and with package delivery almost every day and hired other people to drive in his place
22

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 23 of 43
when he wanted a day off. Ms. Mayer declared that the drivers would decide who to hire, subject to certain qualifications, and how much to pay them. Mayer Decl., ¶ 16.
Non-driver helpers must be eighteen years old and pass a background check. See Procedure: Authorization Process for Non-Driving Helper, CRL-566 (Pl. Exh. 2:213). Replacement drivers are subject to FedEx approval in other respects. The Operating Agreement states that the driver may utilize others to assist them; all persons so utilized “shall be qualified pursuant to applicable federal, state and municipal safety standards and [FedEx] Safe Driving Program standards . . . .” OA, ¶ 2.2. The Operating Agreement further requires that the replacement driver be “fully trained, at Contractor’s expense, to operate the Equipment” and the Contractor is responsible for ensuring that the driver “conform fully to the applicable obligations undertaken by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement.” OA, ¶ 2.2. The Safe Driving Program sets minimum experience, age, licensure, driving record, criminal record, and drug-and-alcohol abuse requirements, as well as requires compliance with basic safety and maintenance requirements and a showing of satisfactory work history. OA, Safe Driving Addendum. FedEx policies state that all operators, including assistants and substitutes, must complete FedEx-approved training depending on work history, complete a road test, and submit a contractor/driver information sheet. See CRL-551 at 5-12 (Pl. Exh. 2:147-54) (“The individual must meet the minimum driver qualifications and requirements established by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and
23

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 24 of 43
FedEx . . . The driver eligibility requirements listed below are the minimum requirements for all drivers . . . .”). Mr. Sullivan also testified that the drivers would need to meet certain FedEx standards, such as grooming requirements, but terminal managers have discretion in assessing whether individuals meet FedEx’s requirements to provide service. Sullivan Dep., pp. 210, 212.
FedEx is a registered motor carrier operating under a U.S. DOT number and is subject to the DOT’s regulatory control and oversight. Scapellato Rept. (Nov. 8, 2007), p. 11. Many of FedEx’s driver requirements are imposed by federal law for vehicles 10,001 pounds or more; federal commercial driver’s license and alcohol/drug testing requirements are required for vehicles 26,001 pounds or more. FedEx expert witness James Scapellato stated that “[a]s the regulated motor carrier, FedEx . . . is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of all commercial vehicles providing transportation services under its DOT number.” Scapellato Rept. (Nov. 8, 2007), p. 14. “As a regulated motor carrier, FedEx . . . must insure that each and every owner operator who operates under its DOT authority, as well as any driver working for an owner operator, achieves a satisfactory degree of safety compliance . . .” Scapellato Rept. (Jan. 8, 2007), p. 6. For example, FedEx must keep a DOT file on each driver to provide “documentary proof that the driver . . . meet[s] standards imposed by federal safety requirements and that they can, by reason of experience, training, or both, safely operate the assigned commercial motor vehicle . . . .” Scapellato Rept. (Jan. 8, 2007), p. 14. FedEx, however, has “adopted into policy many higher safety standards than those minimums
24

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 25 of 43
prescribed in the federal motor carrier safety regulations to help business efficiency and reduce highway crashes.” Scapellato Rept. (Jan. 8, 2007), p. 12.
FedEx presents other evidence to show that it didn’t control the driver’s work. For example, only drivers in the Home Delivery division — a minority of contractors in the state of Michigan — are given turn-by-turn directions, and evidence from Michigan terminal managers shows that the directions are a tool for the contractors to use; FedEx doesn’t require that they be followed. See MI Exh. 6:237 (Manager told Mr. Hawkins: “We discussed the turn by turns as only a tool for the contractors to use. . . . Above all the key to running his route is that it can’t be ran the way the turn by turns have it set-up. You have to reroute yourself.”). The drivers aren’t even required to use scanners to record package data, and instead, can input the information manually, Mayer Decl., ¶ 19, although the vast majority of drivers use the scanners. The drivers generally are required to record start/stop times, certain tracking information, and odometer readings.
The plaintiffs’ evidence, though, shows that drivers were critiqued for not properly scanning information or uploading data on time. Mr. LaVake’s manager told him: “[Y]ou didn't put the correct location [into the scanner] and you didn't ring or knock . . . This will cost you your bonus.” MI Exh. 6:395. Mr. Hawkins was told: “[Y]ou scanned the call tags . . . incorrectly. . . . If you pick up a call tag, you must scan it 29.” MI Exh. 6:289; see also MI Exh. 6:434 (Manager to other Michigan driver: “You not getting home in time [to upload] is not acceptable. . .
25

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 26 of 43
you are putting your contract in jeopardy.”; MI Exh. 6:602 (Manager to other Michigan driver: “I need you to make sure that your are recording the exact first initial of the first name when you enter it in the scanner. . . . Failure to follow proper signature procedure could lead up to the termination of your contract.”)).
The plaintiffs contend FedEx dictates drivers’ hours because they must stay on their route until all packages are delivered. Ms. Mayer told Mr. Hawkins: “You need to deliver all of your packages every day.” MI Exh. 6:322-323. To provide sufficient volume of packages to drivers so they could make full use of their equipment as provided by the Operating Agreement, FedEx structured the routes so the vehicle was in use nine to eleven hours per day; this measurement was called the “Service Flex Range” and would vary somewhat between facilities. FedEx replaced the “Service Flex Range” in the fall of 2005 with a metric called the “Delivery Stop Guideline” that eliminates the minimum and sets forth a maximum number of stops a driver who is fully utilizing his vehicle can reasonably be expected to handle on any given day.
Undisputed evidence shows that start and end times were at least partially dictated by FedEx. Senior Vice President of Terminal Operations Michael Mannion testified that “[a] contractor is not supposed to leave the terminal [at the start of the day] until all his packages are available to him.” Mannion Dep., p. 305. Ground drivers who pick up customer packages must return to the terminal by a certain time. For example, a Michigan manager told a driver: “You will need to get in earlier to finish by 8 pm per your contract, you are putting your contract in
26

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 27 of 43
jeopardy . . . .” MI Exh. 6:440. Another manager told his driver: “You have a tendency to return to the terminal after 20:00 hour. You must be back in this building no later 20:00 hours in order [for] us to upload, [and to] meet our cut off time.” MI Exh. 6:440. Home Delivery drivers aren’t required to return to the terminal at the end of their day.
FedEx responds that individualized evidence shows that drivers aren’t required to work certain hours and the named plaintiffs were never told that they had to work certain hours. Mr. Currithers testified that he wasn’t required to appear at delivery stops at specific times (other than appointed deliveries that needed to be delivered within a window of time and occurred about once a month) or to work a certain set of hours. Rather, FedEx requires the contractors to stay out until all their packages are delivered and drivers can always choose to hire someone to fulfill their route obligations. Ms. Mayer declared: “I have never told [drivers], including Currithers, LaVake, and Hawkins, what hours they must work. Indeed, it has never been of consequence to me whether [drivers] work at all themselves, as long as they ensure that their contractual obligations are met.” Mayer Decl., ¶ 13. Drivers simply are “accountable for making sure that their packages are delivered by someone pursuant to their contracts.” Mayer Decl., ¶ 13. Mr. Newman testified that the drivers could come in when they wanted. Newman Dep., p. 121. Ms. Mayer told Mr. Hawkins: “I’m certainly not going to tell you what time you have to come in or leave by, but I’m suggesting that an earlier
27

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 28 of 43
start and dispatch time might be the solution for you to be able to provide the service that our customers expect.” MI Exh. 6:322-323.
FedEx drivers are sometimes asked to flex packages. Flexing is the daily expansion or contraction of a drivers’ work area; it is the movement of packages or stops from one work area to another in the event that the volume of packages or stops is greater than a contractor reasonably can handle. P&D Planning Seminar Participant Manual, TM-410PRes, Version 2.0. The Home Delivery Operating Agreement states that the contractors agree to “provide daily delivery and pick-up service . . . within Contractor’s Primary Service Area . . . and in such other areas as Contractor may from time-to-time be asked to service.” FXHD OA, ¶ 1.10(a) (emphasis added). The Ground OA states that the driver agrees to provide such services “in such other areas as Contractor may be asked to provide service in the event Contractor elects to participate in the Flex Program . . . .” FXG OA, ¶ 1.10(a) (emphasis added). More than 99 percent of Ground drivers participate in the flex program. For both Ground and Home Delivery, the Operating Agreement states that “on any day where the volume of packages available for delivery or pick-up in the Contractor’s Primary Service Area exceeds the volume that Contractor can reasonably be expected to handle on such day, [FedEx] may reassign a portion of such packages to another contractor.” OA, ¶ 1.10(a) (emphasis added).
FedEx emphasizes that flexing is optional for FedEx Ground and the drivers decide whether they participate in flexing. FXG OA, ¶ 9 (“By electing to participate,
28

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 29 of 43
Contractor agrees to accept packages from outside Contractor’s Primary Service Area for pick-up and delivery, up to daily pick-up and delivery capacity . . . when requested to do so by FedEx Ground terminal management.”). There also is evidence that drivers sometimes choose to informally flex packages among themselves.6 One of FedEx’s vice presidents, Severn McMurty, testified that contractors can refuse to have packages flexed at any time, McMurty Dep., p. 147, and FedEx presents evidence that some drivers have refused to flex without repercussions. Alexander Dep., pp. 144-145. The plaintiffs’ business discussions, however, show that generally drivers were required to flex packages. For example, Mr. LaVake’s managers told him that “[e]veryone is flexed, every day,” MI Exh. 6:409-410; “I am sorry you don’t like it, but we will continue to flex you.” MI Exh. 6:384.
Ms. Mayer declared that packages aren’t taken away from a Home Delivery Contractor’s proprietary service area without a service failure or consent. Mayer Decl., ¶ 11 (“FHD can only give packages and stops within a Contractor’s primary service area to someone else if the Contractor formally authorizes or requests such a package diversion, or if the Contractor otherwise acknowledges that he or she will be unable to deliver the package.”). There also is evidence that some drivers, such as Mr. Hawkins, specifically asked that stops be flexed off their route on particular days so they could have a lighter workload. MI Exh. 6:302, 6:304.
6 The reengineered OPR-716 (formerly of the same number) excludes any restriction on contractors’ informally trading or “flexing” packages amongst themselves. Compare FedEx Exh. B-14 with FedEx Exh B-27.
29

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 30 of 43
FedEx may reconfigure a contractor’s Primary Service Area upon giving five days written notice, unless the driver is able to show during the five-day notice period that he can continue to service the area as called for in the Operating Agreement. FXHD OA, ¶ 6.2; FXG OA, ¶ 5.2. The Operating Agreement requires remuneration to the contractor if the reconfiguration results in less customers or accounts, FXHD OA, ¶ 6.4, Addendum 5; FXG OA, ¶ 5.3; contractors can also sell excess stops as an alternative to reconfiguration. The reconfiguration generally takes place after what is called a “P&D Tune-up,” which in part is done to determine whether the terminal’s work areas are configured appropriately to maximize terminal capacity.
The evidence shows that reconfiguration isn’t always dictated by FedEx. Some drivers are given the option to reconfigure. Mr. LaVake was told:
[Manager:] They are thinking about sending Lapeer back to the Saginaw facility . . . Obviously, since that is your proprietary zip, I wanted to talk to you about it. You have a couple of different options. You could stay here and take on a different proprietary zip, you could go to Saginaw and deliver out of that terminal, or you could simply say you don’t want us to move your zip. Of course, I’m hoping that’s not the option you choose but it’s certainly your right and we would proceed from there. MI Exh. 6:390 (emphasis added). Some drivers may request reconfiguration or advise management of an agreed upon reconfiguration of their service areas. Mr. Hawkins testified that he was given fewer stops after he complained to his manager that he couldn’t finish his route. Hawkins Dep., pp. 74, 93. Other drivers, such as Mr. Currithers, kept their primary service area during their entire
30

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 31 of 43
contract. Currithers Dep., p. 114. Accordingly, FedEx contends that the circumstances of flex and reconfiguration vary between drivers.
Further, drivers have the ability to expand their routes by acquiring additional service areas from FedEx or other contractors as they become available, subject to FedEx approval. The opportunity to acquire additional routes will largely depend on the terminal. See OA, ¶ 2.1 (“Contractor may, with the consent of [FedEx] and consistent with the capacity of the terminal serviced by Contractor, own and operate more than one vehicle, with any such additional vehicles to be driven by qualified operators employed by Contractor.”). Multiple work area contractors have a greater opportunity to profit from their routes than single work area contractors. The percentage of multiple work area contractors differs between terminals; for example, the Michigan-Cadillac terminal is a 100 percent multiwork area facility, while the Michigan-Kalamazoo terminal is a zero percent multiwork area facility. Newman Decl., ¶ 27.
FedEx also points out that the contractors have a proprietary interest in their routes and can sell them; Mr. Currithers sold his route after termination for $5,000, but kept his truck. The new driver must be acceptable to FedEx as qualified to provide services under the Operating Agreement: “Provided Contractor is in good standing hereunder, Contractor shall . . . have the right to assign his/her rights and obligations hereunder to a replacement contractor acceptable to [FedEx] as being qualified to provide the services of Contractor under this Agreement.” FXHD OA, ¶ 15; FXG OA, ¶ 18. The new driver must meet the same
31

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 32 of 43
minimum requirements and is subject to the same screening as a temporary helper driver, discussed above. CRL-551 at 5 (“An individual applying to be a contractor/temporary driver must be prescreened and/or extensively reviewed or tested prior to completing the CDAS online application.”). A driver whose contract is terminated by FedEx for cause cannot assign his contractual rights to others.
The plaintiffs assert that FedEx has virtual at-will authority to terminate Michigan drivers because FedEx decides what constitutes a “breach” of the broadly written standards of service. The Operating Agreements permits termination under the following circumstances: (1) by the parties’ mutual agreement; (2) in the event of the equipment operator’s intentional misconduct or reckless or willful negligent operation of the vehicular equipment or the contractor’s knowledge or reason to anticipate such operator’s conduct; (3) by either party “if the other party breaches or fails to perform the contractual obligations imposed by [the] Agreement[;]”(4) in the case that FedEx ceases to do business in all or part of the respective terminal service area or as a result of decline in business, reduces operations in all or part of the service area; or (5) the contractor may terminate upon thirty days prior written notice. FXHD OA, ¶ 9.1; FXG OA, ¶ 12.1. Non-renewal of the contract is also permitted by either party upon thirty days written notice before the expiration of the term. FXHD OA, ¶ 8.2; FXG OA, ¶ 11.2. The Operating Agreement contains a mandatory arbitration clause if the contractor asserts a claim for wrongful termination of the agreement. FXHD OA, ¶ 9.3 and Addendum 7; FXG OA, ¶ 12.3.
32

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 33 of 43
The plaintiffs point to evidence showing that FedEx targeted drivers for termination if they opposed the independent contractor model or promoted unionization. Managers took a headcount of their drivers without the drivers’ involvement to determine who favored independent contractor status (+), who did not (-) and those the managers were unsure about (?). In an email, FedEx Managing Director Patrick Super referenced a terminal headcount indicating a worst case scenario of an 87 percent negative rating and stated: “We have some more gutting to do come the new year.” Richard Jean, SRM, Contractor Relations, stated in an email thread that a pick-up and delivery driver’s recent party at his house “turned out to be more of a meeting than a party” and noting that this “could lead to union talk.” The terminal manager was told to “prepare his file for contract termination.” FedEx disputes this documentary evidence with testimony explaining what the managers meant — Mr. Super explained that his “feeling was that we would be . . . possibly reviewing independent contractors due to an overall performance level which was not upholding the contract,” Super Dep., p. 130 — and evidence to show that such actions are inconsistent with FedEx policy and management views.
Further, FedEx points out that Mr. Currithers voluntarily terminated his contract, Mr. Hawkins’ contract wasn’t renewed for receiving numerous customer complaints and service failures, and according to FedEx, Mr. LaVake was terminated for creating a hostile work environment at the terminal and not meeting customer expectations. FedEx states that these drivers’ experiences show
33

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 34 of 43
that the contract isn’t terminable at-will. FedEx presents evidence that contract terminations are independently reviewed for breaches of the Operating Agreement and presents testimony that Contractor Relations frequently declines to concur in terminations and will deny a proposed termination if valid grounds for doing so under the Operating Agreement are lacking.
III. ANALYSIS Citing to the summary judgment record, the plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider its order denying Michigan class certification, contending that common evidence will show that FedEx not only had the right to control the plaintiffs, but actually exercised that control on a class-wide basis.
A. Standard
The plaintiffs assert that this case is suitable for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3). Common questions predominate when they “present a significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication.” In re Bromine Antitrust Litig., 203 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (quotation marks and
34

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 35 of 43
citations omitted). “At its essence, predominance is concerned with whether the putative named plaintiffs can, through their individualized cases, offer proof on a class-wide basis.” Hyderi v. Wash. Mut. Bank FA, 235 F.R.D. 390, 398 (N.D. Ill. 2006). To decide whether the liability issues are subject to class-wide proof, the court should consider the elements of plaintiffs’ claims, the proof necessary for those elements, and the manageability of trial on these issues. Fletcher v. ZLB Behring LLC, 245 F.R.D. 328, 332 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
The class common issues don’t predominate “[i]f the liability issues are not subject to class-wide proof – but instead would require individual and fact intensive determinations.” Fletcher v. ZLB Behring, 245 F.R.D. at 332. When “resolution of a common issue requires the court to resolve a variety of individualized issues, any efficiency that might be gained in a class action disappears.” Davidson v. Citizens Gas & Coke Utility, 238 F.R.D. 225, 233 (S.D. Ind. 2006). The plaintiffs “bear the burden of proving that a class should be certified.” Clark v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 256 Fed. Appx. 818, 821 (7th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).
B. Michigan Law Courts use the economic realities test to determine employment status under Michigan law. Kidder v. Miller-Davis Co., 564 N.W.2d 872, 876 (Mich. 1997); see also Buckley v. Professional Plaza Clinic Corp., 761 N.W.2d 284, 290 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (“The economic reality test is the most common tool for
35

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 36 of 43
discerning whether an employee-employer relationship exists.”). Employment status depends on the realities of the work performed and control is only one factor to consider. Kidder v. Miller-Davis, 564 N.W.2d at 876-877. The economicreality test is a “more realistic attempt to define the employer-employee relationship through a ‘balancing of all the relevant factors in each case,’ than the rigid control test.” Id. at 876 (quoting Renfroe v. Higgins Mfg. Co., Inc., 169 N.W.2d 326, 329 n.3 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)). The test considers the totality of the circumstances surrounding the work performed. Mantei v. Michigan Public Sch. Employees Ret. Sys., 663 N.W.2d 486, 495 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). When examining the totality of the circumstances, the court should generally consider the following factors: “‘(1) [the] control of a worker’s duties, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the right to hire and fire and the right to discipline, and (4) the performance of the duties as an integral part of the employer’s business towards the accomplishment of a common goal.’” Clark v. United Tech. Auto., Inc., 594 N.W.2d 447, 451 (Mich. 1999) (quoting Askew v. Macomber, 247 N.W.2d 288, 217-218 (Mich. 1976)).
Michigan courts have provided further guidance in determining employment status under the economic realities test by noting the following more expansive list of factors that a court may consider:
First, what liability, if any, does the employer incur in the event of the termination of the relationship at will? Second, is the work being performed an integral part of the employer's business which contributes to the accomplishment of a common objective?
36

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 37 of 43
Third, is the position or job of such a nature that the employee primarily depends upon the emolument for payment of his living expenses?
Fourth, does the employee furnish his own equipment and materials?
Fifth, does the individual seeking employment hold himself out to the public as one ready and able to perform tasks of a given nature?
Sixth, is the work or the undertaking in question customarily performed by an individual as an independent contractor?
Seventh, control, although abandoned as an exclusive criterion upon which the relationship can be determined, is a factor to be considered along with payment of wages, maintenance of discipline and the right to engage or discharge employees.
Eighth, weight should be given to those factors which will most favorably effectuate the objectives of the statute.
Coblentz v. City of Novi, 719 N.W.2d 73, 85 (Mich. 2006) (citations and quotations
omitted). No single factor is controlling, Clark v. United Tech. Auto., 594 N.W.2d
at 451, and other factors can be considered as each individual case requires.
Mantei v. Michigan Public Sch. Employees Ret. Sys., 663 N.W.2d at 495. For
example, the court in Pedell, M.D. v. Heartland Health Care Ctr., No. 271276,
2007 WL 840876, at *6 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2007) (unpublished opinion),
considered payment to the plaintiff’s corporation, as opposed to the plaintiff
directly, as a factor to consider in favor of independent contractor status.
When examining control, the court shouldn’t only consider the right to
control, but also the control actually exercised. The court in Kidder v. Miller-Davis
examined the control each potential employer actually exerted over all the workers
at the site when determining if plaintiff was an employee or independent
37

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 38 of 43
contractor. 564 N.W.2d at 880. The court further noted that the contract isn’t dispositive of the status of the parties. Id. at 881. “Just as we have held that control is but one factor to consider under the economic-reality test, so is the contract but one factor. . . . [T]he agreement is neither dispositive nor controlling.” Id. “The economic realities test is ‘not a matter of terminology, oral or written, but of the realities of the work performed.’” Hool v. William A. Kibbe & Assoc., Inc., Nos. 255371 & 255390, 2005 WL 3115816, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2005) (unpublished opinion) (quoting Nichol v. Billot, 279 N.W.2d 761, 763 (Mich. 1979)).
The court in Mantei v. Michigan Public Sch. Employees Ret. Sys., 663 N.W.2d 486 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003), instead of relying solely on the parties’ contract to determine employee status, examined the parties’ actual relationship. Mr. Mantei was a retired principal from the public school district who started working for the school as a principal through a private-sector personnel-services company, Thumb Educational Services, Inc. The contract stated that Mr. Mantei was an agent and was to “comply with all established rules and regulations governing personnel within the District;” in the event of any alleged breach of the agreement by Mr. Mantei, Thumb would take any necessary disciplinary action and advise the school district of such action. Mr. Mantei’s job responsibilities were the same before and after his retirement. He spent most of his days at the school, interacting with parents and staff, communicating directly with the superintendent regarding day-to-day concerns, evaluating other school employees, and providing administrative reports to the school district. The school district
38

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 39 of 43
provided him with an office, furniture, telephone, and support services, all on the school district’s premises.
The school superintendent testified, though, that he didn’t supervise or evaluate Mr. Mantei or have an ongoing personnel file as he did before Mr. Mantei’s retirement. 663 N.W.2d at 496. Mr. Mantei wasn’t required to report when he was leaving the building and the superintendent didn’t have the authority to discipline him. “Thus, [Mr. Mantei] essentially exercised his independent professional judgment on a daily basis without direct supervision.” Id. That Mr. Mantei was contractually bound to follow the rules and regulations of the school district and implement district policies, didn’t necessarily mean that the school district had the right to control his work. The court determined that the petitioner “retained autonomy regarding the method and manner by which he fulfilled his obligations, thus undermining respondent’s argument that the school district exercised control over petitioner.” Id. at 497. The court held that even assuming “that the school district had some control over [Mr. Mantei] through its contract with Thumb, the ability to control is only one factor to consider under the economic-reality test, and the totality of the circumstances indicate that petitioner was not ‘employed by a reporting unit.’” Id.
The plaintiffs urge the court to rely on Hyslop v. Klein, 270 N.W.2d 540, 542-544 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978), for the proposition that it need only examine the
39

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 40 of 43
right to control, not the actual exercise of control.7 Applying the economic realities test, the Hyslop court held that the plaintiff farm-worker was an employee of the defendant farm-owner. In coming to this conclusion, the court examined a number of factors, including the degree of control the defendant had over the plaintiff’s duties. Id. at 542. The court explained that the “correct test is not the actual exercise of control but the Right to control.” Id. at 544 (citations omitted). The court stated:
[T]he test is, and must be, based on the right (to control), not the exercise. Most often the distinction is of importance when a skilled or experienced workman appears to be doing his job without supervision or interference. By an ‘exercise’ test, he would seem to be uncontrolled; yet it will often be found that the employer, in any showdown, would have the ultimate right to dictate the method of work if there were any occasion to do so. Id. (citing 1A Larson, § 44.10, pp. 8-19, 8-23, 8-24). But as noted in Hyslop, the Supreme Court disapproves of any “ultimate test.” 270 N.W.2d at 542 n.3 (citing Askew v. Macomber, 247 N.W.2d 288, 291 (Mich. 1976)). The court agrees with FedEx that the emphasis in Hysolp on the right to control, as opposed to actual exercise of control, stands in contrast to the weight of Michigan authority, which repeatedly has stated that the court should look to the totality of the circumstances and that no one factor is dispositive. The court therefore declines to rely on Hyslop for the proposition that the court can merely focuses its analysis on the right to control.
7 The plaintiffs note that they inadvertently omitted this case from their class certification briefing.
40

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 41 of 43
C. Application This court can’t resolve employment status under Michigan law by examining only common evidence. The plaintiffs present significant evidence that tends to show FedEx’s supervision over all Michigan drivers’ means and methods of carrying out their work, but before the court can determine employee status of the proposed putative class members, the court must examine the individual circumstances of those class members. Because no single factor is controlling and the court may consider different factors as each individual case requires, including actual exercise of control, the court simply cannot determine based on the evidence presented by the plaintiffs that all the class members should be treated alike; their experiences with FedEx will differ from terminal to terminal and driver to driver. For example, while each driver may have engaged in business discussions, the topic, number, and tone of the discussions differ between drivers. Although the court could make generalizations about the nature of the discussions for all Michigan drivers and the degree of control exerted by FedEx, the economic realities test provides FedEx with an opportunity to show that it didn’t actually exercise control over the individual plaintiffs. FedEx presents evidence that managers have discretion in how they conduct business discussions, how often, what issues are addressed, and their intended effect. FedEx’s control over its drivers likely will vary between terminals and will be affected by the degree of autonomy the manager provides his drivers, requiring an individualized review of
41

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 42 of 43
driver and manager testimony, business discussions, customer service rides, drive release audits, and van service audits.
Other individualized issues that will affect the court’s analysis of the actual control exerted by FedEx include the type and amount of training the driver received, whether the driver contracted with FedEx individually or through a proprietorship or corporate entity, whether the driver was forced to purchase or lease a particular vehicle, whether the driver was flexed or his work area reconfigured without his consent and over his objection, whether the driver had an annual review, whether the driver hired a helper or replacement contractor and his experience in obtaining FedEx’s approval when hiring, whether the driver had to work certain hours, whether the driver was terminated at-will, and whether the driver sold his route upon termination.
The liability issues in this matter aren’t subject to class-wide proof, but instead require individual and fact intensive determinations. Accordingly, the court DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion to amend class certification order for Michigan drivers (doc. # 1318). The court INSTRUCTS the parties that have filed briefs on motions to amend class certification on the ground addressed in this order to file a supplemental statement within thirty days, not to exceed three pages, stating how their position differs from the positions addressed above.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: March 30, 2010
42

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2018 filed 03/30/10 page 43 of 43 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge United States District Court
43

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2028 filed 04/21/10 page 1 of 5

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

ALL ACTIONS

)

)

_____________________________________ )

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court on FedEx Ground Package System’s motion

to clarify scheduling orders (doc. # 2017). FedEx requests clarification of the

following statement in this court’s January 22, 2010 order: “The deadline for

expert discovery and filing of dispositive motions as to the determination of

employee and independent contractor status — the overriding centralized issue

in this case — has expired.” Do. # 1991, p. 7. FedEx asks the court to clarify that

the parties aren’t precluded from offering expert witnesses and opinions at trial

on the independent contractor classification question that differ from those the

parties offered at the class certification and the summary judgment phases. The

plaintiffs object, contending that the deadline for disclosing experts and engaging

in expert discovery has passed and neither the parties nor the court intended to

impose a separate deadline for trial. The court agrees with the plaintiffs.

In its November 29, 2005 scheduling order, the court stated that “[d]iscovery

1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2028 filed 04/21/10 page 2 of 5
for purposes of class certification and discovery for purposes of the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims will take place concurrently. Consequently, all discovery related to independent contractor/employment status and summary judgment shall be completed by August 1, 2006.” (Doc. # 58, p. 3). The deadlines for expert disclosures and expert discovery for the class certification and summary judgment phases initially were set concurrently, but the court later extended the expert discovery deadlines for the summary judgment phase beyond the deadline set for the class certification phase. Doc. # 261. The court explained that it previously ordered the parties to conduct discovery on the issue of class certification and the merits simultaneously, but upon the parties’ request to extend merits discovery, the court modified the deadlines for the exchange of expert reports and discovery for summary judgment. Doc. # 261, pp. 3-4. The court issued additional orders extending the deadlines to serve expert reports and to depose experts relied on for summary judgment. Doc. ## 481, 766, 833, 1118, and 1425.
FedEx argues that no deadlines have been established for expert disclosures, reports, or discovery for trial, because this court’s previous orders only set such deadlines for the class certification phase and summary judgment phase of the proceedings. FedEx says that separate disclosure requirements for class certification experts, summary judgment experts and trial experts make sense because each expert serves a specialized role and is directed to a different audience. FedEx further contends it’s reasonable for the parties to disclose trial experts after the court’s rulings on summary judgment when the issues have been
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2028 filed 04/21/10 page 3 of 5
further defined. Finally, FedEx contends that as a practical matter, experts for briefing differ from trial experts because of the extent of their applicability. FedEx reasons that an expert’s report can support briefs in numerous cases, but once a case is remanded, the expert might need to testify at trial, which given the numerosity of trials throughout the country, could require the retention and disclosure of additional expert witnesses.
Although the court tied the expert disclosure and discovery deadlines to the summary judgment phase of the MDL proceeding, the orders also indicate that the discovery deadlines were for the merits stage, which includes trial. There is no indication in the court’s orders that a separate expert deadline would be set for trial and instead, the orders clearly indicate that the court intended for the class certification and merits discovery to run concurrently. If FedEx believed these deadlines were ambiguous, it should have raised the issue earlier. Both parties have engaged in extensive expert discovery as to the issue of employment status and having a separate expert deadline for the same issue for the trial phase of litigation would be unduly prejudicial to the plaintiffs; it would not only unduly delay this litigation, but would require the plaintiffs to expend more time and resources on discovery that already has been conducted extensively.
FedEx’s arguments that it makes sense to have different deadlines for summary judgment and trial are unconvincing. FedEx had an opportunity to disclose experts that it believed would be appropriate for both the summary judgment and trial phase of litigation. If the substance of the expert findings is the
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2028 filed 04/21/10 page 4 of 5
same for summary judgment and trial — that the drivers are independent contractors — the manner in which the opinion is presented to the jury can be modified and restructured by the attorney’s examination questions at trial. Further, FedEx didn’t need to wait until after summary judgment for clarification of the issues. At the time of the expert disclosure and discovery deadline, FedEx was well aware of the issue — whether FedEx drivers are employees or independent contractors. Finally, there is no indication why scheduling conflicts for trials can’t be arranged so that FedEx experts can testify at the various trials that might be held in this proceeding. The court won’t extend discovery because trial calendars not yet set might conflict.
As previously indicated, the court divided summary judgment into two stages: “summary judgment or adjudication on issues relating to independent contractor/employment status and summary judgment or adjudication as to other issues.” Doc. # 58. The discovery deadline has passed, except that to date, expert discovery has only been directed to class certification and employment-status issues. Doc. # 261. Accordingly, to clarify, the deadline for expert disclosure and discovery on the issue of employment status for all phases of litigation has passed, but additional expert discovery may be warranted for issues other than employment status.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: April 21, 2010
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2028 filed 04/21/10 page 5 of 5 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge United States District Court
5

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2030 filed 04/21/10 page 1 of 6

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

ALL ACTIONS

)

)

_____________________________________ )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs’ various motions to amend

the court’s denial of class certification arguing, in part, that collateral estoppel

presents a common issue for all FedEx drivers (doc. # 1318, 1326, 1333, 1339,

1340, 1341, and 1342). The plaintiffs explain that at the time of class certification,

one significant legal issue common to all the drivers didn’t exist: the collateral

estoppel effect of the Estrada decision on the issue of employment status.

The plaintiffs have filed motions for summary judgment arguing as an initial

matter that FedEx is precluded from relitigating whether it reserved the right to

and actually exercised control over its pick-up and delivery drivers under the

Operating Agreement and substantially the same FedEx policies and practices at

issue in Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court,

Case No. BC210130, affirmed 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327 (Cal. App. Ct. 2007). For

purposes of the plaintiffs’ motions to amend class certification, the relevant

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2030 filed 04/21/10 page 2 of 6
inquiry is whether collateral estoppel presents a common issue applicable to all drivers within the relevant class.
The plaintiffs seek class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which permits a case to proceed as a class action when “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3). This rule requires predominance of common questions over individual ones and superiority of the class action mechanism. In re General Motors Corp. Dex-Cool Prods., 241 F.R.D. 305, 313 (S.D. Ill. 2007).
The parties present the issue of whether the court can certify a class based on the common issue of collateral estoppel. “When appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(4). Most courts that have considered this question agree that the “predominance requirement is met by examining each cause of action independently of one another.” McDaniel v. Qwest Commc’n Corp., No. 05-C-1008, 2006 WL 1476110, *15 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2006) (citing Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 441 (4th Cir. 2003)) (emphasis in original). In recent years though, “some sister courts have held that in cases where class certification of issues is sought pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4)(A), the requirement of predominance is to be evaluated in a different, less demanding manner than in cases where claims are sought to be certified for class treatment.” In re General Motors Corp.
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2030 filed 04/21/10 page 3 of 6
Dex-Cool Prods., 241 F.R.D. at 313 (citing cases); see also McDaniel v. Qwest Communications Corp., 2006 WL 1476110, *15 (stating that there is some authority for an “issue-specific predominance analysis” under Rule 23).
After considering the positions taken by various courts, the court in In re General Motors concluded that “an expansive approach to class certification under Rule 23(c)(4)(A) is supported neither by the text of Rule 23 nor the binding precedent of this Circuit.” 241 F.R.D. at 314. The court reviewed Seventh Circuit case law, and reasoned that “[w]here class certification is sought as to issues under Rule 23(c)(4)(A), Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirements of predominance and manageability must be satisfied, and class certification must be denied where those requirements cannot be met . . .” Id. “A district court cannot manufacture predominance through the nimble use of subdivision (c)(4).” Id. (citing Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 745 n. 21 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Our court of appeals, however, has encouraged “district courts to employ Rule 23(c)(4) to the fullest extent in considering class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).” McDaniel v. Qwest Communications Corp., 2006 WL 1476110, *16. In In re Allstate Ins. Co., 400 F.3d 505, 508 (7th Cir. 2005), the court vacated class certification, but observed that a class-wide determination of whether an employer had a policy of constructively discharging its employees would be more efficient than redetermining that question repeatedly in individual hearings to determine why any particular employee quit. The court explained:
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2030 filed 04/21/10 page 4 of 6
A single hearing may be all that's necessary to determine whether Allstate had a policy of forcing its employee agents to quit. This issue could be decided first and then individual hearings conducted to determine which of the members of the class were actually affected by the policy rather than having decided to quit for their own reasons. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(4)(A). That would be a more efficient procedure than litigating the class-wide issue of Allstate's policy anew in more than a thousand separate lawsuits. Id. Accordingly, district courts are provided with a certain level of flexibility when determining if a matter should be certified as a class under Rule 23(c)(4)(A). Even if it were appropriate to certify classes to resolve particular issues such as collateral estoppel, the court declines to do so here. This court has already denied class certification on the plaintiffs’ claims, finding that the determination of employment status requires individualized analysis of actual control, and therefore, common issues don’t predominate. Although the collateral estoppel effect of the Estrada decision is a common issue among the proposed classes, it doesn’t predominate over the individual issues necessary to resolve the plaintiffs’ causes of actions. Certifying a class for the sole purpose of determining whether the Estrada decision has collateral estoppel effect wouldn’t be a superior method of adjudication because if the court finds against preclusion, the underlying claims still would need to be resolved on an individualized basis. The bifurcation of the collateral estoppel issue and the underlying claims wouldn’t result in an efficient adjudication of the controversy. The parties have fully briefed whether the Estrada decision should have collateral estoppel effect on the issue of employment status, so it is appropriate
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2030 filed 04/21/10 page 5 of 6
to address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim at this time. The court acknowledges that a class certification decision isn’t tied to the merits of the claim. See Szabo v. Bridgeport Mach., Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 2001) (“The success of the [statute] depends on making a definitive class certification decision before deciding the case on the merits, and on judicial willingness to certify classes that have weak claims as well as strong ones.”). The court, though, must determine whether the case as framed is likely to proceed most sensibly as a class action. See Id. (finding that when deciding whether to grant class certification, the district court wasn’t required to accept the allegations in the complaint as true, but rather had to make whatever factual and legal inquiries as necessary to ensure that the prerequisites and requirements for class certification were satisfied, even if underlying considerations overlapped with the merits of the case).
For the reasons stated above, the court finds that it isn’t sensible to certify a class to resolve the collateral estoppel issue; this is reinforced by the court’s separate order finding that Estrada doesn’t have preclusive effect in the MDL cases. The court therefore DENIES the plaintiffs’ motions to amend the court’s denial of class certification (doc. nos. 1318 (MI), 1326 (MO), 1333 (VA), 1339 (IL), 1340 (MT), 1341 (MA), and 1342 (SD)) on the basis of collateral estoppel. In accordance with the court’s March 30 order, the court will rule on the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments to amend class certification by separate order.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: April 21, 2010
5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2030 filed 04/21/10 page 6 of 6 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge United States District Court
6

 
 case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

3:05-cv-529 (Fluegel - Illinois)

)

3:06-cv-393(Carlson - Montana)

)

3:05-cv-531 (Sheehan - Massachusetts) )

3:05-cv-539 (Bunger - South Dakota)

)

3:07-cv-478 (Flores - Colorado)

)

3:07-cv-322 (Magno - Connecticut)

)

3:07-cv-412 (Gruhn - Vermont)

)

3:05-cv-541 (Gregory - Virginia)

)

3:06-cv-337 (Gray - Missouri)

)

_____________________________________ )

CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM (MDL-1700)

OPINION AND ORDER The court, in its March 2010 order (doc. # 2018), denied the Michigan plaintiffs’ motion to amend class certification order. The court examined the evidence submitted in support of the Michigan plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and in light of that state’s emphasis on actual control, decided that the liability issues aren’t subject to class-wide proof, but instead require individualized and fact intensive determinations. The court instructed the parties that had filed briefs on motions to amend class certification on the ground addressed in the Michigan order to file a supplemental statement indicating how their position differs from the Michigan plaintiffs’ position. The plaintiffs and

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 2 of 31
FedEx have filed their supplemental statements, and for the reasons stated below, the court denies the plaintiffs’ motions.
ILLINOIS The named Illinois plaintiffs have asserted claims for violations arising under the Illinois Wage Act, 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 115/1, et seq., the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 505/1, et seq., and claims for rescission, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider its class certification denial based on arguments and evidence presented in their summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs contend the court can decide these claims by common evidence and that any individualized evidence offered by FedEx won’t change the court’s determination of employment status. The Illinois plaintiffs’ claims relying on the state’s common law definition of employee require the court to determine not only right to control, but also actual exercise of control. “Common-law factors to consider in examining a worker’s potential status as an employee include ‘the amount of control and supervision, the right of discharge, the method of payment, the skill required in the work to be done, the source of tools, material or equipment, and the work schedule.’ Of these, control of the manner in which work is done is considered the most important.” Mitchell v. Department of Corr., 856 N.E.2d 593, 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (internal citations omitted). This court found that Illinois law contemplates “that even when
2

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 3 of 31
the ‘employment’ agreement vests enough control in the hiring party to create an employment relationship, the inquiry still must extend into the parties’ extracontractual relationship.” Doc. # 1119, p. 142.
In the Michigan order denying reconsideration of class certification, the court held that a determination of FedEx’s actual exercise of control required the court to review individualized evidence, so questions of law or fact common to the members of the class don’t predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The plaintiffs acknowledge that the court’s Michigan order applies to their common law claims, and on that ground, Illinois plaintiffs’ position doesn’t differ materially from the Michigan plaintiffs’ position. For the reasons stated in the Michigan order, the court denies the plaintiffs’ request to reconsider class certification as to the Illinois plaintiffs’ common law claims.
As this court explained when denying class certification, the Illinois Wage Act contains its own definition of employee. Doc. # 1119, p. 139. That Act provides that “any individual permitted to work by an employer in an occupation” is an employee, and then creates an exemption to the Act’s coverage for any person who is free — both under the contract and in practice — from control and direction over the work’s performance, whose work is performed either outside the employer’s usual course of business or outside the employer’s places of business, and who is in an independently established business. 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 115/2. This three-prong test is known as the “ABC test”. Each element of the exemption must be present for the service provider to be an independent contractor for
3

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 4 of 31
purpose of the Wage Act. Novakovic v. Samutin, 820 N.E.2d 967, 973 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004); Byung Moo Soh v. Target Mktg. Sys., Inc., 817 N.E.2d 1105, 1109 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). Because the putative employer must demonstrate the exemption’s applicability, the Wage Act creates a near-presumption that a worker is an employee rather than an independent contractor. See Adams v. Catrambone, 359 F.3d 858, 864 (7th Cir. 2004). This same three-part test is also found in the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 405/212. Illinois courts rely on interpretations of the test under the Unemployment Insurance Act to guide their application of the Wage Act exemption. See e.g., Novakovic v. Samutin, 820 N.E.2d at 974.
This court ruled that because the Wage Act places the burden on FedEx to establish that all three prongs of the ABC test are met, FedEx must be given a chance to rebut the presumption by presenting both common and individualized evidence. For example, to establish that its drivers are independent contractors, FedEx will be required to prove its drivers’ freedom from control, not only under the Operating Agreement, but also “in fact.” In addressing a similar test under Massachusetts law, the court noted that “FedEx Ground will need to prove freedom from control in practice, as well as freedom from control under the Operating Agreement.” Doc. 1119, p. 60. The Massachusetts plaintiffs argued that freedom in fact need never be reached because FedEx won’t be able to carry its burden of showing freedom from control under the Operating Agreement, making the plaintiffs employees. The court responded, “Perhaps so, but this is not the
4

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 5 of 31
time for decision on the merits.” Doc. # 1119, p. 60. This court further noted that the facts needed to rebut the presumption “include the nature of the hired party’s business or profession, which is unlikely to be determined by the contract itself.” Doc. # 1119, p. 143. Accordingly, the court ruled that Illinois law “poses questions upon which FedEx Ground must be allowed to present driver-by-driver evidence.” Doc. # 1119, p. 143.
The plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider its denial of class certification because the fully briefed Illinois summary judgment motion establishes that all three prongs of the ABC test can be determined by reference to common evidence. FedEx can’t meet the second prong of the test, the plaintiffs argue, because common evidence shows that the drivers’ work is a regular part of FedEx’s business and material parts of the drivers’ work occur within FedEx’s terminals and the geographic area in which FedEx conducts business. As to the third factor, the plaintiffs argue that common evidence shows the Illinois plaintiffs wouldn’t be able to operate a delivery business without dependency upon FedEx, so FedEx can’t show that the drivers have independently established businesses. The plaintiffs further contend that even if the court were to find it necessary to examine the first prong of the test, common evidence demonstrates that FedEx reserved the right to control the drivers’ work, making is unnecessary to examine actual control. Accordingly, the plaintiffs conclude that FedEx hasn’t offered any individualized evidence that can possibly rebut the presumption of employee status.
5

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 6 of 31
At the time of class certification, the court couldn’t say whether the question of employment status under the Wage Act could be decided based on common evidence because FedEx needed to be given the opportunity to present individualized evidence to rebut the presumption. To prove the drivers were independent contractors, FedEx must show that it didn’t retain the right to control and didn’t actually exercise control. See Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Dep’t of Employment Security, 776 N.E.2d 166, 180-185 (Ill. 2002) (listing twenty-five factors to examine whether direction or control exists under same test used for Unemployment Insurance Act). A determination that FedEx would be unable to rebut the right to control, making FedEx’s exercise of actual control irrelevant, would have been a decision on the merits. See Carpetland v. Illinois Dep’t of Employment Sec., 776 N.E.2d at 179 (“‘Direction or control’ . . . means that an employing unit has the right to control and direct the worker, not only as to the work to be done but also how it should be done, whether or not that control is exercised.” (citation omitted)).
The third factor applies when “the individual has a proprietary interest in the business which he can sell, give away, or operate without any hindrance from any other party.” Novakovic v. Samutin, 820 N.E.2d at 975 (citing 56 ILL. ADM. CODE § 2732.200(e) (2001)). This inquiry “requires that the individual’s entrepreneurial enterprise must enjoy a degree of economic independence such that the enterprise could survive any relationship with the particular person contracting for services.” Carpetland v. Illinois Dep’t of Employment Sec., 776
6

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 7 of 31
N.E.2d at 190 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The court in AFM Messenger Serv., Inc. v. Department of Employment Sec., 763 N.E.2d 272, 285 (Ill. 2002), held that AFM delivery drivers weren’t independent contractors because the evidence didn’t demonstrate they were able to operate their “delivery businesses” without the benefit of a relationship with AFM or another messenger service company like AFM. Id. Courts have also examined thirteen factors relevant to the determination of this inquiry. Carpetland v. Illinois Dep’t of Employment Sec., 776 N.E.2d at 190; see also Novakovic v. Samutin, 820 N.E.2d at 975. These thirteen factors and some of the facts taken into consideration in AFM Messenger Serv. and Carpetland require that FedEx be given the opportunity to present individualized evidence to rebut the independent business factor.
Even though the second prong of the ABC test can be decided on common evidence, a determination that FedEx can’t rebut this prong of the test, obviating the need to determine the other two elements, would be a decision on the merits, which is improper at the class certification stage. This court acknowledges that in De Giovanni v. Jani-King Int’l, Inc., 262 F.R.D. 71, 84-85 (D. Mass. 2009), the court addressed this same test under Massachusetts law and found that all three factors could be analyzed based on common evidence and did so without addressing the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim. But this court isn’t similarly convinced that in this case review of the three-prong test can be limited to common evidence, at least not without effectively determining the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim.
7

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 8 of 31
A class certification decision isn’t tied to the merits of the claim. See Szabo v. Bridgeport Mach., Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 2001) (“The success of [Rule 23] depends on making a definitive class certification decision before deciding the case on the merits, and on judicial willingness to certify classes that have weak claims as well as strong ones.”). “A court may not say something like ‘let’s resolve the merits first and worry about the class later.’” Id. The court can, though, look beneath the surface of a complaint to determine whether the Rule 23 factors are met. Id. When the question of suitability for class treatment overlaps with a question related to the merits, the district judge “must make a preliminary inquiry into the merits.” Id. (finding that when deciding whether to grant class certification, the district court wasn’t required to accept the allegations in the complaint as true, but rather had to make whatever factual and legal inquiries as necessary to ensure that the requirements for class certification were satisfied, even if underlying considerations overlapped with the merits of the case); see also American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Allen, 600 F.3d 813, 816-817 (7th Cir. 2010) (finding the district court should have concluded Daubert analysis of expert to determine appropriateness of class certification where the expert’s testimony was necessary to show whether plaintiffs’ claims were capable of resolution on a classwide basis).
The “‘preliminary inquiry into the merits’ discussed in Szabo is a . . . limited one, that has at its focus not the substantive strength or weakness of the plaintiffs’ claims but rather the merits of those allegations that bear on the
8

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 9 of 31
suitability of a case for class treatment under Rule 23(a) and (b).” Rahim v. Sheahan, No. 99-C-0395, 2001 WL 1263493, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2001).
Ruling on the merits before deciding class certification also would run afoul of the rule against one-way intervention. This “rule bars potential class members from waiting on the sidelines to see how the lawsuit turns out and, if a judgment for the class is entered, intervening to take advantage of the judgment.” Amati v. City of Woodstock, 176 F.3d 952, 957 (7th Cir. 1999). “Rule 23(c) prohibits this practice . . . by requiring the district judge to make an early determination whether the suit is to proceed as a class action.” Id. “[T]reatment of plaintiffs and defendants is supposed to be symmetric, which is possible only if a class is certified (or not) before decision on the merits.” Bertrand ex rel. Bertrand v. Maram, 495 F.3d 452, 455 (7th Cir. 2007). “[A]n evaluation of the probable outcome on the merits is not properly part of the certification decision.” Bickel v. Sheriff of Whitley County, Cause No. 1:08-CV-102-TS, 2010 WL 883654, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 5, 2010) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c), Advisory Notes to 2003 Amendments).
The plaintiffs have asked that this court certify the class and then wait for the opt-out period to expire before ruling on their summary judgment motion. But deciding whether the plaintiffs can succeed on any one of the elements in the ABC test by presenting common evidence, rendering the remaining two elements irrelevant, effectively decides the merits of the claim. The court declines to
9

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 10 of 31
reconsider class certification based on a merits determination at the summary judgment stage.
The court won’t delay this matter further. The summary judgment motions are ripe and the named plaintiffs in the Illinois litigation (as well as FedEx) are entitled to a ruling on their claims without additional delay. Accordingly, while the court of appeals has recognized that in certain situations it might be appropriate to rule on a summary judgment motion before ruling on a class motion, Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 629-630 (7th Cir. 2001), such circumstances don’t exist here. The court therefore DENIES the Illinois plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class certification order (doc. # 1339).
MONTANA The Montana plaintiffs ask the court to amend its class certification order pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (doc. # 1340) based on the arguments and evidence presented in the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs contend employment status can be resolved by common evidence and that any individualized evidence offered by FedEx will not change the court’s determination. As this court explained when denying class certification, “Montana law places a burden of proof on the party claiming an independent contractor relationship to prove both prongs of what the Montana courts call the “AB test”’. Doc. # 1119, p. 18. The AB test requires FedEx to show that the hired party “(i) . . . has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of the
10

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 11 of 31
person’s own services, both under a contract and in fact; and (ii) . . . is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business . . . .” MONT. CODE ANN. § 39-71-417(4)(a). Under this AB test, the party claiming an independent contractor relationship must show not only that no contract vested the hiring party with the right to control the details of the contracted work, but also that the hiring party did not in fact control the details of the contracted work. See e.g., Walling v. Hardy Constr., 807 P.2d 1335 (Mont. 1991). The hired party “must be free from the control of his employer, under his contract and in fact, in the performance of his services.” Sharp v. Horner Waldorf Corp., 584 P.2d 1289, 1301 (Mont. 1978).
This court denied class certification because to establish that its drivers are independent contractors, FedEx will be required to prove its drivers’ freedom from control, not only under the Operating Agreement, but also “in fact.” FedEx needed to be given the opportunity to present individualized evidence to rebut the presumption of employee status. This court explained:
If the Montana plaintiffs are correct about the import of the control reserved to FedEx Ground under the Operating Agreement, it will be unnecessary to look beyond the Operating Agreement. But if the Montana plaintiffs are incorrect, FedEx Ground is entitled to an opportunity to meet the rest of its burden under the “AB test” by proving that it didn’t control the details of the drivers’ work sufficiently. Doc. # 1119, p. 19. In the event the analysis reached the actual control issue, the court stated that “[s]omething very close to a driver-by-driver analysis will be needed.” Doc. 1119, p. 19. This court found that even though “the effect of the
11

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 12 of 31
Operating Agreement is a question common to the entire proposed class, that question does not predominate over the remaining issues under Montana law.” Doc. # 1119, pp. 19-20.
The plaintiffs request the court to reconsider its denial of class certification because, they argue, the fully briefed summary judgment motion in Montana establishes that both prongs of the AB test can be determined by reference to common evidence. Essentially, the plaintiffs contend that the common evidence set forth in their summary judgment brief shows that prong B is established, making analysis of prong A unnecessary. Even if prong B isn’t met, the plaintiffs argue that common evidence establishes that prong A is met because FedEx has reserved the right to control in the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable policies, making it unnecessary to determine whether FedEx exercised actual control. Finally, even if the court must consider actual exercise of control, the plaintiffs argue that they have shown that actual control can be established with common proof.
The Montana plaintiffs’ arguments are similar to those raised and rejected in Illinois and Michigan and for the reasons stated above and in the Michigan order (doc. # 2018), the court DENIES the Montana plaintiffs’ motion to amend (doc. # 1340).
MASSACHUSETTS
12

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 13 of 31
Similar to Illinois, Massachusetts uses the “ABC test” to determine whether workers are employees or independent contractors. Under the Massachusetts ABC test, as in Illinois, the alleged employer has the burden of proving independent contractor status by showing that all three prongs of the ABC test are met. The Massachusetts plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider its denial of class certification after reviewing their summary judgment motion because, they contend, the facts relevant to this determination don’t vary from driver to driver. The plaintiffs argue that a review of the common evidence presented by the parties establishes that FedEx can’t establish any of the prongs in the ABC test and any individualized evidence offered by FedEx is irrelevant.
Massachusetts’ ABC test requires the putative employer to prove three things:
(1) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service [and in fact]; and
(2) the service is performed outside the usual course of business of the employer [or is performed outside of all places of business of the enterprise]; and
(3) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed. MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 149, § 148B(a)(1-3). The “in fact” language in (1) was added as part of the 2004 amendments. The bracketed phrase in (3) was deleted as part of the 2004 amendments. This court denied the Massachusetts plaintiffs’ motion for class certification because under the Massachusetts ABC test, FedEx has the
13

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 14 of 31
burden to prove all three elements of the test; “[o]f necessity, then, FedEx Ground will be required to prove its drivers’ freedom from control, not only under the drivers’ contract, but also ‘in fact.’” Doc. # 1119, p. 60. The court explained that “[w]hether the Operating Agreement vests too much control in FedEx Ground is a common question, but is just one of several.” Doc. # 1119, p. 61. Although freedom from actual control might not need to be decided if FedEx can’t carry its burden of showing freedom from control under the Operating Agreement, the court reasoned that “this is not the time for decision on the merits.” Doc. # 1119, p. 60. The plaintiffs contend that a time for a decision on the merits has now come because the undisputed facts presented in support of their motion for summary judgment shows that FedEx presents no individualized evidence that can rebut employment status.
The plaintiffs’ arguments to amend this court’s denial of class certification mimic those set forth and rejected in Illinois and for the reasons already explained, the court DENIES the Massachusetts plaintiffs’ motion to amend (doc. # 1341).
SOUTH DAKOTA Like Montana, South Dakota sets forth an “AB test” to distinguish employees from independent contractors. This two-part test requires that the worker be free, both under any contract and in fact, from control or direction over how the services are performed and be customarily engaged in an independently
14

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 15 of 31
established trade, occupation, profession, or business. Egemo v. Flores, 470 N.W.2d 817, 821-822 (S.D. 1991). This court held that the independent business factor can’t be resolved on a class-wide basis, but requires individualized evidence. Doc. # 1119, p. 1113. At the class certification stage, the court couldn’t determine that the plaintiffs would succeed on the right to control, thereby obviating FedEx’s need to show freedom from actual control or that the drivers are engaged in an independently established business.
The South Dakota plaintiffs argue that since the court’s order denying class certification, they have had an opportunity to develop fully and brief the facts relevant to the test for employment status. They contend that the undisputed facts submitted in support of summary judgment show conclusively that FedEx can’t meet its burden under either prong of the AB test. According to the plaintiffs, common evidence shows that FedEx retains the right to control its drivers, so the court needn’t address whether FedEx exercised actual control or whether the drivers are customarily engaged in an independently established business. Even if the court must look to the second prong of the test, the plaintiffs say that this can be established by common evidence because FedEx drivers have no relationship with an economic enterprise that is independent of the relationship they have with FedEx. Finally, the South Dakota plaintiffs argue that even if the court must determine whether FedEx actually controlled the drivers, the summary judgment record shows that FedEx’s actual exercise of control can be established by common evidence.
15

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 16 of 31
As already explained, the plaintiffs essentially ask this court to make a merits determination before deciding class certification. If the court determines that FedEx cannot show freedom from control under the Operating Agreement, a merits determination in the plaintiffs’ favor would result. If the court decides that FedEx cannot show that the drivers were independently established businesses, a merits determination for the plaintiffs would result. The court declines to make such a determination for purposes of deciding suitability of class certification. Further, after reviewing the parties’ summary judgment briefing, the court finds that a determination of whether FedEx actually exercises control over its drivers requires individualized evaluations. Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth in the Illinois and Michigan rulings, the court DENIES the South Dakota plaintiffs’ motion to amend (doc. # 1342).
COLORADO Colorado also uses an “AB test” to determine employment status under the Colorado Wage Act. Colorado Revised Statute § 8-4-101(4) creates a presumption that one who performs services for another is an employee. Carpet Exchange of Denver, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 859 P.2d 278, 281 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). To overcome this presumption, the principal must prove that (1) the worker is free from the principal’s control under the agency agreement and in fact, and (2) the worker is customarily engaged in [an independent] trade or business
16

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 17 of 31
related to the service performed. Speedy Messenger Delivery Servs. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 129 P.3d 1094, 1096 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
This court denied class certification noting that “[a]s under Massachusetts law . . ., Colorado law places a burden of proof on FedEx that the plaintiffs see as insurmountable.” Doc. # 1770, p. 6. This court noted that FedEx might even bear a higher burden to prove employment status in Colorado because, “as the plaintiffs understand it, [Colorado law] will require FedEx to prove that it doesn’t command when, where, and how much labor or services shall be performed.” Doc. # 1770, p. 6. This court reasoned: “The Colorado plaintiffs might be right that FedEx won’t be able to manage such a showing, but the court can’t decide that issue at this stage of the proceedings.” Doc. # 1770, p. 6. The court instead focused on what would happen if FedEx makes that showing — “which would result in two additional hurdles for FedEx, both of which would require proof outside the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable policies.” Doc. # 1770, p. 6. FedEx needs to be given the opportunity, the court explained, to present individualized evidence to prove that the drivers are free from control in fact and whether a driver is (or was) customarily engaged in an independent business related to the drivers’ work for FedEx.
Summary adjudication of this issue is now fully briefed and the Colorado plaintiffs contend their briefing shows that FedEx can’t meet either prong of the Colorado AB test. The plaintiffs maintain that because the Colorado plaintiffs didn’t engage in a meaningful, sustained, related business venture at the time
17

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 18 of 31
they delivered packages for FedEx, there is no individualized proof that FedEx could offer to rebut prong two of the test. Further, even if FedEx could show this prong, the plaintiffs claim the court can decide that FedEx has retained the right to control based on common evidence, making an evaluation of actual control unnecessary. Finally, even if FedEx might rebut the right to control and show that the drivers are independently established businesses, the plaintiffs say the common evidence in the summary judgment record establishes that FedEx has exercised actual control.
The court isn’t convinced that the independently established business factor can be determined based on common evidence alone. Even if it could be, the court can’t determine that FedEx will be unable to show this prong or rebut the right to control, obviating the need to demonstrate lack of control in fact. The court declines to make a merits determination for purposes of class certification, so, at this stage, the court assumes that FedEx will need to present individualized evidence to show that it didn’t exercise actual control to rebut the presumption of employment. Further, after reviewing the Colorado parties’ summary judgment briefs, the court finds a determination of whether FedEx exercised actual control over its drivers requires individualized evaluations. Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth in the Illinois and Michigan rulings, the court DENIES the Colorado plaintiffs’ motion to amend (doc. # 1855).
CONNECTICUT 18

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 19 of 31
The Connecticut plaintiffs ground their motion to amend on that state’s “ABC test,” which test is applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims under the state’s minimum wage act, CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 31-71a through 31-71i. Under Connecticut’s ABC test, the putative employer must prove that (a) the hired party has been and will continue to be free from the principal’s control and direction in the performance of duties, both under the contract and in fact; (b) the service is performed either outside the usual course of the principal’s business or outside all the principal’s places of business; and (c) the hired party is customarily engaged in an independently established trade occupation, profession, or business of a sort that is involved in the service provided. Tianti v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 651 A.2d 1286, 1290 n.8 (Conn. 1995).
The court denied the Connecticut plaintiffs’ motion for class certification because “FedEx will have to prove much more than simply lack of contractual control, including lack of control in fact and the nature of each driver’s customary work.” Doc. # 1770, p. 9. Again, while “[t]he plaintiffs might be correct that FedEx can’t prove lack of control under the contract, and so will fail in its ultimate burden of proof, . . . the plaintiffs may be wrong.” Doc. # 1770, p. 9. The court concluded: “Today is not, however, the occasion to evaluate the sufficiency of FedEx’s ultimate proof.” Doc. # 1770, p. 9.
The Connecticut plaintiffs have fully briefed the merits of the employment status and ask the court to review their filings to find that the ABC test can be determined by reference to common proof. This is so, the plaintiffs contend,
19

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 20 of 31
because the undisputed facts show conclusively that FedEx can’t meet its burden on a single factor under the ABC test, so individualized evidence isn’t implicated. The class certification phase, however, is to take place before a merits determination, not at the same time. A determination that FedEx can’t rebut one or more prongs of the ABC test is a determination on the merits. For the reasons already discussed, the court declines the plaintiffs’ request to make such a determination for purposes of evaluating the appropriateness of class certification. The court therefore DENIES the Connecticut plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class certification order (doc. # 1861).
VERMONT The Vermont plaintiffs requested class certification on their claim that FedEx violated the Vermont Independent Contractor Law, VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, §§ 341, 601(3), and the Vermont Wage Laws, VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, §§ 342. They also sought class certification on their common law claims of rescission, unjust enrichment, and quantum merit. The statutory claims are grounded on Vermont’s ABC test. The parties agree that under the ABC test, FedEx has the burden to establish that the drivers are not employees. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, § 341. FedEx must prove:
(1) the individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such services, both under the contract of services and in fact; and
20

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 21 of 31
(2) the service is either outside all the usual course of business for which such service is performed, or outside all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and
(3) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, § 341(1-3). This court explained in its denial of class certification that “[a]s with Massachusetts, Illinois, and Colorado, Vermont law places burdens on FedEx to prove things that cannot all be determined simply by examination of the Operating Agreement and common applicable policies.” Doc. # 1770, p. 78. To succeed, “FedEx must prove that each driver was free from control or direction over the performance of the driver’s services in fact as well as under the contract, and that each driver is customarily engaged in an independently established calling.” Doc. # 1770, p. 78. The Vermont plaintiffs argued that “FedEx will fail because it can’t prove the drivers’ freedom from control or direction under the Operating Agreement,” but the court informed the parties that “this is not the stage of proceedings to decide that issue.” Doc. # 1770, p. 78. The Vermont plaintiffs’ arguments to amend the court’s class certification order of their statutory claims already has been addressed in this opinion, and the court denies the Vermont plaintiffs’ request for those reasons. The plaintiffs also assert that the court should amend class certification as to their claims for rescission, unjust enrichment, and quantum merit. The court didn’t specifically address the plaintiffs’ common law claims in its order denying class certification. The plaintiffs argue that these claims are governed by the right
21

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 22 of 31
to control test, so they can be decided based on common evidence. As FedEx points out, though, these claims are grounded in part on the plaintiffs’ statutory claims that rely on the ABC test. The court addressed a similar argument when denying class certification in Colorado, explaining that when plaintiffs’ primary claim is a statutory cause of action for wage deductions, plaintiffs’ claims for rescission and declaratory and injunctive relief flow from the same standard and should similarly be denied certification. Doc. # 1770, p. 7. The court stated: “The Colorado plaintiffs’ remaining claims flow from the contention that the Operating Agreement’s description of the drivers as independent contractors is, given the Agreement’s other terms, false or against public policy. Given the centrality of the Wage Act claim to those arguments, the same analysis applies.” Doc. # 1770, p. 7. In this case, too, the Vermont plaintiffs’ claims for rescission, unjust enrichment, and quantum merit are based in part on their statutory claims. Because the statutory claims rest on application of the ABC test, the court declines to certify the plaintiffs’ non-statutory claims. The court therefore DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the court’s denial of class certification (doc. # 1866).
VIRGINIA The Virginia plaintiffs ask the court to amend its order denying class certification based on their claim that their summary judgment briefing shows that employment status can be determined from contractual documents or
22

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 23 of 31
employment manuals alone. The plaintiffs explain that “[w]hile this Court found that some Virginia cases analyze ‘extra-contractual evidence’, the record now offers common proof of FXG’s power to implement its contractual rights.”’ Doc. 2043, p. 2. Each of the specific facts noted by the court in its certification order, the plaintiffs argue, is now shown using common evidence applicable to all Virginia drivers. The Virginia plaintiffs contend that the court’s analysis should differ from the analysis in its order denying the Michigan plaintiffs’ motion to amend class certification because the determinative inquiry in Virginia is the “power of control” and in Michigan the analysis turns on “the realities of the work performed” and “control is but one factor.” Unlike in Michigan, the plaintiffs say the Virginia control test can be conclusively determined through the undisputed evidence of FedEx’s policies and procedures, systematic practices, the Operating Agreement, and the admissions of FedEx’s executives and managers.
While the Virginia courts look at four factors to resolve employment issues, “(1) selection and engagement; (2) payment of compensation; (3) power of dismissal; and (4) power to control the work of the individual,” the “fourth factor, the power of control, is determinative.” Atkinson v. Sachno, 541 S.E.2d 902, 905 (Va. 2001) (citing Hadeed v. Medic-24, Ltd., 377 S.E.2d 589, 594-595 (Va. 1989)).
In denying class certification, this court reviewed several Virginia cases in which the contract wasn’t dispositive. Doc. # 1119, pp. 134-135. This court noted that in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Gill, 294 S.E.2d 840, 845 (Va. 1982), even though the contract was indicative of the newspaper’s power to control the result
23

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 24 of 31
sought to be accomplished, the court concluded that the circumstances surrounding the parties’ actual conduct revealed that the newspaper exercised virtually no control over the means and methods employed by the route carrier . The court in Atkinson v. Sachno stated that “[i]t is only by consideration of all the facts pertaining to the relationship in any case, including provisions of the contract, the actual conduct of the parties, and the conditions of the business in which they are engaged, that it can be determined whether the [individual] is endowed with that control over his own methods and means of doing work which is the test of an independent contractor.” 541 S.E.2d at 906. The Virginia Supreme Court recently reiterated “that there are abundant tests and criteria that can be used to determine whether the relationship between the individual and [the alleged employer] is that of an independent contractor or an employee.” Ogunde v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 645 S.E.2d 520, 523 (Va. 2007) (citing Atkinson v. Sachno, 541 S.E.2d at 905)).
This court concluded that “[w]hile a determination of employment status could be made solely on the basis of the standard Operating Agreement, Virginia law requires a driver-by-driver examination in light of the circumstances of the particular case — an examination that cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.” Doc. # 1991, p. 135. The court explained that “[u]nder the Virginia standard, FedEx Ground must be allowed to present evidence of who sets the drivers’ schedules, ownership of equipment, and so on, which may necessitate the use of extrinsic evidence.” Doc. # 1991, p. 136. Class certification was improper, the
24

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 25 of 31
court ruled, because the right to control drivers’ work doesn’t predominate over other questions affecting members of the class within the meaning of Rule 23(b)(3). Doc. # 1991, p. 136.
In their motion to amend, the plaintiffs first contend that it is the “right to control” and not actual control that is determinative under Virginia law. This same argument was raised and addressed in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. A party seeking reconsideration can’t simply rehash previously rejected arguments. Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir.1996). As this court previously found, FedEx must be given the opportunity to present individualized evidence to show it didn’t assert control over the drivers’ work.
The Virginia plaintiffs’ arguments for amending class certification don’t differ materially from the arguments addressed and rejected in Michigan. The court has reviewed the parties’ summary judgment briefs and finds that employment status can’t be resolved by examining only common evidence. The plaintiffs present significant evidence that tends to show FedEx’s supervision over all Virginia drivers’ means and methods of carrying out their work, but before the court can decide employee status of the proposed putative class members, the court must examine the individual circumstances of those class members. FedEx’s actual exercise of control might vary from driver to driver, and the court can’t determine based on the evidence presented by the plaintiffs that all the class members should be treated alike. Similar individualized issues noted in the
25

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 26 of 31
Michigan order will be pertinent to a determination of whether Virginia drivers are employees or independent contractors. Accordingly, for the same reasons addressed in the Michigan order (doc. # 2018), the court DENIES the Virginia plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class certification order (doc. # 1333).
MISSOURI The Missouri plaintiffs sought class certification of their statutory claim for unauthorized wage deductions, MO. REV. STAT. § 290.010, their common law claims for rescission and unjust enrichment, and their claim for declaratory relief. The court denied class certification, finding that even though it appears that the right to control determines whether one is an employee or independent contractor, the concept of the “right to control” is more intricate in Missouri than most other states. Doc. # 1991, p. 104. The court ruled that whether the “right to control” exists in Missouri requires consideration of the following eight factors:
The factors to consider in determining whether or not the requisite right to control exists are: “(1) the extent of control, (2) the actual exercise of control, (3) the duration of the employment, (4) the right to discharge, (5) the method of payment, (6) the degree to which the alleged employer furnished equipment, (7) the extent to which the work is the regular business of the employer, and (8) the employment contract.” Doc. # 1991, p. 104 (quoting Leach v. Board of Police Comm’rs, 118 S.W.3d 646, 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)). This court noted that in Nunn v. C.C. Midwest, 151 S.W.3d 388, 400-402 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004), a written contract established a right to control, but the court
26

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 27 of 31
analyzed each of the eight factors, including actual exercise of control. Doc. # 1119, p. 105. And, “despite having found both a contractual right to control and the actual exercise of control — which would end the inquiry in most states — the court went on to evaluate the remaining factors.” Id. This court held that because Missouri defines the “right to control” with reference to the actual exercise of control, Leach v. Board of Police Comm’rs, 118 S.W.3d at 649, requiring a driver-by-driver, terminal-by-terminal, supervisor-by-supervisor analysis that is unnecessary in most other states, class certification was improper. Doc. # 1119, pp. 105-106.
The Missouri plaintiffs say they have now demonstrated in their motion for summary judgment that FedEx not only reserves the right to control, but routinely exercises control throughout its network of Missouri drivers. The Missouri plaintiffs also point to a recent Eighth Circuit case, Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 592 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2010), in which the court used the Restatement (Second) of Agency to determine employment status, noting that the “right to control” was the “touchstone” for determining employment status. Id. The plaintiffs argue that in Huggins v. FedEx, the court relied primarily on the parties’ agreement in holding that a reasonable jury could find that FedEx retained the right to control the method and means of the driver’s work, and similar common evidence in this case shows that the plaintiffs are employees.
In Huggins v. FedEx, the issue was whether the plaintiff, who was riding with Esteban Gutierrez, a driver of a FedEx line haul truck, could recover against
27

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 28 of 31
FedEx for injuries sustained in a car accident under respondeat superior liability. The court noted that “[t]he ‘principal factors’ that Missouri courts routinely consider in determining whether one acting for another is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of respondeat superior liability are set out in § 220(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Agency.” 592 F.3d at 858 (citing Lee v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 81 S.W.3d 625, 631 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) (respondeat superior); Johnson v. Pacific Intermountain Exp. Co., 662 S.W.2d 237, 242 n.9 (respondeat superior); Dean v. Young, 396 S.W.2d 549, 553 (Mo. 1965) (respondeat superior)). The court explained that the first consideration is “the extent of control which, by the [relevant] agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work.” 592 F.3d at 858. This is the touchstone for determining whether a master-servant relationship exists. Id.
FedEx moved for summary judgment in Huggins, arguing that the relevant contract at issue — the “Linehaul Contractor Operating Agreement” — established that FedEx didn’t retain a right to control the “means and methods” of the contractor’s work. 592 F.3d at 858. The district agreed, reasoning that the contract supported the conclusion that Mr. Gutierrez was an independent contractor as a matter of law. The appellate court reversed after examining the agreement and determining that FedEx retained the right to control at least some of the “means and methods” of the work. Id. at 859. In concluding that a reasonable jury could find that FedEx had a right to control Mr. Gutierrez’s performance and was his employer for respondeat superior purposes, the court
28

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 29 of 31
of appeals focused on FedEx’s retained right to control in the contract and other evidence offered by Mr. Huggins that supported an employment relationship. Id. at 861.
The plaintiffs point to the court’s decision in Huggins v. FedEx to argue that the applicable test is the Restatement (Second) of Agency and the employment determination can be made based on a review of the contract alone. But, in their motion to amend class certification, the plaintiffs argued that “[a]bsent an applicable statutory definition in the wage statute, the term ‘employee’ is defined, for purposes of the wage-protection statutes, according to the common-law ‘right to control’ test.” Doc. # 577-2, pp. 6-7 (footnote omitted); see also Doc. 747, pp. 2-3. The applicable test, according to the Missouri plaintiffs, was the eight factor test set forth in Phillips v. Par Elec. Contractors, 92 S.W.3d 278, 282 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) (workers’ compensation), and Leach v. Board of Police Comm’rs, 118 S.W.3d 646, 649 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (worker’s compensation). Doc. # 577-2, p. 7. FedEx and this court agreed.
The plaintiffs now contend that the applicable test for their statutory wage claim is the Restatement test based on the holding in Huggins v. FedEx. But Huggins didn’t address MO. REV. STAT. § 290.010; it addressed a respondeat superior claim. Missouri courts have consistently held that the Restatement test applies to claims based on respondeat superior, see Lee v. Pulitzer Pub., 81 S.W.3d at 631; Johnson v. Pacific Intermountain Exp., 662 S.W.2d at 242 n.9; and Dean v. Young, 396 S.W.2d at 553, so it’s unclear why the plaintiffs make this
29

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 30 of 31
argument for the first time in their motion to amend class certification. In any event, the eight factor test is the appropriate test for analyzing the plaintiffs’ statutory wage claim, even though the cases utilizing that test have involved workers’ compensation.
Further, Huggins v. FedEx doesn’t stand for the proposition that evidence of the putative employer’s exercise of actual control is irrelevant when the right to control can be established by the contract. In Huggins, FedEx moved for summary judgment, arguing that the contract established an independent contractor relationship. The court disagreed and held that a reasonable jury could find that through the line haul agreement FedEx retained at least some right to control the means and methods of the contractor’s work, making summary judgment inappropriate. Unlike this case, the Huggins plaintiff didn’t move for summary judgment and FedEx didn’t present evidence of lack of actual exercise of control to defeat summary judgment. It therefore wasn’t necessary for the Huggins court to determine whether lack of actual control is relevant in determining employment status.
As this court previously determined, Missouri defines the “right to control” with reference to the actual exercise of control. Similar to its reasoning in the Michigan order (doc. # 2018), this court holds, after reviewing the Missouri plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and supporting evidence, the issue of actual control will require a driver-by-driver analysis and cannot be determined
30

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2063 filed 05/19/10 page 31 of 31 based on common evidence alone. The court therefore DENIES the Missouri plaintiffs’ motion to amend the class certification order (doc. # 1326).
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the plaintiffs’ motions to amend the court’s denial of the class certification orders [Doc. nos. 1326, 1333, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1855, 1861, 1866]. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: May 19, 2010
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge, United States District Court Northern District of Indiana
31

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

) CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

Dale Fluegel, et al. v. FedEx Ground

)

Package System, Inc.

)

Civil No. 3:05-CV-529 RM (IL)

)

_____________________________________ )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Illinois plaintiffs’ summary judgment

motion. Doc. # 1335. Finding no disputed issue of material fact that the plaintiffs

were working within the usual course and place of business of FedEx when

delivering and picking-up packages, the court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment on their Illinois Wage Act claims. The court will address the

plaintiffs’ common law claims by separate motion.

DISCUSSION The court incorporates the common undisputed facts from the Michigan order (doc. # 2018) and in so doing, views the facts in the light most favorable to FedEx. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. v. Res-Care, Inc., 475 F.3d 853, 857 (7th Cir. 2007) (“We view all facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no
1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 2 of 13
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). In deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, “the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). There is no genuine issue of material fact when a rational trier of fact could not find for the nonmoving party even when the record as a whole is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. O'Neal v. City of Chicago, 392 F.3d 909, 910-911 (7th Cir. 2004). The party with the burden of proof on an issue must show that there is enough evidence to support a jury verdict in its favor. Lawrence v. Kenosha Cty., 391 F.3d 837, 842 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003) (“As we have said before, summary judgment ‘is the ‘put up or shut up' moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events.”’ (quoting Schacht v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 175 F.3d 497, 504 (7th Cir. 1999)).
The Illinois Wage Act defines an “employee” as “any individual permitted to work by an employer in an occupation,” but excludes any person (1) who is free — both under the contract and in practice — from control and direction over the work’s performance, (2) whose work is performed either outside the employer’s usual course of business or outside the employer’s places of business, and (3) who is in an independently established business. 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 115/2. The putative employer must demonstrate the exemption’s applicability. Adams v.
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 3 of 13
Catrambone, 359 F.3d 858, 864 (7th Cir. 2004). Each element of the exemption must be present for the service provider to be an independent contractor. Novakovic v. Samutin, 820 N.E.2d 967, 973 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
The court need only address the second prong of the exemption - i.e., whether plaintiffs perform work outside the usual course of FedEx’s business or outside FedEx’s place of business. FedEx can meet this prong by satisfying either condition. Novakovic v. Samutin, 820 N.E.2d at 975. “When considering the employer’s usual course of business, Illinois courts focus on whether the individual performs services that are necessary to the business of the employer or merely incidental.” Id. “An employer’s place of business is not limited only to its own home offices, but can extend to any location where workers regularly represent an employer’s interest.” Novakovic v. Samutin, 820 N.E.2d at 975 (citing Carpetland U.S.A., 776 N.E.2d 166 (Ill. 2002)). Illinois courts have used this rationale when a worker was assigned to a specific geographic area, such as a sales territory or delivery route. Carpetland U.S.A., 776 N.E.2d at 189.
FedEx argues that the court’s analysis of the places of business factor in United Delivery Service, Ltd. v. Didrickson, 659 N.E.2d 82 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995), overruled on other grounds, is instructive and should be followed in this case. In United Delivery Service, the court held that though the drivers for a messenger delivery service made their deliveries within the usual course of the business, their services weren’t performed within the place of its business. Id. at 85. The court noted that the drivers received assignments either by calling UDS or by use of
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 4 of 13
pagers or radios and would pick up the packages from customers. Id. at 83, 85. They decided their own method of delivering packages and were allowed to work for other delivery companies. Id. Uniforms weren’t required, but some drivers rented or purchased uniforms from UDS. Id. Drivers were paid after returning delivery tickets to UDS, but the delivery tickets could be mailed; drivers didn’t have to report to UDS offices. Id. at 83-84.
The Department of Employment Security had found that the roadways were the usual place of the drivers’ business, relying on O’Hare-Midway Limousine Serv., Inc. v. Baker, 596 N.E.2d 795 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992), in which the court ruled that limousine chauffeurs represented the interests of the limousine company whenever they picked up passengers, so the usual place of business was the roadways traveled. United Delivery Service, 659 N.E.2d at 85. The court disagreed and distinguished O’Hare-Midway because the limousine drivers leased the limousines from the company and were required to wear a dark business suit and tie when driving. Id. at 85. The court reasoned that the drivers in United Delivery Service didn’t represent UDS when making deliveries; they weren’t required to wear uniforms and weren’t required to state that they represented UDS. 659 N.E.2d at 85.
The holding in United Delivery Service is readily distinguishable from this case and not in line with other cases ruling that the hired party was performing services within the company’s place of business. In Rozran v. Durkin, 45 N.E.2d 180 (Ill. 1942), the court held that the driver for a messenger service company
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 5 of 13
performed some services within the company’s places of business, so he was an employee. Id. at 183-184. The driver in Rozran used his own truck to make deliveries and paid his own operating expenses. Id. at 181. He wasn’t required to report to the company at any particular time or on any particular day, but the evidence showed that he reported to the company most mornings. Id. He wasn’t required to make deliveries in any particular manner, but was given packages to deliver to various locations in the Chicago metropolitan area. Id. At times he would call the office and receive directions to pick up packages for delivery and collected C.O.D.’s on packages. Id. It couldn’t be said that the driver performed services outside of the company’s business, the court reasoned, because he “reported to the offices each and every day, received his instructions from the dispatcher, secured the load for his truck on the premises, [and] returned his collections and his moneys on C.O.D. packages to the office of the company.” Id. at 183 (internal quotations marks omitted).
Similarly, in Carpetland v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 776 N.E.2d at 173-174, 189, the court determined that carpet measurers hired to measure for Carpetland at customers’ premises provided services at Carpetland’s place of business. When measurements were needed, a Carpetland salesperson either measured himself or referred the job to a measuring service after explaining to the customer that the measuring service was an independent business. Id. at 174. The measurers were allowed to work for other companies. Id. In general, after taking measurements, the measurer would return to his home to make a diagram
5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 6 of 13
of each job and then place the forms in the mailbox. Id. at 173-174. The measurers rarely went into the Carpetland store. Id. No one from Carpetland checked the measurers’ work. Id. The court reasoned that “when a Carpetland salesperson visits a customer’s premises to obtain measurements necessary for the quoting of a price and the closing of a sale, he is ‘representing his employing unit’s interest.’” Id. at 189. This was also true of “a measurer to whom the salesperson might delegate this task.” Id. Accordingly, the court held “that because the measurers are representing Carpetland’s interest when they visit a customer’s premises to take measurements, they are providing services at Carpetland’s place of business.” Id.
The court in AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Dept. of Employment Security, 733 N.E.2d 749 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000), aff’d on other grounds, 763 N.E.2d 272 (Ill. 2001), held likewise. AFM was engaged in the messenger service delivery business and to carry out its enterprise, AFM hired delivery drivers to pick up and deliver parcels to customers. Id. at 752. The drivers were required to display a sign on their vehicles indicating that the vehicle was leased from AFM and when drivers appeared at the customers’ premises, they announced to the customer that they were from AFM. Id. at 752-753. They received assignments by either telephone, pager, or radio; they were free to decline assignments or hire assistants. Id. at 753. AFM required the drivers to report to AFM’s office to pick up their paychecks. Id. at 756. They could use their vehicles for other purposes and could work for other businesses. Id. at 753. The court held that the drivers performed their
6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 7 of 13
services within the places of AFM’s business because they announced that they represented AFM when making deliveries and were required to report to AFM’s office for their paychecks. Id. at 756.
The court in Chicago Messenger Service v. Jordan, 825 N.E.2d 315 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005), criticized the United Delivery Service v. Didrickson holding as out of step with other cases applying the places of business factor. In Chicago Messenger Service, Chicago Messenger was engaged in the messenger delivery service business and utilized couriers to pick up, transport and deliver packages. Id. at 317. The couriers weren’t required to accept any particular assignments, work certain hours or fulfill a certain quota of deliveries. Id. at 318. They weren’t required to attend meetings or report to the Chicago Messenger office; even though some couriers delivered their invoices to Chicago Messenger, others mailed them in. Id. Chicago Messenger didn’t require the couriers to wear a full uniform, but did require them to wear approximate identifying colors and patches and to display their I.D. badges. Id. Couriers who made their deliveries by car had to display a placard identifying Chicago Messenger. Id.
The Chicago Messenger Service court determined that the case was more similar to Rozran, O’Hare-Midway, Carpetland and AFM than to United Delivery Service. Chicago Messenger Service, 825 N.E.2d at 326. The court reasoned that the Chicago Messenger couriers performed pick-up and delivery services similar to the services provided in Rozran, AFM, and O’Hare-Midway. Id. Like the Chicago Messenger couriers, the Rozran messengers, the O-Hare-Midway limousine
7

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 8 of 13
chauffeurs and the Carpetland measurers, “were essentially free from any requirement to report to the business office premises.” Id. The court noted that “[e]ven the AFM messengers, who were required to report to the company offices to pick up their paychecks, also received assignments by telephone or pager and could mail in their delivery tickets rather than take them personally to the office.” Id. The court explained that “[b]ecause [Chicago Messenger’s] interests were furthered by the couriers’ performance of their services,” they “represented the company’s interest when making deliveries.” Id. at 327. The court therefore upheld the Director of Employment Secuirty’s determination that the Chicago Messenger couriers were employees. Id. at 328.
FedEx Ground, together with its operating division FedEx Home Delivery, provides small-package pick-up and delivery services through a network of pick-up and delivery drivers. FedEx Home Delivery provides small package delivery service primarily to residential customers, and FedEx Ground focuses on the pick-up and delivery of small packages to businesses. All three named plaintiffs are former FedEx Ground or Home Delivery drivers who worked in Illinois. Named plaintiff Diane Gordon signed the FedEx Home Delivery Operating Agreement and worked for about three years at the Bedford Park terminal. Named plaintiff Clarence Kelly also signed the FedEx Home Delivery Operating Agreement and worked for almost two years, first at the Wrigleyville terminal and then at the Northbrook terminal. Named plaintiff Dale Fluegel signed the FedEx Ground Operating Agreement and worked for two years at the Carol Stream terminal.
8

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 9 of 13
FedEx required the plaintiffs to provide pick-up and delivery services for FedEx and “to conduct his/her business so that it [could] be identified as being a part of the [FedEx] system.” OA, Background. The services performed by the named plaintiffs were necessary to FedEx’s business of picking up and delivering packages. FedEx Vice President of Contractor Relations Robert Ostrov testified that contractors are a cornerstone of FedEx’s business. Ostrov Dep., pp. 192-193. FedEx former CEO Dan Sullivan testified that the contractor is intended to be a “centerpiece” of FedEx’s “work force” and is an “essential component of [FedEx’s] business.” Sullivan Dep., pp. 27, 106; see also Emmanuel Monti, Senior Manager of Contract Relations, Dep., p. 204 (describing FedEx drivers as being part of the FedEx “network”). It is undisputed that the plaintiffs’ work was performed within the usual course of FedEx’s business.
Drivers must wear the FedEx uniform when making deliveries and the Operating Agreement provides that the uniform should be “maintained in good condition” and the driver will “keep his/her personal appearance consistent with reasonable standards of good order as maintained by competitors and promulgated from time to time by [FedEx].” OA, ¶ 1.12. The uniform contains FedEx’s logo, making it readily apparent that the driver works for FedEx. Paragraph 1.12 of the Operating Agreement explains that the driver must wear a FedEx approved uniform because “the presentation of a consistent image and standard of service to customers throughout the system is essential in order to be competitive . . . and to permit recognition and prompt access to customers’ places
9

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 10 of 13
of business.” Divisional Vice President of the Central Division Robert Holcombe testified that the drivers’ “appearance is important because of the brand and the importance of brand image” and allows the drivers “access into customers’ locations.” Holcombe Dep., p. 216. Mr. Holcombe also testified that the FedEx logo is important for advertising and marketing of the brand. Holcombe Dep., pp. 259260; see also Sullivan Dep., p. 263 (testifying that the drivers’ uniform and truck is used to project FedEx’s image). Mr. Monti testified that the FedEx driver “is the most highly visible person out there . . . and his physical appearance, the way he interfaces with customers, tells a lot about the company and tells the customers basically whether they want to continue to do business [with FedEx].” Monti Dep., pp. 202-203.
The drivers are responsible for supplying their vehicles, but the vehicles must be painted “FedEx White,” bear FedEx logos and advertising, and meet FedEx’s minimum specifications. Even though FedEx might show flexibility with vehicle specifications and allow drivers to determine what make and model of truck to purchase or lease, FedEx branding requirements allow customers to readily identify the truck as associated with FedEx. The drivers can use their vehicles for other purposes but only when they aren’t carrying FedEx packages and only if they mask or remove any FedEx marks or logos.
The contractor, or someone on his behalf, must pick up packages at the FedEx terminal before he can begin delivering for the day. Senior Vice President of Terminal Operations Michael Mannion testified that “[a] contractor is not
10

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 11 of 13
supposed to leave [the terminal at the start of the day] until all his packages are available to him.” Mannion Dep., p. 305. At the terminal, the drivers obtain a list of their deliveries and load the packages onto their trucks. The drivers are expected to attempt delivery of all the packages assigned on their route for that day. Ground drivers who pick up customer packages must return to the terminal by a certain time, but Home Delivery drivers aren’t required to return.
Ground drivers generally work Monday through Friday and Home Delivery drivers generally work Tuesday through Saturday. To provide enough packages to drivers so they could make full use of their equipment as provided by the Operating Agreement, FedEx structured the routes so the vehicle was in use nine to eleven hours per day; this measurement would vary somewhat between facilities. This measurement was replaced in 2005 with a metric that sets forth the maximum number of stops a driver who is fully utilizing his vehicle reasonably can be expected to handle on any given day. Contractors can hire replacement drivers to run their routes, but the replacements are subject to FedEx approval in certain respects and must conform to the applicable obligations undertaken by contractor.
FedEx managers must conduct at least two, but not more than four, customer service rides each year. The customer service rides give managers a chance to see that the drivers are complying with FedEx’s customer service standards and to ensure that the drivers are operating their vehicles safely. FedEx managers are expected to conduct at least two business discussions per year with
11

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 12 of 13
each driver; the goal of having two business discussions per year was clarified as not mandatory in August 2005. The drivers’ managers use the business discussions to provide recommendations and counseling to drivers in the performance of their contracted work. A review of the business discussions show that at times they appear mandatory, but at other times they appear to be mere suggestions. The plaintiffs have presented documentation of customer service rides and business discussions as to Mr. Fluegel and Ms. Gordon, but not as to Mr. Kelly. Even if not applied uniformly, FedEx’s policies or procedures underlying the business discussions and customer service rides show that FedEx attempts to maintain its image and reputation by observing or reviewing its drivers’ performance, at least to some degree, while on route, and if necessary, discussing ways they can improve their performance.
Even when the court considers all the facts in FedEx’s favor, as the court must, FedEx can’t satisfy its burden of showing that the plaintiffs’ work was outside all the places of FedEx’s business. The terminals where drivers pick up packages and the drivers’ delivery routes are considered FedEx’s places of business under Illinois law. Contractors report to the terminals daily or have someone on their behalf report to the terminals, so they can retrieve their packages. The drivers represent FedEx when making deliveries and picking up packages. All drivers are required to wear FedEx uniforms and their trucks must contain FedEx’s logo. FedEx has processes in place to determine whether drivers are providing suitable customer service during their deliveries and FedEx
12

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2068 filed 05/28/10 page 13 of 13

managers provide drivers with suggestions to better serve customers while representing FedEx.
This case differs from United Delivery Service, in which uniforms weren’t required and the drivers didn’t have to stop at UDS to retrieve the packages. In any event, the court declines to rely on United Delivery Service in light of Rozran, O’Hare-Midway, Carpetland, AFM, and Chicago Messenger Service, in which the courts held that roadways, delivery routes, sales territories and customer premises are the company’s places of business when the worker is representing the company’s interest. The undisputed evidence shows that FedEx drivers represent FedEx’s interest when delivering and picking up packages.

CONCLUSION Because there is no genuine issue of material fact that FedEx is unable to show the second prong of the exemption under the Illinois Wage Act, the court GRANTS the Illinois plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to its claims under that Act (doc. # 1335). The court will address the plaintiffs’ remaining claims in their summary judgment motion by separate order. SO ORDERED.

ENTERED:

May 28, 2010
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court

13

 
 case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

Carlene M. Craig, et al. v.

)

Fed Ex Ground Package System, Inc., )

Civil No. 3:05-CV-530 RLM (KS)

)

_____________________________________ )

CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM (MDL-1700)

OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on FedEx’s motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs’ ERISA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The plaintiff drivers brought this class action suit against FedEx pursuant to ERISA’s denial of benefit provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B)). They claim FedEx violated ERISA by misclassifying them as independent contractors instead of employees and so wrongfully denied them the right to participate in six different employee benefit plans. It’s undisputed that the plaintiffs didn’t exhaust their administrative remedies under the plan documents, but they assert they are excused from doing so because (1) they were denied meaningful access to administrate review, and (2) it would have been futile to bring their claims before FedEx or FedEx’s designee when FedEx has consistently taken the position that the plaintiffs aren’t entitled to any plan benefits. Because the court disagrees with plaintiffs that they were denied

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 2 of 33
meaningful access to administrative review or that exhausting their administrative remedies would have been futile, the court GRANTS FedEx’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismisses the plaintiffs’ ERISA claims without prejudice.
BACKGROUND The plaintiffs have brought their ERISA claim for benefits under the following FedEx plans: 401(k) Plan; Group Life Insurance Benefits Plan; Ground Benefits Plus Short-Term Disability Plan; Ground Benefits Plus Long Term Disability Plan; FedEx Medical, Dental and Vision Care Plan; and Dependent Care Account Plan. FedEx is the Plan Sponsor and named administrator for each plan. For example, in the 401(k) Summary Plan Description, FedEx is defined as the Plan Administrator to “act[] on [participants’] behalf to see that the Ground/Freight RSP is administered fairly according to standards outlined in the law and the terms of the Ground/Freight RSP and Trust Agreement.” 401(k) SPD, p. 36. In the Ground Benefits Plus Plan Administration (FedEx Health Benefits Summary Plan Description) — a collection of the Medical, Short-Term Disability, Long-Term Disability, and Life Plans — FedEx is listed as the Plan Administrator responsible for supervision under the plans. Health Benefits SPD, p. 27. The plan documents provide participants with the opportunity to file a claim for benefits with FedEx or its designee. The 401(k) Summary Plan Description tells participants that they may file a written claim if they believe they are entitled to benefits. 401(k) SPD, p. 38. The Group Life Insurance Benefits Plan states that to
2

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 3 of 33
make a claim “[a] completed claim form, a certified copy of the death certificate and Your enrollment form must be sent to the Employer or [Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company].” Group Life Ins. Plan, p. 13. Hartford approves the required claims papers. Group Life Ins. Plan, p. 13. The Group Benefits Plus Short-Term Disability Plan, the Medical Plan, and the Dependent Care Account Plan each inform participants that if they believe they are entitled to receive a benefit under the plan, they may file a written claim with the claims administrator on appropriate forms furnished by the claims administrator. STD Plan, § 6.1(c); Medical Plan, § 9.1(c); Dependent Care Account Plan, 6.3(c).
Under the Ground Benefits Plus Long Term Disability Plan, notice of a claim should be given to Hartford within thirty days after a disability starts or as soon as possible, and if the claim is denied, the participant “may appeal to [Hartford] for a full and fair review.” LTD Plan, p. 23. The Plan states that if a claim for benefits is “denied or ignored, in whole or in part, [the participant] may file suit in a state or federal court.” LTD Plan, p. 40. The Health Benefits Summary Plan Description states that “[i]f you, a covered dependent, or a beneficiary believe that you (or they) are entitled to receive a particular benefit under Ground Benefits Plus, you (or they) may file a claim, if applicable.” Health Benefits SPD, p. 25.
FedEx has delegated review of initial claims, and under some plans firstlevel appeals, to outside entities. For the 401(k) Plan, initial claims are handled by a third-party administrator, not FedEx. An appeal under the 401(k) Plan is made to the FedEx Corp.’s Benefits Review Committee. Outside parties administer
3

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 4 of 33
the initial claim or first-level appeal of claims under either the Short-Term Disability Plan or the Long Term Disability Plan, and FedEx would only be involved in a second-level appeal of a denial under these plans. For benefits under the Group Life Insurance Plan, claims are submitted to Hartford, not FedEx, and there is one level of appeal, which is to Hartford. Under the Medical Plan, outside parties process healthcare claims, dental benefits, and vision benefits. To make a claim for medical, dental, or vision benefits under the Medical Plan, a claimant doesn’t address that claim to FedEx, but rather to one of the claims administrators. For any denied claim under the Medical Plan, the initial appeal goes to the respective outside administrator, with FedEx getting involved at the second appeal level.
Under the plans, FedEx or its designee has been given the authority to construe and interpret the plan documents. Section 15.4(a) of the 401(k) Plan states that “[t]he Committee shall have all . . . power and authority to: (a) Solely, exclusively and conclusively construe any ambiguity in and interpret any provision of the Plan and supply any omission or reconcile any inconsistency therein in such manner as it deems appropriate in accordance with the purpose and intent of the Plan[.]” In the Group Life Insurance Plan, the document states that Hartford has “full discretion and authority to determine eligibility for benefits and to construe and interpret all terms and provisions of the Policy.” Group Life Ins. Plan, p. 22. Hartford is the plan fiduciary and has discretion over the Plan.
4

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 5 of 33
Section 5.1 of the Group Benefits Plus Short-Term Disability Plan states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in the STD Plan, the administration of the STD Plan shall be under the supervision of [FedEx].” FedEx is authorized to appoint a committee, which “[t]o the extent necessary to carry out the claim and review responsibilities set forth in this Section . . . shall have the sole and absolute authority and responsibility for construing and interpreting the provisions of the Plan, and such authority and responsibility shall override the authority and responsibly under the Plan given to [FedEx] pursuant to Section 5.1.” STD Plan, § 6.1. The Medical, Dental, and Vision Care Plan and the Dependent Care Account Plan contain similar language. Medical Plan, §§ 8.1 and 9.1; Dependent Care Account Plan, §§ 5.1 and 6.3. Under the Ground Benefits Plus Long Term Disability Plan, “[f]inal interpretation of all provisions and coverages will be governed by the Group Insurance Policy on file with Hartford Life at its home office.” LTD Plan, p. 3.
Each plan also contains a definition of who qualifies as an “eligible employee” to receive benefits. Under the 401(k) Plan, only “eligible employees” may participate in the plan. An “eligible employee” is “[a]n Employee of an Employer other than an Employee in a class or group to which the Employer has not extended eligibility for participation in the Plan . . . . Neither a Leased Employee, an independent contractor, nor an employee or agent of an independent contractor, shall be deemed to be an Eligible Employee, regardless of whether a court or government agency of competent jurisdiction subsequently reclassifies
5

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 6 of 33
such an individual as a common-law employee of an Employer.” 401(k) Plan, § 1.24. The Plan defines “employee” as “[a]n individual who is: (a) directly employed by any Related Company and for whom any income for such employment is subject to withholding of income or social security taxes . . . . An independent contractor . . . shall not be deemed to be an Employee of an Employer, regardless of whether a court or government agency of competent jurisdiction subsequently reclassifies such an individual as a common-law employee of an Employer.” 401(k) Plan, § 1.27. The 401(k) Summary Plan Description states that “[t]he following persons are not eligible: . . . Persons considered to be independent contractors (even if such contracted services are later determined by a court or administrative agency having competent jurisdiction to be services performed by a common law employee of a Participating Employer).” 401(k) SPD, p. 5.
Under the Ground Short Term Disability Plan, a “participant” is defined as “any Employee who is participating in the STD Plan and whose participation has not been terminated.” STD Plan, § 2.8. “Employee” is defined as “any person who is subject to the dominion and control of an Employer with respect to the type, kind, nature and scope of employment services furnished and who is classified as a full-time Employee by his Employer’s general policies and guidelines . . . ., excluding, however, an Employee: . . . . (b) who is employed by [FedEx] and is classified as a part-time or non-exempt hourly Employee; . . . or (d) who is a leased employee or independent contractor.” STD Plan, § 2.4. The Group Life Insurance Plan defines eligible classes of participants as “[a]ll Active Full-time and
6

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 7 of 33
Part-time Employees . . ., excluding temporary and seasonal employees.” Group Life Ins. Plan, p. 3. The Ground Long Term Disability Plan defines eligible classes of participants as “[a]ll Active Full-time Employees . . ., excluding temporary and seasonal employees.” LTD Plan, p. 3.
Similarly, under the Medical, Dental and Vision Care Plan, a “participant” is “any Employee who is participating in the Medical Plan and whose participation has not been terminated.” Medical Plan, § 2.41. “Employee” is “any person who is subject to the dominion and control of an Employer with respect to the type, kind, nature and scope of employment services furnished and is in a class or group to which an Employer has extended eligibility for participation in the Medical Plan, excluding, however, an Employee: . . . (c) who is classified as a non-exempt hourly Employee; . . . (e) who is classified by the Employer as a leased employee or independent contractor, regardless of whether such individuals are subsequently reclassified by a court or agency having competent jurisdiction as common law employees.” Medical Plan, § 2.15. Eligibility under the Dependent Care Account Plan is based on the requirements for participation in the Medical Plan. Dependent Care Account Plan, § 3.1.
Michelle Ward, FedEx Senior Benefits Manager, and Beth Ewing, FedEx Corporation Staff Director of Retirement Plans, were FedEx’s Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses regarding the plans. The witnesses testified that the plaintiffs could have brought claims under the plans and if the claims administrator denied the claim, the plaintiffs could have appealed. They testified the committee would treat
7

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 8 of 33
the claim fairly and impartially. Ms. Ward testified, though, that independent contractors are not eligible for benefits. She explained that FedEx’s intent is to exclude independent contractors because they don’t meet the definition of who is eligible to participate. Ms. Ewing confirmed that independent contractors are specifically excluded from participating in the FedEx 401(k) Plan because they aren’t employees. Ms. Ewing also concurred that the definition of employee excludes independent contractors and that FedEx never intended to include independent contractors. Neither Ms. Ward nor Ms. Ewing could have singlehandedly decided the plaintiffs’ claims if they had been brought to the plan committees.
The plaintiff drivers didn’t request benefits under the plans before filing suit; no one at FedEx told them they could or couldn’t make a claim for benefits. The plaintiff drivers weren’t provided with plan documents and first requested such documents by counsel in the course of this litigation. FedEx provided some plan documents initially in December 2005 and others in December 2006, February 2007, and March 2007.
DISCUSSION “The text of 29 U.S.C. § 1132, providing for civil actions to redress violations of ERISA, does not address whether a claimant must exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court.” Gallegos v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 210 F.3d 803, 807-808 (7th Cir. 2000). Our court of appeals has interpreted ERISA to
8

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 9 of 33
allow district courts to require exhaustion of administrative remedies as a
prerequisite to filing a federal suit. Powell v. A.T. & T. Commc’ns, Inc., 938 F.2d
823, 826 (7th Cir. 1991); Zhou v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 295 F.3d 677,
679 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating that an ERISA plaintiff must exhaust all available
administrative remedies before filing suit to challenge a denial of benefits).1
“Congress’s apparent intent in mandating internal claims procedures found in
ERISA . . . was to minimize the number of frivolous lawsuits; promote consistent
treatment of claims; provide a nonadversarial dispute resolution process; and
decrease the cost and time of claims settlement.” Powell v. A.T. & T., 938 F.2d at
826; see also Lindemann v. Mobil Oil Corp., 79 F.3d 647, 650 (7th Cir. 1996).
Exhaustion also protects the autonomy of plan administrators by shielding
the exercise of their discretion from excessive judicial interference.
“[I]mplementing the exhaustion requirement enhances the ability of plan
fiduciaries to expertly and efficiently manage their plans by preventing premature
judicial intervention and because fully considered actions by plan fiduciaries may
1 The plaintiffs note that the summary plan descriptions for the benefit plans suggest, but don’t require, that administrative review be undertaken before filing a claim in court, and the use of such permissive language “does not lead to the conclusion that the plan required exhaustion of administrative remedies before a civil action may be filed.” In support, the plaintiffs cite to Gallegos v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 210 F.3d at 810 (“[T]he use of the phrases such as ‘you may have [your claim] reviewed,’ . . . and ‘you . . . may appeal,’ given their plain meaning, indicate that a plan participant has the opportunity to participate in a voluntary, rather than mandatory review procedure.”). The Gallegos court was addressing the application of estoppel where a participant failed to seek review of the initial denial of her claim. Id. at 810-811. Estoppel may be applied to preclude the defense of exhaustion when the plan indicates that the administrative review procedure is voluntary and won’t affect the ability of the plan participant to pursue relief through the court system. Id. To establish estoppel, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she relied on the representations to her detriment. Id. at 811. The plaintiffs haven’t presented evidence to support a claim for estoppel.
9

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 10 of 33
assist the courts when they must resolve controversies.” Powell v. A.T. & T., 938 F.2d at 826. “[A] primary reason for the exhaustion requirement . . . is that prior fully considered actions by pension plan trustees interpreting their plans and perhaps also further refining and defining the problem in given cases, may well assist the courts when they are called upon to resolve the controversies.” Kross v. Western Elec. Co., Inc., 701 F.2d 1238, 1245 (7th Cir. 1982) (quoting Amato v. Bernard, 618 F.2d 559, 567-568 (9th Cir. 1980)). Exhaustion “enables plan fiduciaries to . . . assemble a factual record which will assist a court in reviewing [their] actions.” Lindemann v. Mobil Oil, 79 F.3d at 650 (quoting Makar v. Health Care Corp. of Mid-Atlantic, 872 F.2d 80, 83 (4th Cir. 1989)).
Whether to require exhaustion as a prerequisite to bringing a federal lawsuit, however, is a matter within the trial court’s discretion and will be reversed only if it is obviously in error. Lindemann v. Mobil Oil, 79 F.3d at 650. Courts “may excuse a plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies (1) if there has been a lack of meaningful access to the review procedures or (2) if exhaustion of internal remedies would be futile.” Robyns v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 F.3d 1231, 1236 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Smith v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United, 959 F.2d 655, 658-659 (7th Cir. 1992)).
A. Lack of Meaningful Access The plaintiff drivers contend FedEx denied them meaningful access to administrative review because FedEx didn’t comply with ERISA notice statutes.
10

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 11 of 33
The plaintiffs weren’t provided plan documents and they assert that because FedEx didn’t notify them that they had the right to challenge their designation as independent contractors through an internal appeals process, they should be excused from exhausting administrative remedies.
FedEx responds that the drivers’ request for plan documents was made by their counsel in the course of litigation and some of the plan documents were provided to the plaintiffs as far back as December 2005. FedEx contends this exception only applies to plaintiffs who were refused access to an available appeal process and presupposes the plaintiff has made at least some effort to assert his rights under the plan and some initial decision denying benefits has been made.
FedEx is correct. The lack of meaningful access exception is available when a defendant denies the plaintiff’s claim for benefits, and either the defendant refuses access to available appeal procedures or the plaintiff is unaware of any available review procedures. Potter v. ICI Americas, Inc., 103 F. Supp. 2d 1062, 1068 (S.D. Ind. 1999). A plan fiduciary isn’t required to comply with the procedural requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 1133 (ERISA § 503) until a participant or beneficiary’s claim is denied. Robyns v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 F.3d 1231, 1237 (7th Cir. 1997) (“Section 503 specifically states that the statutory requirements are to be satisfied by the plan in the event a participant or beneficiary’s claim is denied.”) (emphasis in original). Procedural and notification requirements aren’t triggered until the plan administrator denies the claim. Robyns v. Reliance Standard, 130 F.3d at 1237.
11

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 12 of 33
Accordingly, “[t]his exception presupposes that the plaintiff has made at least some effort to assert his rights under the plan and that some initial decision denying benefits has been made.” Potter v. ICI Americas, 103 F. Supp. 2d at 1068. Exhaustion isn’t excused when the plaintiff has made no request for benefits or no effort to determine what administrative procedures are available. Id. (citing Smith v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield United of Wis., 959 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1992)); see also Koenig v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 961, 966 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (finding the plaintiff wasn’t denied meaningful access of review even though he alleged he was unaware of the review procedure because there was no denial of his claim; “this [was] a classic case of jumping the gun”) (citations omitted)).
In Potter v. ICI Americas, the court found that the plaintiff hadn’t made a claim for benefits, and his first and only meaningful action was to file suit. 103 F. Supp. 2d at 1068. Before filing his complaint, the plaintiff’s only action was to have his attorney send a letter to the defendant proposing “pre-litigation resolution” of the plaintiff’s request for benefits. Id. The court found the plaintiff hadn’t given the defendants any opportunity to address his concerns outside the courtroom. Id. The court held the plaintiff’s “failure to take any steps to ascertain what benefits [were] available to him and to request such benefits preclude his contention that [the defendants denied] him meaningful access to the administrative claims and review procedures.” Id. at 1068-1069; see also Davenport v. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 249 F.3d 130, 133, n.2 and 134 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies even
12

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 13 of 33
if she was ignorant of the proper claims procedure and noting that it wasn’t surprising that she wasn’t provided the summary plan document, given that plaintiff's employer never considered her to be covered by the plan).
The plaintiffs haven’t tried to file a claim for benefits through the administrative process. The plaintiffs didn’t request benefits under the plans before filing suit; no one at FedEx told them that they could or couldn’t make a claim for benefits. Because the plaintiffs hadn’t made at least some effort to assert their rights under the plan documents through the available administrative process, FedEx had no obligation to provide them with plan documents, especially given that FedEx has consistently asserted that the plaintiffs aren’t eligible for benefits under the plans. Additionally, after suit was filed, the plaintiffs became aware of plan terms and yet didn’t avail themselves of their administrative remedies. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding lack of meaningful access are unavailing.
B. Futility The plaintiff drivers argue that seeking to have a benefit plan administrator go through the motions of denying their eligibility, when explicit language in every benefit plan excludes them, is a meaningless act. When it is clear that benefit plans are only open to “eligible employees” and independent contractors are, by the plans’ definitions, ineligible, the plaintiffs assert there is little point in requiring administrative review. The plaintiffs reason that FedEx has aggressively
13

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 14 of 33
and consistently defended its independent contractor business model, so any claim by a plaintiff for benefits under any of the plans would be rejected. Further, the plaintiffs reason that employment status is a legal question the court can address, and given the record already developed in this case, none of the traditional policy-based reasons for administrative review by plan administrators support exhaustion.
FedEx responds that as plan administrator, it has the authority to delegate, and has delegated, initial claims administration duties (and some claims appeals duties) to independent third parties. The plaintiffs’ suggestion that any administrative claim would automatically be denied, FedEx contends, is no more than speculation because no plaintiff presented a claim to any plan administrator. FedEx asserts that the undisputed evidence establishes the plaintiffs could present a claim and would receive a full and fair review of any such claim. Whether class members fall within the eligibility requirements of each plan, FedEx reasons, should be decided initially by the plan administrators. FedEx reasons that plan eligibility isn’t a pure question of law or an automatic remedy for reclassification, but requires a close examination of the plans’ language and history. Allowing the plaintiffs to skip over the administrative remedies provided by the plans, FedEx says, would undermine the policy objectives underlying the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.
To come under the futility exception to the exhaustion requirement, the plaintiffs must show that “it is certain that their claim will be denied on appeal,
14

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 15 of 33
not merely that they doubt an appeal will result in a different decision.” Smith v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 959 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1992). A claim of futility mustn’t be based on bare allegations or conjecture. Robyns v. Reliance Standard, 130 F.3d at 1237; see also Zhou v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 295 F.3d 677, 680 (7th Cir. 2002) (“When a party has proffered no facts indicating that the review procedure that he initiated will not work, the futility exception does not apply.”).
That FedEx would be the one deciding the plaintiffs’ claims for benefits under the plan documents or has consistently denied the plaintiffs’ eligibility for benefits in the course of litigation isn’t sufficient to show futility. Ames v. American Nat. Can Co., 170 F.3d 751, 756 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Robyns v. Reliance Standard, 130 F.3d at 1238 (absence of neutral arbitrator not determinative of futility of administrative remedy). In Stark v. PPM America, Inc., 354 F.3d 666, 671-672 (7th Cir. 2004), the plaintiff claimed that pursuing internal remedies would have been futile because the person who terminated him would have participated in the ultimate decision. The plaintiff further pointed out that settlement negotiations were unsuccessful and the defendants took the position in the litigation that he wasn’t entitled to benefits. Id. at 672. The court noted that there was no evidence that either the plan administrator or the committee would have failed to fulfill their duty to fairly consider his claim. Id. The court reasoned that it would be “bizarre . . . to find that a plan’s price for prevailing on the exhaustion argument is that it is estopped from urging the interpretation of the
15

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 16 of 33
plan that it believes is correct.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Robyns v. Reliance Standard, 130 F.3d at 1238 (plaintiff claimed an administrative appeal would be futile because the defendant was predisposed to deny her claim; the court disagreed because the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant’s review procedure wouldn’t root out any predisposition).
Similarly, in Potter v. ICI Americas, 103 F. Supp. 2d at 1069, the court found that the plaintiff didn’t show that exhausting his administrative remedies would be futile. The plaintiff brought suit under ERISA alleging that he suffered damages resulting from being misclassified as an independent contractor rather than an employee. Id. at 1063. The plaintiff argued that exhaustion would be futile because one of the named defendants was also the plan administrator, and exhaustion would be fruitful only if the defendant would admit it improperly classified him as an independent contractor. Id. at 1069. The defendant wouldn’t make that admission, which necessitated the filing of suit. Id. The court rejected the plaintiff’s futility argument, reasoning that even assuming that the defendant was predisposed to deny the claim, that wouldn’t assure that the claim was certain to fail. Id. at 1069.
A district court may find futility where it is evident that the claim would have been denied at the administrative level and there is little utility in administrative review. In Ruttenberg v. United States Life Ins. Co., 413 F.3d 652, 662 (7th Cir. 2005), the plan committee denied the plaintiff’s claim, and he filed suit before filing an administrative appeal within the allowable 180-day time
16

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 17 of 33
period under the plan. The court held that the plan didn’t give U.S. Life interpretative discretion in construing the plan terms and its review of the committee’s decision was therefore de novo. Id. at 659. The court affirmed the district court’s finding of futility because there was nothing in the record indicating that the plan committee would have altered its decision to deny benefits. Id. at 663. The defendant had opposed the plaintiff’s claim at every step. Id. The court concluded that “[t]he history of this matter, both before the district court and in administrative proceedings, provides ample support for the district court’s view that U.S. Life would have denied Mr. Ruttenberg’s claim even if he had filed an administrative appeal.” Id. Accordingly, the appellate court couldn’t “say that the district court’s futility determination was ‘down-right unreasonable.’” Id.; see also Salus v. GTE Directories Serv. Corp., 104 F.3d 131, 138 (7th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s decision to not require exhaustion; the defendant didn’t dispute that the plaintiff was clearly not entitled to any benefits under the plan and that, had the plaintiff filed a claim for benefits, his claim would have been denied).
In Fallick v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 410, 419-420 (6th Cir. 1998), the plaintiff alleged that Nationwide had a methodology of calculating reimbursement under the plan that violated the actual terms of the plan. The court found that exhausting administrative remedies would be futile where Nationwide had consistently defended its long-standing policy that the plaintiff class was challenging. Id. at 420. The plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf
17

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 18 of 33
of a proposed class, had engaged in a two-year long “triangular dialogue of communications in every direction [with] the State Insurance Department[] and Nationwide” regarding the methodology Nationwide used to calculate reimbursements under the plan. Id. at 417. The court excused the failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Nationwide consistently defended its policy, refused to provide more than a cursory explanation of its methodology, and insisted that it would continue to use its method of calculation despite evidence that the policy violated the actual terms of the plan. Id. at 420. The factual record already was well-established, and the court reasoned that requiring exhaustion would only have resulted in additional litigation costs. Id. at 421.
When making a futility determination, courts should also consider whether the benefit determination involves an interpretation of the plan’s terms or a pure legal question of statutory analysis. “When a benefit determination involves a matter of Plan interpretation, the Seventh Circuit strongly recommends that a plaintiff exhaust any and all administrative remedies in order to serve the strong federal policy of encouraging private rather than judicial resolution of ERISA [claims].” Williams v. Rohm and Haas Pension Plan, No. NA02-C-0123-B/H, 2003 WL 22271111, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2003). On the other hand, “[w]hen a claimant . . . has no individual quarrel with the interpretation of the contract but alleges a purely statutory violation, then presumably no federal policy is served by requiring exhaustion.” Id.; see also Donaldson v. Pharmacia Pension Plan, 435 F. Supp. 2d 853, 861 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (finding exhaustion would have been futile
18

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 19 of 33
in part because judicial resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims involved statutory interpretation that the court would consider de novo, without deference to the opinions of the plan’s administrators); Thompson v. Retirement Plan for Employees of S.C. Johnson & Sons, Inc., No. 07-CV-1047, 2008 WL 4964714, at *5-*6 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 14, 2008) (finding exhaustion would be futile in part because the primary issue was a legal one that would be reviewed de novo).
Benefit determinations by plan administrators under ERISA are reviewed de novo unless the plan’s trustees have discretionary authority to determine eligibility. Trombetta v. Cragin Fed. Bank for Sav. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, 102 F.3d 1435, 1437 (7th Cir. 1996). If the plan grants to its administrator the discretion to construe the plan’s terms, the district court must review a denial of benefits deferentially, asking only whether the plan’s decision was arbitrary or capricious. Hess v. Reg-Ellen Mach. Tool Corp. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, 502 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir. 2007). Regardless of whether the plan contains the discretionary language, the court reviews de novo questions of law, such as whether the plan as interpreted violates ERISA. Silvernail v. Ameritech Pension Plan, 439 F.3d 355, 357 (7th Cir. 2006).
The reservation of discretion should be communicated clearly in the language of the plan, but the plan needn’t use any particular magic words. Herzberger v. Standard Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 327, 331 (7th Cir. 2000). “[T]he critical question is whether the plan gives the employee adequate notice that the plan administrator is to make a judgment within the confines of pre-set standards, or
19

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 20 of 33
if it has the latitude to shape the application, interpretation, and content of the rules in each case.” Diaz v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 424 F.3d 635, 639-640 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Gutta v. Standard Select Trust Ins. Plans, 530 F.3d 614, 619 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding the following language was adequate to signal discretion in the plan administrators: “full and exclusive authority to control and manage, . . . to administer, . . . and to interpret and to resolve all questions arising in its administration, interpretation, and application;” “[t]he right to determine [e]ligibility [and] entitlement;” “any decision Standard makes in the exercise of our authority is conclusive and binding”); Shyman v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 427 F.3d 452, 455 (7th Cir. 2005) (reviewing decision under arbitrary and capricious standard where plan gave administrator discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits and to interpret the terms and conditions of the plan); Crowell v. Bank of America Pension Plan for Legacy Cos., No. 09-C-01921, 2010 WL 1930112, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2010) (finding the following language provided discretionary authority to the committee: “The Committee has, among its many powers, the full, conclusive and exclusive power and discretion to interpret and construe the terms and conditions of the Plan.”); contrast Diaz v. Prudential Ins. Co., 424 F.3d at 639-640 (applying de novo standard of review to pension plan that required proof of a claim to be "satisfactory" to the administrator but failed to confer discretion on the administrator).
Most of the plan documents at issue in this case explicitly provide authority for FedEx or its designee to construe and interpret the plan documents. See 401(k)
20

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 21 of 33
Plan, § 15.4(a) (“The Committee shall have all . . . power and authority to: (a) Solely, exclusively and conclusively construe any ambiguity in and interpret any provision of the Plan and supply any omission or reconcile any inconsistency therein in such manner as it deems appropriate in accordance with the purpose and intent of the Plan[.]”); Group Life Insurance Plan, p. 22 (stating Hartford has “full discretion and authority to determine eligibility for benefits and to construe and interpret all terms and provisions of the Policy”); STD Plan, § 6.1 (FedEx is authorized to appoint a Committee, which “[t]o the extent necessary to carry out the claim and review responsibilities set forth in this Section . . . shall have the sole and absolute authority and responsibility for construing and interpreting the provisions of the Plan”); Medical Plan, § 8.1 and § 9.1 and Dependent Care Account Plan, § 5.1 and § 6.3 (containing similar language); see also supra note 3 discussing language in LTD plan.
The plans’ language makes it clear that the plan administrator or its designee has sole discretion to apply, construe, and interpret the plan documents. A court applies an abuse of discretion standard when the language of the plan document explicitly outlines the administrator’s authority to interpret the plan’s terms. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 111 (1989) (If the trust documents give the trustee “power to construe disputed or doubtful terms, . . . the trustee’s interpretation will not be disturbed if reasonable.”). When the terms of a plan grant discretionary authority to the plan administrator, a deferential standard of review remains appropriate even in the face of a conflict.
21

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 22 of 33
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008). The court must weigh the conflict as a factor when determining whether there was an abuse of discretion. Id.; see also Fischer v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, No. 1:08-cv-0396-WTL-TAB, 2009 WL 734705, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2009).
“Congress enacted ERISA to ensure that employees would receive the benefits they had earned, but Congress did not require employers to establish benefit plans in the first place.” Conkright v. Frommert, U.S. , 130 S. Ct. 1640, 1648 (2010). ERISA “induc[es] employers to offer benefits by assuring a predictable set of liabilities, under uniform standards of primary conduct and a uniform regime of ultimate remedial orders and awards when a violation has occurred.” Conkright v. Frommert, 130 S.Ct. at 1649. The deference afforded to plan administrator’s decisions protects these interests and, “by permitting an employer to grant primary interpretive authority over an ERISA plan to the plan administrator, preserves the ‘careful balancing’ on which ERISA is based.” Id. Deference promotes efficiency, predictability, and serves the interest of uniformity. Id.
The plaintiffs argue that this court’s review of a determination by the plan administrator of employee status must be based on the standards set forth in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323-324 (1993), therefore requiring de novo review. The plaintiffs’ argument finds justification in this court’s order granting class certification of the plaintiffs’ ERISA claims (doc. # 906). In the class certification order, the court indicated that if the plaintiffs satisfy the
22

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 23 of 33
common law definition of employee under Darden, they are eligible for benefits under the plan. The court stated that if it “determines that the named plaintiffs are common law employees, they can’t be independent contractors, despite FedEx classifying them as such, so by demonstrating they are common law employees, the package drivers can satisfy both prongs of eligibility.” Doc. # 906, pp. 51-52 (citing Burrey v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 159 F.3d 388 (9th Cir. 1998), and Daughtrey v. Honeywell, Inc., 3 F.3d 1488, 1492-1493 (11th Cir. 1993)). The court further stated that “allowing an employer to define participant status through exclusionary language that denies coverage to those parties based solely on the employer’s classification of them as independent contractors, regardless of the reality of the employment relationship, runs contrary to the teachings of Darden.” Doc. # 906, p. 52.
The class certification order wasn’t a decision on the merits; the court takes this opportunity to clarify its order. Courts use a two-prong analysis in deciding whether a plaintiff is entitled to benefits under ERISA. The first prong requires that a plaintiff seeking to recover benefits due to him be a “participant or beneficiary.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1). Participant status requires the plaintiff to show he is an “employee” as determined by the common law test the Supreme Court set forth in Darden. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7); see also Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. at 323 (construing the term “employee” for purposes of determining who has participant standing to sue under ERISA); Sallee v. Rexnord Corp., 985 F.2d 927, 929 (7th Cir. 1993). Employment status under ERISA
23

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 24 of 33
requires an independent review by the court. Wolf v. Coca-Cola Co., 200 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000).
The second prong of the analysis requires that the plaintiff be eligible to receive benefits according to the plan’s terms. Estate of Suskovich v. Anthem Health Plans of Virginia., 553 F.3d 559, 571 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Trombetta v. Cragin Fed. Bank for Sav. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, 102 F.3d 1435, 1437 (7th Cir. 1996)). Eligibility under ERISA isn’t automatic for common law employees. Estate of Suskovich v. Anthem Health Plans, 553 F.3d at 571; see also Bronk v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel., Inc., 140 F.3d 1335, 1338 (10th Cir. 1998) (disagreeing with district court that ERISA’s minimum participation standards require that leased employees, who meet the test for common law employee status, be automatically included in the company's plan, whether or not they were excluded under the terms of the plan). Rather, employers are free to “limit plan participation to certain groups or classifications of employees, as long as that limitation [is] not based upon age or service.” Bauer v. Summit Bancorp, 325 F.3d 155, 166, n.20 (3d Cir. 2003) (“[A]n employer could even exclude all persons whose names begin with the letter ‘H,’ as long as this was not deemed to be discriminatory in application.”).
In Trombetta v. Cragin Fed. Bank for Sav. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, 102 F.3d 1435, 1436 (7th Cir. 1996), the plaintiffs brought claims under ERISA, claiming entitlement to benefits under the defendants’ ESOP. The defendants responded that the plaintiffs had always been independent contractors, not
24

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 25 of 33
employees, and so never had been eligible to participate in the ESOP. Id. The court found that the plan’s language granted the committee discretion in determining who qualified to enter the plan and so reviewed the committee’s decision under the deferential standard. Id. at 1437-1438.
The ESOP provided that “Employees” were eligible to participate in the plan and defined “Employee” as “any individual who is or has been employed or self-employed by an Employer.” Id. at 1438. The plaintiff argued that the phrase “employed by an Employer” is used in ERISA and already had been conclusively interpreted by the Supreme Court in Darden. Id. at 1439. The plaintiff said that because Darden applied the test for common law employees to that phrase, it was arbitrary and capricious for the committee to interpret the phrase differently. Id. The court found the plaintiffs’ argument missed the mark because there is no requirement that the phrase carry the same meaning under the ESOP as the Supreme Court has afforded a similar phrase in the statute. Id. Cragin was free to define the terms in its plan however it chose. Id. at 1439-1440. Further, the court noted that it’s “not enough to determine that they are common law employees of Cragin because Cragin need not extend th[e] benefits plan to all employees.” Id. Nothing in ERISA compels a plan to use the term “employee” in the same way it is used in the statute. Darden construed the term “employee” to determine who has standing to sue under ERISA, not to determine who is eligible to claim benefits under the terms of a plan.
25

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 26 of 33
The court held that the committee reasonably concluded that plaintiffs weren’t self-employed by an “Employer,” but were self-employed by themselves. Id. at 1439. The committee also determined that plaintiffs weren’t “employed” by an Employer because each had signed an agreement designating themselves as independent contractors for all purposes and had considered themselves to be independent contractors for tax liability purposes. Id. The court ruled the committee had “reasonably concluded that persons who were identified both by themselves and by Cragin as independent contractors were not in the same category as persons identified by Cragin as Employees for the purposes of benefits determinations.” Id. Cragin hadn’t expressed any intent to treat plaintiffs as employees for purposes of the ESOP; Cragin had consistently denied plaintiffs participation in the ESOP and had never provided them with ESOP benefits statements or copies of the Summary Plan Description. Id. The court therefore found that the committee’s decision was reasonable. Id.
Additionally, although Cragin never conceded that status as a common law employee would suffice to establish eligibility in the ESOP, the committee carefully considered and rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that they were common law employees under the standard set out in Darden. Id. at 1439. The court noted that the committee’s decision was well within the bounds of its discretion to interpret the terms of the plan. Id. Although the Trombetta plaintiffs were able to point to evidence supporting the finding of an employment relationship, the court held the committee’s decision wouldn’t be overturned absent special circumstances, such
26

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 27 of 33
as fraud or bad faith, as long as the committee has offered a reasoned explanation, based on the evidence, for the decision. Id. at 1440.
Other circuits have followed the reasoning in Trombetta, allowing the plan administrator to determine the definition of “employee” different from the standard set forth in Darden. In Kolling v. American Power Conversion Corp., 347 F.3d 11, 13 (1st Cir. 2003), the plan defined eligible employees as “Employees of the Employer” including “leased employees,” but didn’t define further who was an “Employee of the Employer.” Consistent with APC’s business practice, the administrator applied a W-2 definition to the term “employee.” Id. Under this definition, only individuals paid on an IRS W-2 form basis were eligible to receive ESOP contributions. Id. The plaintiff brought a claim for benefits under ERISA, and the court found that the plaintiff “may have a plausible argument that he was a common law employee of APC, but it is the language of the Plan, not common law status, that controls.” Id. at 14. “Where, as here, the Plan adopts a circular definition of employee – ‘Employer of the Employer’ – the Plan administrator has the discretion reasonable to determine the meaning of that phrase.” Id. (citing Trombetta, 102 F.3d at 1439-1440); see also Wolf v. Coca-Cola Co., 200 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2000) (even if plaintiff was a common law employee, the court found that she wasn’t entitled to benefits because she wasn’t a “regular employee” as defined by the plan).
In Scruggs v. ExxonMobil Pension Plan, 585 F.3d 1356, 1363-1364 (10th Cir. 2009), the term “employee” in the plan documents was ambiguous, and the
27

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 28 of 33
plan administrator interpreted the term as limited to individuals on ExxonMobil’s payroll, a category that didn’t include all people who might be considered employees under ERISA. The administrator considered it irrelevant whether the plaintiff had been a common-law employee. Id. at 1364. The court concluded the administrator’s interpretation of the plan documents, distinguishing between persons who were and weren’t on ExxonMobil's payroll, wasn’t arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 1365; see also Boggess v. Monsanto Co., No. 2:01-1300, 2003 WL 715985, at *5 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 10, 2003) (noting that the court needn’t make a final determination of whether the plaintiff was a common law employee because the plan only covered employees the employer classifies on its payroll and other business records as having a common law employment relationship and the committee acted within its discretion in interpreting this provision to exclude plaintiff).
In Martin v. Public Service Elec. & Gas Co., Inc., No. 05-5801 (DMC), 2006 WL 3491063, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2006), aff’d on other grounds, 271 Fed. Appx. 258 (2d Cir. 2008), the plaintiffs argued that the defendants couldn’t simultaneously classify plaintiffs as “common-law employees” for purposes of the first prong (Darden analysis) and as “independent contractors” under the second prong (eligibility analysis). The plan documents excluded independent contractors from the definition of employee, even those independent contractors who might be determined to be a common law employee by the Internal Revenue Service, other governmental agency, or court. Id. The court found that the “[d]efendants clearly
28

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 29 of 33
preserved their right under ERISA to exclude from eligibility individuals classified as independent contractors.” Id. The plaintiffs argued the defendant had misclassified them, but the court reasoned that the defendants were free to make such classifications under ERISA. Id. The court stated it “must enforce the plans’ clear language excluding independent contractors, such as [the p]laintiffs, from eligibility for benefits because there is no indication that this exclusion was arbitrary or capricious.” Id. The court concluded that the “[d]efendants, through clear language in the plan, preserved their right to exclude individuals classified as independent contractors, even if those individuals would normally qualify as common law employees.” Id. at *6.
When there is no definition of “employee” in the plan documents, courts have found it reasonable to apply the Darden test to determine eligibility. Coonley v. Fortis Benefit Ins. Co., 956 F. Supp. 841, 856, n.15 (N.D. Iowa 1997) (stating that where the plan is silent as to the definition of “employee,” it is reasonable to assume that the same definition as is applicable to who is an “employee” under the ERISA statute would apply under an ERISA plan), aff’d by 128 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Burrey v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 159 F.3d 388, 391-394 (9th Cir. 1998) (where the plans provided benefits to “employees” but not to “leased employees,” as defined by Section 414(n) of the Internal Revenue Code, and § 414(n) didn’t define “employee,” the court used the common-law definition of “employee” to determine both prongs of the test); Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
29

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 30 of 33
120 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 1997) (where plan expressly made “common law employees” eligible for benefits, the two prongs of the test collapse).
The court disagrees with the plaintiffs that requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile. FedEx has delegated review of initial claims, and some claims appeals duties, to outside entities. And even though FedEx is involved in the final appeal process under most plans, it wouldn’t be futile to have third parties decide the initial claims. Merely showing that FedEx is predisposed to deny the plaintiffs’ claims and has consistently taken that position in this lawsuit isn’t sufficient to show by certainty that the claims would be denied. Stark v. PPM America, 354 F.3d at 671-672; Robyns v. Reliance Standard, 130 F.3d at 1238. The plaintiffs haven’t presented their claims to the plan committees or tried to go through the administrative process for review of their claims. There is evidence in the record that their claims would be reviewed fairly. Even though it is likely the plaintiffs’ claim will be denied because FedEx has classified them as independent contractors, the court declines to exercise its discretion to find futility when the evidence is insufficient to show with certainty that the claims would be denied.
Return to the administrative process will serve the purposes of the exhaustion doctrine. The administrators’ construction of the plans’ terms of eligibility will assist judicial review of the plaintiffs’ claims.2 “As a consequence of
2 In addition to language in the plan documents, the parties have introduced language from summary plan documents. While the summary plan documents provide useful information to participants in explaining plan documents, if there is a conflict between the plan and the summary
30

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 31 of 33
[the plaintiffs’] failure to exhaust, the record is in a posture less amenable to review.” Glaze v. Sysco Corp., No. 1:05-cv-1546-DFH-WTL, 2007 WL 1701931, at *3 (S.D. Ind. June 11, 2007). The plans have varying eligibility requirements and definitions of “eligible employee;” the plan committees are in the best position to interpret these terms initially and to determine who is entitled to receive benefits or who is excluded from coverage.3 Applying the exhaustion requirement allows the plan fiduciaries to manage their plans expertly and efficiently, and a fully considered action by plan fiduciaries will assist judicial resolution of this controversy if the claims are denied.
Some of the plans expressly exclude those classified as independent contractors, even if the court later determines that the plaintiffs are common law employees. The plan committees can determine whether under such plans persons “classified as independent contractors” are entitled to benefits after reviewing the relevant plan language. The committees’ decisions will be reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Whether the plaintiffs are employees under the ERISA statute (the Darden common law test) isn’t necessarily relevant
plan descriptions, the former governs unless the plan participant or beneficiary has reasonably relied on the summary plan description to his detriment. Health Cost Controls of Illinois, Inc. v. Washington, 187 F.3d 703, 711 (7th Cir. 1999).
3 The Group Benefits Long Term Disability Plan states that “[f]inal interpretation of all provisions and coverages will be governed by the Group Insurance Policy on file with Hartford Life at its home office.” LTD Plan, p. 3. At this time, the court doesn’t address whether this language is sufficient to confer discretion on the plan administrator under the arbitrary and capricious standard. For purposes of judicial economy, the court addresses the plan documents together in determining that exhaustion of administrative remedies wouldn’t be futile. Even if discretionary authority isn’t afforded under the LTD Plan, it is more prudent to address all the plaintiffs’ ERISA claims under the various plans after they have exhausted their administrative remedies.
31

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 32 of 33
to this analysis. Even though some plans don’t define who is an “eligible employee,” it will assist the court if the plan committee determines that definition in the first instance and develops an administrative record for the court to review. As some courts have indicated, a reasonable definition of “employee” where the plan documents are silent can be found in the Darden analysis. The parties have briefed the issue of whether the plaintiffs are common law employees under the first prong of ERISA, but the court might not need to address this issue depending on the reasonableness of the committees’ determination of eligibility under the plans. Even if the court were to decide common law employment status under Darden, the issue of eligibility under the plans would still need to be addressed. Having the committee determine eligibility might promote settlement or alternatively save the court and parties time and resources by narrowing the issues that must be decided. In short, the administrative process will likely sharpen the issues, provide a reasoned resolution of various issues, and facilitate any later judicial review.
Not all class members must exhaust their administrative remedies. In re Household Int’l Tax Reduction Plan, 441 F.3d 500, 501-502 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that unnamed class members in an ERISA class action suit don’t necessarily have to exhaust their plan remedies as a condition to being members of the class). Only the named plaintiffs in this case must exhaust administrative remedies.
32

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2078 filed 06/28/10 page 33 of 33 CONCLUSION
Because the court finds that the plaintiffs weren’t denied meaningful access to review procedures or that exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile, the court GRANTS FedEx’s motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ ERISA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (doc. # 1409). The court dismisses the plaintiffs’ ERISA claims without prejudice with leave to re-file once the named plaintiffs have exhausted their available administrative remedies under the ERISA plans.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: June 28, 2010
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. ___________ Judge United States District Court
33

 
 case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 1 of 103

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

)

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

ALL ACTIONS

)

)

Civil No. 3:05-CV-530 RM (KS)

)

_____________________________________ )

CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM (MDL-1700)

OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment concerning whether FedEx drivers1 are employees or independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act, KAN. STAT. ANN. § 44-313 et seq. Numerous summary judgment motions pend in both the certified and noncertified class-actions. This opinion sets forth facts commonly applicable to all certified class actions and addresses the Kansas plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. ## 1163, 1248) and FedEx’s cross-motion for summary judgment (doc. # 1215). The court also addresses FedEx’s motion to strike individualized proof submitted in support of the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions (doc. #

1
The court intends the terms “driver” and “contractor” to be synonymous, and the use of either term isn’t meant to contain any connotation about a person’s status as an “employee” or “independent contractor.”
1

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 2 of 103
1398) and the plaintiffs’ motions to augment the record in support of their summary judgment motions (docs. ## 1992, 2064, and 2087).
The court GRANTS FedEx’s motion to strike individualized proof to the extent the plaintiffs rely on the submitted documents in support of summary judgment to show individual contractors’ experiences in class certification cases. The court cannot make generalizations about the class as a whole from a review of the actual control FedEx exercised over a segment of drivers.
The court exercises its discretion to DENY the plaintiffs’ motions to augment the record. The documents the plaintiffs propose to submit are relevant to only a small segment of the plaintiff classes, cumulative of the evidence already submitted, or of little evidentiary value.
The court DENIES FedEx’s requests for oral argument on the motions for summary judgment (doc. ## 1400 and 1471). The court finds that this matter can properly be resolved by a review of the parties’ extensive evidentiary record and summary judgment briefing.
The court DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and GRANTS FedEx’s cross-motion. The plaintiffs have all signed Operating Agreements labeling themselves as independent contractors, they can hire others to perform their assigned work and go work for another delivery company, and they can sell their routes to other qualified drivers; yet, they contend they are employees. The court sees it differently.
2

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 3 of 103
Upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the only reasonable inference is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to direct the manner in which drivers perform their work. FedEx supervises the drivers’ work and offers numerous suggestions and best practices for performance of assigned tasks, but the evidence doesn’t suggest that FedEx has the authority under the Operating Agreement to require compliance with its suggestions. Further, other factors strongly weigh in favor of independent contractor status; in particular, the parties intended to create an independent contractor arrangement, the drivers have the ability to hire helpers and replacement drivers, they are responsible for acquiring a vehicle and can use the vehicle for other commercial purposes, they can sell their routes to other qualified drivers, and FedEx doesn’t have the right to terminate contracts at-will. Although some facts weigh in favor of employee status, after considering all the relevant factors, the court finds that the plaintiffs are independent contractors as a matter of law.
I. COMMON FACTS APPLICABLE TO RIGHT TO CONTROL The court sets forth the facts from the perspective of what control FedEx has the right to exercise over its drivers and not necessarily what control FedEx actually exercises on a daily basis. While FedEx managers might exercise more control than what is retained in the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable policies and procedures, the class was certified on the basis of right to
3

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 4 of 103
control, not actual exercise of control. The plaintiffs reiterated to this court during class certification that they could show right to control by reliance solely on the Operating Agreement and applicable policies and procedures and wouldn’t go beyond those documents to prove their case. In short, the issue for today’s purposes is what control FedEx had the right to exert pursuant to the parties’ contractual relationship.
FedEx’s Business FedEx Ground, together with its operating division FedEx Home Delivery, provides small-package pick-up and delivery services through a network of pick-up and delivery drivers/contractors. FedEx Home Delivery provides small package delivery services primarily to residential customers, while FedEx Ground focuses on the pick-up and delivery of small packages to businesses. FedEx Services, Inc. sets pricing policy and rates for FedEx and supplies shared technology infrastructure support across all FedEx companies.
Business Objectives in the Operating Agreement The Kansas plaintiffs, individually or through a sole proprietorship or corporation, entered into either a Ground or Home Delivery Operating Agreement with FedEx to provide daily pick-up and delivery service. Contractors agree to conduct their businesses so that they can be identified as part of the FedEx
4

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 5 of 103
system. OA, Background. The Operating Agreement states that “[b]oth [FedEx] and Contractor intend that Contractor will provide these services strictly as an independent contractor, and not as an employee of [FedEx] for any purpose.” Id. The Operating Agreement is to “set forth the mutual business objectives of the two parties intended to be served by th[e] Agreement — which are the results the Contractor agrees to seek to achieve — but the manner and means of reaching these results are within the discretion of the Contractor.” Id. “[N]o officer or employee of [FedEx] shall have the authority to impose any term or condition on Contractor or on Contractor’s continued operation which is contrary to this understanding.” Id. The “Contractor agrees to direct the operation of the Equipment and to determine the methods, manner and means of performing the obligations specified in this Agreement.” Id. at ¶ 1.4.
The Operating Agreement specifically sets forth FedEx’s standards of service. To achieve FedEx’s business objectives, the drivers agree to:
(a) Provide daily pick-up and delivery service to consignees and shippers on days and at times which are compatible with their schedules and requirements within Contractor’s Primary Service Area, . . . and in such other areas as Contractor may be asked to service,[2] all consistent with the competitive standards within the industry (provided, however, that on any day where the volume of packages available for delivery or pick-up in Contractor’s Primary Service Area exceeds the volume that Contractor can reasonably be expected to handle on such day, [FedEx] may reassign a portion of such packages to another contractor);
2 The FXG OA states: “and in such other areas as Contractor may be asked to service, in the event Contractor elects to participate in the Flex Program.”
5

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 6 of 103
(b) Make reasonable efforts to retain and increase the base of shippers and consignees served and the number of packages per shipper within Contractor’s Primary Service Area; (c) Handle, load, unload and transport packages using methods that are designed to avoid theft, loss and damage; (d) Cooperate with [FedEx’s] employees, customers and other contractors, to achieve the goal of efficient pick-up, delivery, handling, loading and unloading of packages and equipment, and provide such electronic and/or manual data pertaining to package handling as is reasonably necessary to achieve this goal; (e) Foster the professional image and good reputation of [FedEx] . . . including adhering to vehicle identification and operator appearance standards . . .; (f) Conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances; (g) Cause the Equipment to be operated safely and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations; and (h) Conduct all business activities with integrity and honesty, in a professional manner, and with proper decorum at all times. Id. ¶ 1.10. The parties agree that “Contractor shall be responsible for exercising independent discretion and judgment to achieve the business objectives and results . . . and no officer, agent or employee of [FedEx] shall have the authority to direct Contractor as to the manner or means employed to achieve such objectives and results.” FXHD OA, ¶ 1.14; FXG OA, ¶ 1.15. For example, FedEx can’t “prescribe the hours of work, whether or when the Contractor is to take
6

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 7 of 103
breaks, what route the Contractor is to follow, or other details of performance.” FXHD OA, ¶ 1.14; FXG OA, ¶ 1.15.
Policies and Procedures FedEx has many written policies and procedures in place directed toward FedEx employees involving management of FedEx business operations. FedEx managers are expected to know the policies and procedures and generally are expected to follow them to the extent it makes good business sense to do so. In 2005, FedEx began a “Document Reengineering Initiative” to overhaul its policies, procedures, and forms. That initiative was meant to clarify the line between policies (statements “outlining a mandatory course of action”) and procedures (statements “providing the how and when or how often for implementing the policies”), so that FedEx managers could better understand FedEx’s expectations. Among the changes was Policy-007, reiterating that FedEx employees must adhere to the Operating Agreement in their interactions with drivers, that the terms of the Operating Agreement can’t be modified, and, most significantly, that “[n]o officer, agent or employee of FedEx Ground has the authority to direct the contractor as to the manner or means employed to achieve such objectives and results.” (FedEx Exh. B-02 (emphasis in original)). Policy-007 repeats the language of Section 1.15 of the Operating Agreement as a policy and states that a violation of its terms may result in disciplinary action against the manager.
7

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 8 of 103
Dan Sullivan, who was FedEx’s CEO until January 2007, testified that he “would expect [FedEx drivers] to follow policy within general parameters but provide a certain amount of discretion in the administration of these policies and procedures depending upon terminal location, the issues in each facility, those kinds of things which are all different.” Sullivan Dep., p. 162. In explaining the manager’s reliance on FedEx policies, Mr. Sullivan stated:
Obviously, all policies are there for a reason. They should be considered by the management. The management should try to follow them, but the management also has discretion to do the right thing for the business, the right thing for the customer, the right thing for our people within the parameters of those policies and procedures . . . so that they are administered somewhat differently in each circumstance. Sullivan Dep., pp. 163-164. FedEx’s Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Rodger Marticke testified that FedEx expects managers to “adhere to company policies to the extent that it makes good business sense.” Marticke Dep., p. 92. Division Vice President and Former Managing Director James Primm testified that FedEx confers discretion on its senior managers as to how to apply procedures so long as that discretion doesn’t result in not achieving company results or violating federal law. Primm Dep., p. 212.
Regular and Integral Part of FedEx’s Business FedEx drivers’ work is a regular and integral part of FedEx’s business. FedEx Vice President of Contractor Relations Robert Ostrov testified that
8

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 9 of 103
contractors are a cornerstone of FedEx’s business. Ostrov Dep., pp. 192-193. Former CEO Dan Sullivan testified that the contractor is meant to be a “centerpiece” of FedEx’s “work force” and is an “essential component of [FedEx’s] business.” Sullivan Dep., pp. 27, 106; see also Emmanuel Monti, Senior Manager of Contract Relations, Dep., p. 204 (describing FedEx drivers as being part of the FedEx “network”). It is undisputed that the drivers’ work was performed within the usual course of FedEx’s business.
Approval Requirements for Contractors and Replacement Drivers FedEx has minimum eligibility requirements for people to become FedEx contractors. They must have no felony convictions, be 21 years of age or older, have a certain level of driving experience or undergo training, have the required driver’s license, have a 36-month driving record that meets specific minimum requirements, undergo a drug screen and physical, and be able to obtain a delivery vehicle. Contractors can run their own routes, hire helpers, or hire replacement contractors. Newman Decl., ¶¶ 15, 17. Non-driver helpers must be 18 years old and pass a background check. See Procedure: Authorization Process for NonDriving Helper, CRL-566. Replacement drivers are subject to FedEx approval in other respects. The Operating Agreement says contractors may use others to assist them; all persons so utilized “shall be qualified pursuant to applicable
9

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 10 of 103
federal, state and municipal safety standards and [FedEx] Safe Driving Program standards.” OA, ¶ 2.2. The Operating Agreement further requires that replacement drivers be “fully trained, at Contractor’s expense, to operate the Equipment,” and the contractor is responsible for ensuring that the replacement driver “conform fully to the applicable obligations undertaken by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement.” Id.
The Safe Driving Program sets minimum experience, age, licensure, driving record, criminal record, and drug-and-alcohol abuse requirements. The program requires a showing of satisfactory work history and mandates compliance with basic safety and maintenance requirements. OA, Safe Driving Addend. FedEx policies state that all operators, including assistants and substitutes, must complete a road test, submit a driver information sheet, and (depending on work history) complete a FedEx-approved training course. See CRL-551, at 5-12 (Pl. Exh. 2:147-54) (“The individual must meet the minimum driver qualifications and requirements established by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and FedEx.”). Mr. Sullivan testified that the drivers must meet certain FedEx standards, such as grooming requirements, but terminal managers have discretion in assessing whether individuals meet FedEx’s requirements to provide service. Sullivan Dep., pp. 210, 212.
FedEx is a registered motor carrier subject to the Department of Transportation’s regulatory control. Scapellato Rept. (Nov. 8, 2007), p. 11. Federal
10

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 11 of 103
law for vehicles 10,001 pounds or more imposes many of FedEx’s driver requirements; federal commercial driver’s license and alcohol/drug testing are required for vehicles 26,001 pounds or more. FedEx expert witness James Scapellato stated that “[a]s the regulated motor carrier, FedEx . . . is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of all commercial vehicles providing transportation services under its DOT number.” Scapellato Rept. (Nov. 8, 2007), p. 14. “As a regulated motor carrier, FedEx . . . must insure that each and every owner operator who operates under its DOT authority, as well as any driver working for an owner operator, achieves a satisfactory degree of safety compliance.” Scapellato Rept. (Jan. 8, 2007), p. 6. For example, FedEx must keep a DOT file on each driver to provide “documentary proof that the driver . . . meet[s] standards imposed by federal safety requirements and that they can, by reason of experience, training, or both, safely operate the assigned commercial motor vehicle.” Scapellato Rept. (Jan. 8, 2007), p. 14; see also 49 C.F.R. § 391.1 et seq. FedEx, however, has “adopted into policy many higher safety standards than those minimums prescribed in the federal motor carrier safety regulations to help business efficiency and reduce highway crashes.” Scapellato Rept. (Jan. 8, 2007), p. 12.
Training
11

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 12 of 103
Contractors have the obligation to assure that everyone who operates the equipment is fully trained and capable of meeting the customer service standards set forth in the Operating Agreement. FXHD OA, ¶ 1.13; FXG OA, ¶ 1.14. FedEx provides formal training to its drivers, but whether training is required varies from driver to driver. As of 2005, new FedEx contractors with six months’ verified experience as a commercial motor vehicle operator within the previous five years aren’t required to participate in Quality P&D Learning (QPDL), which, as FedEx explains, wasn’t widely available until 2003 and isn’t training, but a precondition, to becoming a contractor. Since November 2007, FedEx accepts training obtained from an “approved” FedEx vendor in lieu of prior experience or the FedEx QPDL course.
QPDL is a multi-day course consisting of a combination of classroom and on-the-road instruction meant to ensure compliance with federal safety regulations. The 2003 QPDL Participant Manual, however, addresses a number of topics, such as customer service skills, vehicle entrance and exit routines, route planning, terminal a.m. routines, delivery techniques, package handling techniques, scanning and sheeting, driver release of packages, and pick-up techniques. TM-205A (Aug. 2003). FedEx managers also hold weekly safety meetings that drivers should attend where managers address safety-related or operational issues. Attendance at certain safety meetings once was required, but is now voluntary, although managers still take attendance at those meetings.
12

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 13 of 103
FedEx also conducts an orientation program during contractors’ first thirty days to familiarize them with various service quality procedures. FXHD OA, ¶ 1.13; FXG OA, ¶ 1.14 (“[FedEx] shall, during the first 30 days of the term of this Agreement, familiarize Contractor with various quality service procedures developed by [FedEx].”); see also FedEx Owner-Operator Familiarization Program, Pl. Exh. 5:306 (stating that the program is approximately ten hours). Drivers may enter the CARE training program to expunge a verified customer complaint from their record; managers often recommend that drivers attend such training for that purpose. The CARE program consists of the driver watching a video, receiving a manual, and participating in a follow-up business discussion (a documented meeting with the drivers’ manager). The program instructs drivers on ways to achieve customer satisfaction and practices so as to avoid customer complaints.
FedEx used to distribute a Contractor’s Companion to drivers, a document developed “to assist the contractor [in] the day-to-day administration of his or her duties.” Sullivan Dep., p. 236. The Home Delivery Contractor’s Companion is dated January 2003 and the Ground Contractor’s Companion is dated December 2003. FedEx has described it as a summary of things that contractors should consider when performing their duties or a reference guide that gives contractors an idea of the best practices to use when interacting with customers. Sullivan Dep., pp. 235-236; Mark Byrum (Divisional Vice President) Dep., pp. 210-211. There are differences between the Home Delivery and Ground Contractor’s
13

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 14 of 103
Companion, but generally they include information concerning customer service tips, scanner troubleshooting and status codes for deliveries, daily supply checklist, vehicle pre-trip inspection, C.O.D. handling, driver release guidelines and tips, service crosses and call tag processes, pick-up tips, and FAQs for different types of situations the driver might encounter. The Contractor’s Companion is no longer available.
Uniform and Appearance Drivers must wear the FedEx uniform and maintain a professional appearance. The Operating Agreement provides that the uniform should be “maintained in good condition” and the driver will “keep his/her personal appearance consistent with reasonable standards of good order as maintained by competitors and promulgated from time to time by [FedEx].” OA, ¶ 1.12. The uniform is required because “the presentation of a consistent image and standard of service to customers throughout the system is essential in order to be competitive . . . and to permit recognition and prompt access to customers’ places of business.” Id. Senior Manager of Contract Relations Emmanuel Monti testified that the FedEx driver “is the most highly visible person out there . . . and his physical appearance, the way he interfaces with customers, tells a lot about the company and tells the customer basically whether they want to continue to do business
14

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 15 of 103
[with FedEx].” Monti Dep., pp. 202-203. Central Division Vice President Robert Holcombe testified that the drivers’ “[a]ppearance is important because of the brand and the importance of brand image,” which allows the drivers “access into customers’ locations.” Holcombe Dep., p. 216. Mr. Holcombe also testified that the FedEx logo is important for advertising and marketing of the brand. Holcombe Dep., pp. 259-260; see also Sullivan Dep., p. 263 (testifying that the drivers’ uniform and truck are used to project FedEx’s image).3
FedEx terminal managers generally observe drivers’ appearance and check for compliance with paragraph 1.12 of the Operating Agreement. FedEx Admission (Set 1), No. 12, at 32. The terminal managers are supposed to make sure that the drivers are both in proper uniform and properly groomed before they go out to service FedEx customers. Sullivan Dep., p. 187. The senior manager has the authority to tell drivers they can’t service customers if they aren’t in proper uniform or aren’t properly groomed. Sullivan Dep., pp. 187-188.
Vehicles Contractors are responsible for obtaining their vehicles, and they bear all costs and expenses associated with their vehicles, such as vehicle payments, fuel, taxes, insurance, and maintenance. OA, ¶ 1.3 (contractor required to bear all
3 Between 2004 and 2007, FedEx spent more than $1.1 billion in advertising and promoting its brand.
15

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 16 of 103
costs and expenses incidental to operation of the equipment, including risks of depreciation, maintenance, fuel, oil, tires, repairs, taxes, insurance coverage, etc.).
Each vehicle must be painted “FedEx White” and bear FedEx logos and advertising. While federal regulations require that FedEx’s name be legibly marked on two sides of the truck, FedEx’s marking requirements extend beyond federal regulations. Scapellato Rept. (Nov. 8, 2007), pp. 16-17 (“Although obviously not specifically required by the regulations, business markings and branding displayed on the vehicle obviously provide more effective notice to the public who is performing the transportation service.”). The drivers can use their vehicles for other commercial or personal purposes when not actually carrying FedEx packages, as long as they mask or remove the identifying marks and logos. OA, ¶ 1.5.
The Operating Agreement provides that “subject to the determination of [FedEx] of its suitability for the service called for in this Agreement, the selection and replacement of the Equipment is within the discretion of Contractor.” OA, ¶ 1.1. Vehicles must, though, meet FedEx’s minimum specifications — e.g., maximum height, width, and length; maximum bumper height; interior shelving requirements; and, in some cases, age restrictions. The vehicle goes through a FedEx approval process based on these specifications. Robert Flesher (Managing Director of Vehicle Maintenance) Dep., pp. 135-136 (2007), pp. 39-40 (2006). FedEx decides what size and configuration of truck is appropriate for a particular
16

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 17 of 103
route. FedEx’s Answers to Interrogatories (Set 5) # 301, at 32. Senior Vice President of Terminal Operations Michael Mannion testified that FedEx reserves the right to approve or reject a particular vehicle if its size isn’t sufficient to provide service to the primary service area. Mannion Dep., p. 239. FedEx managers “look at every single situation separately with every contractor and really understand what his business plan is going to be” when determining the proper size of a truck for a particular area. Mannion Dep., p. 239. A contractor with a vehicle that doesn’t meet FedEx’s minimum requirements can still request approval through an exception process. Flesher Dep., pp. 143-145.
Before 2008, FedEx purchased fleets of vehicles built to its specifications that contractors could buy or lease. FedEx also entered into relationships with outside vendors who offered financing or leasing of vehicles to contractors. In 2008, FedEx began outsourcing all its van sales to outside vendors and is now removed from the sales process.
FedEx has the right to evaluate contractors’ trucks to ensure they comply with FedEx appearance standards and DOT guidelines. OA, ¶ 1.12 (“[T]he Equipment shall be maintained in a clean and presentable fashion free of body damage and extraneous markings, in accordance with the standards of the industry.”); James Krappa (Managing Director for Contractor Relations) Dep., pp. 156-157; Flesher Dep. pp. 83-84 (Sept. 2007). Terminal managers also must ensure proper completion of monthly maintenance record forms reflecting any
17

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 18 of 103
repairs or maintenance work the driver performed on his vehicle. RVEH-002 at 1 (Pl. Exh. 2: 1480); see also Ground OA ¶ 1.2 (“Contractor agrees to provide [FedEx] with proof of timely maintenance and inspection of the Equipment in accordance with the periodic mandatory vehicle maintenance and inspection regulations administered or required by any federal, state or municipal agency with jurisdiction over the operations described in this Agreement.”). FedEx should conduct an inspection of the vehicle every thirty days. Terminal managers have discretion to remove a vehicle from service if it doesn’t meet appearance standards or the driver fails to timely submit maintenance reports. See, e.g., OA, ¶ 1.2. Alternatively, the manager can discuss the matter with the contractor.
FedEx expert James Scapellato explained that for vehicles weighing 10,001 pounds or more, FedEx, “as the responsible motor carrier, must periodically examine or inspect an owner-operator’s vehicle to determine safety compliance with vehicle parts and accessories standards and out-of-service criteria.” Scapellato Rept. (Nov. 8, 2007), p. 11; Scapellato Rept. (Jan. 8, 2007), p. 21; see also 49 C.F.R. § 396.3 (requiring inspection, repair, and maintenance of motor vehicles). Paragraph 1.2 of the Operating Agreement requires contractors to maintain their vehicle at their own expense, in accordance with the safety and equipment standards specified in applicable federal, state, and municipal laws.
Tools and Instrumentalities
18

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 19 of 103
Under the Operating Agreement, the contractor “shall not be required to purchase or rent any products, equipment, or services from [FedEx] as a condition to entering into [the agreement].” OA, ¶ 7. Contractors can obtain most of the tools, instrumentalities, and services they need, such as uniforms, scanners, printers and communications-related equipment, DOT inspections, and equipment washing services, from FedEx’s Business Support Package. FXHD OA, ¶ 7 and Addend. 6; FXG OA, ¶ 7 and Addend. 7. Contractors pay for these supplies and services through deductions from their weekly settlement. FedEx’s BSP is an optional program, but ninety-nine percent of contractors participate. The BSP also includes Contractor Assistance, which before June 2007 consisted of the following programs: battery program, back-up camera program, body repair program, hand truck program, preventative maintenance program, rear door program, and tire program. The Contractor Assistance was revised in June 2007 to eliminate the contractors’ ability to purchase equipment or pay for maintenance under the program.
Contractors also can participate in the Maintenance Loan Program. In early 2006, the Maintenance Loan Program was added as a FedEx Home Delivery settlement component. Under this program, FedEx provides contractors with loans against the balance in their Service Guarantee Account4 to fund maintenance
4 FedEx maintains an interest-bearing fund for the contractor to save for unexpected expenses, which may be withdrawn at the contractor’s discretion.
19

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 20 of 103
costs. FXHD OA, ¶ 5; FXG OA, ¶ 8. Contractors must repay the loans through deductions from their weekly settlement.
Typically, FedEx terminals have package handling equipment, belts for moving packages to the vehicles, a staging area, a “Quality Assurance area” for processing packages, assigned parking spaces for drivers to park their vehicle while loading, and a check-in area. FedEx also has developed proprietary automated overhead laser sorting technologies, computer systems and software for tracking packages, and processes for customer payments.
Compensation and Benefits Contractors are paid weekly, and compensation rates and formulae are set forth in the Operating Agreement at ¶ 4.1 and Addendum 3; compensation includes daily rates, piece rates, and various bonuses, including a bonus for years of service and performance. The compensation amounts vary by individualized factors, such as the type of vehicle used, number of packages delivered and stops serviced, weight and nature of the packages, miles traveled, temporary core zone density, and time of service. Ground contractors participating in the “Flex Program” receive a daily “flex fee.” OA, ¶ 4.1 and Addend. 3. When contracting with an entity, FedEx pays the entity, not the individual driver. The temporary core zone density is paid to contractors providing services in low density, low package volume areas; the core zone payment is reduced or
20

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 21 of 103
eliminated as density or volume increases. OA, ¶ 4.1(c). Until 2007, core zone compensation was prorated if the driver provided pick-up or delivery services for less than seven hours in one day. FedEx removed the hours reference and now conditions full payment of the core zone settlement on the driver making a minimum number of stops, which assumes, in part, expected daily work hours.
Compensation rates aren’t negotiated, though some contractors have requested and received changes to their core zone density settlement. See CRL-55, p. 2 (“A [driver] may . . . request a service ride to evaluate temporary core zone density settlement.”). Contractors can choose to not sign a yearly modified settlement addendum.
Contractors also can receive the “Contractor Customer Service” bonus, a monthly performance-based bonus that drivers receive when they achieve certain safety and customer service goals — e.g., no at-fault accidents, no verified customer complaints. FXHD OA, Addend. 8; FXG OA, Addend. 6. A contractor can expunge one verified customer complaint from his record and still receive the CCS bonus if he or his driver participates in the CARE training program. FedEx notes that the CCS bonus structure has changed over time — some requirements have been eliminated in the current version of the Operating Agreement — and the bonus applies differently to Ground and Home Delivery drivers.
At Ground, the CCS bonus includes a weekly “Pick-Up Service Bonus.” The requirements for the Pick-Up Service Bonus have changed over time; today’s
21

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 22 of 103
version indicates that contractors will receive the bonus when there are no missed pick-ups, all scheduled pick-ups are made within the requested windows (with a twenty-minute grace period at the end of the pick-up window), and the scanner is used to process all pick-up stops (with the allowance of two instances of noncompliance per month for late pick-ups and/or manual reconciliations for improper use of the scanner). FXG OA, Addend. 6.
Before 2007, the CCS bonus included a “Terminal Group Performancerelated Bonus.” Contractors were eligible for the bonus if their terminal met its inbound service goal for a particular period. The bonus was issued on a terminalwide basis, so either all the contractors at the terminal received the bonus, or no one did. FXG 2004 OA, Addend. 6; FXHD 2004 OA, Addend. 8.
FedEx offers its contractors certain benefits, such as a driver-funded retirement plan, matching contributions to the “Service Guarantee Account,” a college scholarship for drivers with children, and a time-off program based on seniority. FedEx has no responsibility to make deductions for, or to pay, health, welfare, and pension costs, withholding for income taxes, unemployment insurance premiums, Social Security taxes, or any other similar charges. OA, ¶ 4.2. FedEx issues contractors a Form 1099 at each year end, and the contractors report their taxes as independent contractors. Each contractor agrees to obtain and keep work accident or workers compensation insurance, but, at his option, can obtain coverage under a policy negotiated by FedEx. OA, ¶ 3.6.
22

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 23 of 103
Delivery Information FedEx drivers must record information about all package deliveries. OA, ¶ 1.10(d). Paragraph 1.10(d) of the Operating Agreement requires contractors to “provide such electronic and/or manual data pertaining to package handling,” as necessary to achieve “efficient pick-up, delivery, handling, loading and unloading of packages and equipment.” OA, ¶ 1.10(d). While package delivery information can be recorded manually, the vast majority of drivers use FedEx scanners. FedEx employees testified that a scanner isn’t required, see Julie Brooks (Senior Manager for FHD) Dep., p. 303, but Mr. Sullivan testified that contractors must use a scanner so that customers can track their packages. Sullivan Dep., p. 214. FedEx manuals state that “[e]very package and Call Tag assigned to a P&D contractor for delivery must be scanned with a STAR scanner . . . [except in] contingency situations . . . . The P&D contractor records legible delivery information and obtains a legible recipient signature (when required) at the time of delivery.” Pl. Exh. 2:282-283; Pl. Exh. 2:296-297. The scanners are connected to FedEx’s computer system and transmit package tracking information to FedEx’s website for customers to view. Drivers are required to record on-duty, dispatch and return times, package tracking information, and odometer readings. As a motor carrier, federal regulations require FedEx to monitor the drivers’ on-duty time and driving time. Scapellato Rept. (Nov. 8, 2007), p. 18. Certain shipping information, such as item
23

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 24 of 103
shipped, name of the shipper and consignee, and date of the shipment, also must be maintained under regulations.
Days and Hours of Service and Daily Work Assignments FedEx drivers are required to provide service on the days FedEx is open for operation, meaning the days FedEx agrees to provide service to customers. OA, ¶ 1.10(a); Sullivan Dep., p. 171. The company has authority to change the days of service. Sullivan Dep., p. 182. Ground drivers generally work Monday through Friday, and Home Delivery drivers generally work Tuesday through Saturday. Under the Operating Agreement, “[t]he company reserves the right to name the work days preceding and following any holiday falling on or in conjunction with a weekend.” OA, Addend. 3(II)(D). There is no set time that a contractor must be at the terminal, but “[a] contractor is not supposed to leave the terminal [at the start of the day] until all his packages are available to him.” Michael Mannion (Sr. V.P. Terminal Operations) Dep., p. 305. Mr. Mannion explained that this is more of an expectation for drivers’ convenience, not a requirement. Mannion Dep., pp. 379380. While at the terminal, either the driver or a FedEx employee loads the packages onto the truck. FedEx procedures indicate that drivers should perform a “check-out” with their manger before leaving the terminal. Managers may provide the drivers with a delivery manifest, review drivers’ settlement report and
24

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 25 of 103
deliveries made the previous day, or discuss any DNAs (packages where delivery was not attempted) or other service failures with the driver. The manifest lists the packages for delivery that day; this information may be loaded directly on the scanner. Although drivers in the Home Delivery division are given turn-by-turn directions, these directions are only a tool for the contractors to use. FXHD OA, ¶ 1.14; FXHD OA, ¶ 1.15 (“[N]o officer, agent or employee of [FedEx] shall have the authority to prescribe . . . . what route the Contractor is to follow.”).
Drivers are responsible for attempting delivery of every package in their work area each day and every package assigned under the Flex Program, if applicable. Although FedEx requires the contractors to try to make all deliveries assigned for that day, drivers can choose to hire someone to fulfill their route obligations. Drivers aren’t required to appear at pick-up and delivery stops at specific times, except when FedEx negotiates a pick-up or delivery window at a customer’s request; drivers then must make the appointed pick-ups or deliveries within that window of time or make other arrangements through FedEx or directly with the customer. For example, Ground drivers who pickup from a FedEx World Shipping Center or FedEx Kinko’s can’t do so before 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., respectively. FedEx also offers Home Delivery customers evening service that guarantees that the package will be delivered between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. FedEx Home Delivery drivers must provide those services when FedEx requests or pass them over to another driver. Senior Manager of Home Delivery Julie
25

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 26 of 103
Brooks testified that she would consider a contractor’s refusal to comply with those services a service failure. Brooks Dep., pp. 11-12.
Home Delivery drivers aren’t required to return to the terminal at the end of their day, but Ground drivers who pick up customer packages must return by a certain time and perform a “check-in” process with their service manager. If Home Delivery or Ground drivers collect charges for C.O.D. packages, they are required to return the charges to the terminal at the end of the day. OA, ¶ 1.8 (“Contractor . . . agrees to collect any charges owed by shippers and recipients and to return all collected charges to [FedEx] at the end of each business day.”). The drivers must mark and return to the terminal all undelivered packages. OA, ¶ 1.11. Managers are supposed to track daily the number of stops assigned to each driver and, at the end of the day, the actual number of stops made.
FedEx drivers typically are required to flex packages. Flexing is the daily expansion or contraction of a drivers’ work area; it involves the movement of packages or stops from one work area to another if the volume of packages or stops is more than a driver reasonably can handle. P&D Planning Seminar Participant Manual, TM-410PRes, Version 2.0. Under the Home Delivery Operating Agreement, contractors agree to “[p]rovide daily delivery and pick-up service . . . within Contractor’s Primary Service Area . . . and in such other areas as Contractor may from time-to-time be asked to service.” FXHD OA, ¶ 1.10(a). Under the Ground Operating Agreement, drivers agree to provide services “in such
26

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 27 of 103
other areas as Contractor may be asked to provide service in the event Contractor elects to participate in the Flex Program.” FXG OA, ¶ 1.10(a). More than ninetynine percent of Ground drivers participate in the Flex Program. FXG OA, ¶ 9 (“By electing to participate, Contractor agrees to accept packages from outside Contractor’s Primary Service Area for pick-up and delivery, up to daily pick-up and delivery capacity . . . when requested to do so by FedEx Ground terminal management.”). Contractors previously were restricted from flexing packages informally among themselves.5
For both Ground and Home Delivery, the Operating Agreement states that “on any day where the volume of packages available for delivery or pick-up in the Contractor’s Primary Service Area exceeds the volume that Contractor can reasonably be expected to handle on such day, [FedEx] may reassign a portion of such packages to another contractor.” OA, ¶ 1.10(a).
The Operating Agreement says FedEx “will seek to manage its business so that it can provide sufficient volume of packages to Contractor to make full use of Contractor’s equipment.” OA, Background. To accomplish this, FedEx would try to structure the drivers’ routes so vehicles are in use nine to eleven hours per day; this measurement was called the “Service Flex Range” and would vary between facilities. The Service Flex Range represented “the minimum and maximum
5
The reengineered OPR-716 excludes any restriction on contractors’ informally trading or “flexing” packages amongst themselves. Compare FedEx Exh. B-14 with FedEx Exh. B-27.
27

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 28 of 103
number of stops that can be delivered by a trained contractor working at ‘industry standard’ time [on that particular route].” Operations Management Handbook, Ch. 2 (2001). FedEx replaced the “Service Flex Range” in the Fall of 2005 with a metric guideline called the “Delivery Stop Guideline” that eliminates the minimum stops, but otherwise is similar to the “Service Flex Range.” The new metric guideline also sets forth a maximum number of stops a driver, while utilizing his vehicle fully, reasonably can handle on any given day. These measurements are used to determine the flexing of packages.
Management and Supervision FedEx managers are expected to conduct at least two business discussions each year with each contractor; in August 2005, this goal was clarified as not mandatory because it is a procedure, not a mandatory policy. OPR 560 (procedure); UNV-001 (describing difference between policies and procedures). Business discussions are a means for managers to provide recommendations and counseling to contractors in performing their contracted work. A manager or contractor might request a business discussion to review the contractor’s overall performance or operation, to document agreed predetermined flexes, to discuss customer feedback or complaints, or to address issues that arise between the manager and contractor. CRL-560, at 1-2 (2006). For example, a FedEx manager can request a business discussion to discuss DNAs, missed pick-ups, or improper
28

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 29 of 103
documentation, to suggest ways the contractor can improve his performance, or to provide positive feedback on the contractor’s safe driving or customer service skills. While FedEx may not be able to force the contractor to engage in a business discussion, not participating will reflect poorly on the contractor upon contract renewal. Mannion Dep., pp. 278-279. The manager documents the meetings on a FedEx form and keeps the information in the contractor’s business discussions file. These documents can be used to support contract termination.
A FedEx driver’s performance is reviewed through various audits and customer service rides. Managers are to conduct daily van service audits of every driver to ensure compliance with FedEx procedures for undelivered packages; the resulting reports reflect any packages the driver didn’t try to deliver and the driver’s scanning compliance rate. FedEx also hires security specialists to do random in-route van security reviews, during which they inspect drivers’ vehicles to verify that drivers are securing the vehicles properly when delivering packages, e.g., the vehicle isn’t left running, the bulkhead door is closed, and packages are secured. See Loss Prevention Manual, Vehicle Security Review, p. 18, Pl. Exh. 4:587 (describing the procedure that loss prevention staff should follow during vehicle security reviews). Failing to secure a vehicle is a violation of the Operating Agreement and should result in a business discussion with the contractor.
At FedEx Home Delivery, FedEx reserves the right to perform driver release audits to ensure proper release of packages to customers without their signature.
29

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 30 of 103
A driver release audit involves the manager going out on a driver’s route for about ten stops after the driver leaves the terminal. The manager follows the driver and sometimes interviews customers to determine whether the driver is releasing customers’ packages properly. See HD Driver Release Audits Participant Manual, TM-406PRes (12/03), Pl. Exh. 4:521 (“The driver release audit program focuses on how to better serve the external customer by ensuring the proper methods are used when driver releas[es] packages . . . . As a service manager, you have an important role in communicating the most effective methods of driver releasing packages, and ensuring the contractors see the importance of being customer focused.”). After the driver-release audit, the manager generally offers suggestions for improvement. FedEx presents evidence that the audits aren’t applied uniformly company-wide and terminal managers have discretion in enforcing driver release procedures. The frequency of the audits has changed during the relevant period from quarterly to yearly, and the procedure is done only at residences.
Contractors approved for the Residential Driver Release Program won’t be liable for loss resulting from a proper driver release. If no signature is required, the driver must leave the package in an approved area, out of public sight, and in a location that isn’t accessible to animals or susceptible to weather damage. FXHD OA, “Residential Driver Release Program” Addend. The Driver Release Program indemnifies contractors for packages released to residences, not businesses. Drivers should leave packages at businesses without a signature only when the
30

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 31 of 103
driver has written approval from the recipient. DLV-005 - FedEx Procedure: Driver Released Packages, FXG.
Mr. Sullivan testified that driver release procedures for both residential and business deliveries are rules that contractors should follow. Sullivan Dep., pp. 226-227. Terminal managers should hold a business discussion with any contractor who doesn’t follow the procedures, and the contractor might lose his CCS bonus. Sullivan Dep., p. 227. Conversely, Vice President of Contractor Relations Robert Ostrov described the driver release procedures as recommendations. Ostrov Dep., pp. 236-237.
FedEx managers must conduct two, but not more than four, customer service rides each year. CRL-555, p. 2. The customer service rides give managers a chance to see if drivers are complying with FedEx’s customer service standards and to ensure that drivers are operating their vehicles safely. FXHD OA, ¶ 1.13; FXG OA, ¶ 1.14 (“[Q]ualified [FedEx] terminal personnel may, at their option, visit customer locations with Contractor four times annually to verify that Contractor is meeting the standards of customer service provided in this Agreement.”). Managers’ goals during the customer service rides might include reviewing pickup and delivery methods, customer contact skills, safe driving techniques, and critical safe behaviors; developing accurate contractor service flex range (min/max); providing training on new scanner functions; and maintaining a positive relationship between the terminal management and driver. CSR
31

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 32 of 103
Participant Manual, Pl. Exh. 4:361. Robert Ostrov testified that “the customer service rides are an attempt to generally observe how the contractor is running his route, running his business, without drilling down on the specifics[,]” such as how he turns off the vehicle, what he does with his keys, how he puts the scanner in his belt, how he enters the rear portion of the truck, etc. Ostrov Dep., pp. 244245.
The CSR Seminar document sets forth a number of items managers should observe during the ride, including the driver’s check-out and check-in routines; how the driver operates, parks, and enters and exits the vehicle; the driver’s delivery and pickup methods; and any delay time by the driver in performing the work. CSR Seminar, Pl. Exh. 4:451-462. For example, the CSR Seminar lists several things a manager should record when a driver makes a delivery:
/ The type of stop / The number of steps to reach point of delivery / Attracts immediate attention and walks at a direct steady pace / Looks for alternate delivery locations upon approach / Looks for proper Driver Release location upon approach / Introduces themselves and is pleasant/courteous to customers / Proper scanning procedures followed / Efficient in deciding when to driver release / Shows good judgment in indirect delivery
32

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 33 of 103
/ Leaves a delivery notice upon indirect delivery / Driver releases packages according to guidelines and common sense / Delivery notice is complete and legible / Efficient in handling 100+ lb. packages / Scan appropriate barcodes / Applies proper exception codes in timely fashion / Efficient in bulk stop methods / Puts address of next stop into the scanner on way back to van CSR Seminar, Pl. Exh. 4:457. Managers’ observations are used to make suggestions to the contractors to improve their work performance. A standard FedEx Customer Service Ride Worksheet allows the manager and driver to report general information about the drivers’ performance in the areas of package quality at delivery, quality assurance, driver release, professional appearance (uniform and vehicle), customer courtesy, and service. During some customer service rides, FedEx managers also must complete a worksheet entitled, “Primary Service Area Analysis Worksheet,” to evaluate the contractor’s flex range and core zone. FedEx managers document the time the driver arrives and departs from each stop, the number of minutes at each stop, the number of minutes between stops, the last three digits of the driver’s odometer reading at each stop, and the approximate distance the driver must walk to pick up or deliver a package. CRL-555, at 3. FedEx presents evidence that managers vary in how they
33

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 34 of 103
conduct customer service rides, the number of rides they perform each year, and what they review during the rides.
In addition to customer service rides, managers should annually discuss with the driver his business plan. CRL-560, p. 3. In the annual business plan discussion, managers “document discussion areas, problems, solutions agreed upon, predetermined flex(es), and the expectations of an individual contractor.” CRL-560, p. 3. The documentation provides a record of the mutual commitments undertaken by FedEx and the driver. CRL-560, p. 3. The form provides spaces for the manager to document or compile the following information: the contractor’s total number of stops, packages, miles, and DOT hours of work; anticipated changes in the contractor’s primary service area; the condition and appearance of the contractor’s equipment; any deficiencies and expected correction dates; the number and type of complaints the contractor has received in the last twelve months; the contractor’s contingency plan in the event of a vehicle break-down; and any comments or questions the contractor might have.
FedEx presents evidence that business discussions, customer service rides, and audits result in recommendations, not mandatory policies that must be followed. See, e.g., 2003 OPR 555 (2003), p. 2 (“Terminal management is to use [Contractor Customer Service Worksheet] as a consulting tool to provide recommendations to contractor.”); CSR Participant Manual (2005), Pl. Exh. 4:321 (stating that managers are consultants and can make recommendations, but can’t
34

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 35 of 103
require a contractor to follow methods, manner, or means of achieving desired results; the manager is to observe and make recommendations). As part of FedEx’s 2005 Document Reengineering Initiative, FedEx revised CRL-555 (formerly OPR 555) to make clear that feedback based on customer service rides constitutes a “recommendation,” not mandatory instruction, and that “[t]he contractor is solely responsible for exercising independent discretion and judgment to achieve business objectives” addressed by possible recommendations. 2005 CRL-555, p. 1.
The customer service rides, audits, and resulting business discussions, however, are at times used to instruct contractors that they have violated the contract for having DNAs or customer complaints, improperly scanning or recording packages, missing pick-up windows, or not complying with safety regulations, among other service failures. Contractors sometimes are warned that violations might result in contract termination if not remedied. In fact, FedEx tracks information listing contractors in jeopardy of losing their contracts for having an at-fault accident, customer complaint, or missed pick-up. Pl. Exh. 4:187, Instructions for using worksheet “Contractors in Jeopardy.”
Reconfiguration, Expansion,or Sale of Primary Service Area FedEx can reconfigure a contractor’s Primary Service Area upon five days’ written notice, unless the driver shows during that period that he can continue
35

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 36 of 103
to service the area. FXHD OA, ¶ 6.2; FXG OA, ¶ 5.2 (“During such notice period, [FedEx] shall give Contractor the opportunity, using means satisfactory to [FedEx], to continue to provide in such Primary Service Area the level of service called for in this Agreement. In the event Contractor is not able to provide reasonable means to continue to service the Primary Service Area, [FedEx] may, in its sole discretion, reconfigure such area.”). The Operating Agreement requires compensation to the contractor if reconfiguration results in less customers or accounts, FXHD OA, ¶ 6.4, Addend. 5; FXG OA, ¶ 5.3; contractors may also be able to sell excess stops as an alternative to reconfiguration. Managers should review work area alignment twice a year to improve pick-up and delivery productivity and service through the restructuring of work areas. The goal is to provide each contractor with a full day’s work using the service flex range valuation. Management above the terminal level conducts what is called a “P&D Tune-up” about once a year to determine, in part, whether the terminal’s work areas are configured appropriately to maximize terminal capacity. The P&D Tune-up normally results in a recommendation to reconfigure contractors’ work areas.
Drivers can expand their routes by acquiring additional service areas from FedEx or other contractors as they become available, subject to FedEx approval. The opportunity to acquire additional routes depends largely on the terminal. OA, ¶ 2.1 (“Contractor may, with the consent of [FedEx] and consistent with the capacity of the terminal serviced by Contractor, own and operate more than one
36

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 37 of 103
vehicle, with any such additional vehicles to be driven by qualified operators employed by Contractor.”). FedEx restricts the maximum number of routes a contractor can own at any one terminal, but FedEx’s Chief Operating Officer or Chief Executive Officer can make exceptions to this rule. Until 2005, contractors were prohibited from obtaining a second route within their first year of contracting. Contractors with more than one route — multiple work area contractors — have a greater opportunity to profit from their routes than single work area contractors. The percentage of multiple work area contractors differs between terminals.
Contractors have a proprietary interest in their routes and can sell them upon thirty days written notice to FedEx. The new driver assignee must be acceptable to FedEx as qualified to provide services under the Operating Agreement. FXHD OA, ¶ 15; FXG OA, ¶ 18 (allowing contractors to assign their rights and obligations to an approved replacement contractor). The assignee must meet the same minimum requirements and is subject to the same screening as contractors and temporary drivers. CRL-551, at 5 (“An individual applying to be a contractor/temporary driver must be prescreened and/or extensively reviewed or tested prior to completing the CDAS online application.”). A driver whose contract is terminated by FedEx for cause can’t assign his contractual rights to others.
37

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 38 of 103
Length and Termination of Operating Agreements Contractors enter into Operating Agreements for an initial term of one, two, or three years (depending on the contractor’s election) that automatically renews for another one-year term if there is no notice of non-renewal. Non-renewal of the contract is permitted by either party upon thirty days written notice before the term expires. FXHD OA, ¶ 8.2; FXG OA, ¶ 11.2. The Operating Agreement allows termination: (1) by the parties’ mutual agreement; (2) if the contractor or his driver(s) engages in intentional misconduct or reckless or willful negligent operation of the vehicular equipment; (3) by either party “if the other party breaches or fails to perform the contractual obligations imposed by [the] Agreement[;]”(4) if FedEx stops doing business in all or part of the terminal service area or, as a result of decline in business, reduces operations in all or part of the service area; or (5) upon termination by the contractor upon thirty days’ written notice. FXHD OA, ¶ 9.1; FXG OA, ¶ 12.1. FedEx sets forth procedures that managers should use if they decide to recommend termination of a “contractor who has breached or failed to perform . . . contractual obligations, as evidenced by repeated customer complaints, failure to service his/her work area, integrity issues, unsafe driving, D.O.T. and/or maintenance violations, or other such problems.” RCRL-162, at 5, Pl. Exh. 2:786. Managers should compile documentation of specific contract violations that would support a recommendation to terminate and use FedEx’s business discussion
38

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 39 of 103
process to tell the contractor if his contract is in jeopardy. Managers then discuss the recommendation with the regional managing director, who also considers whether contract termination is appropriate, i.e., whether the supporting documentation is complete, accurate, and legible; whether steps were taken to counsel, train, and otherwise help the contractor in overcoming the documented shortcomings; and how the contractor’s performance compares with other contractors at the same terminal.
If the regional managing director agrees that contract termination is appropriate, the file is forwarded to Contractor Relations for more internal review. Contractor Relations independently reviews the submitted record for breaches of the Operating Agreement. Contractor Relations has at times declined to concur and denied a proposed termination if valid grounds for doing so under the Operating Agreement were lacking. If Contractor Relations concurs that termination is warranted, FedEx’s legal department reviews the file.
After the internal review process is complete, the regional managing director notifies the senior manager/operations manager of the appropriate actions to take. RCRL-162, at 5-5, Pl. Exh. 2:786-787; OP-162, Pl. Exh. 3:7-8. The Operating Agreement contains a mandatory arbitration clause if the contractor asserts a claim for wrongful termination. FXHD OA, ¶ 9.3 and Addend. 7; FXG OA, ¶ 12.3. If the arbitrator decides that termination wasn’t within the terms of the Agreement, FedEx can either reinstate the contractor with damages from the date
39

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 40 of 103
of termination through the date of reinstatement or, alternatively, terminate the contractor with damages from the date of termination through expiration of the contract term. FXG OA, ¶ 12.3(e); FXHD OA, Addend. 7, ¶ 5).
II. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Kansas plaintiffs are FedEx employees or independent contractors. Before the court can address the motions for summary judgment, it must resolve several evidentiary issues raised by the parties. First, FedEx argues that the Operating Agreement’s merger clause limits the court’s review of the evidence to the four corners of the agreement. Second, FedEx has moved to strike plaintiffs’ individualized proof submitted in support of their summary judgment motions. Finally, the plaintiffs have filed three motions to augment the record.
A. MERGER CLAUSE FedEx bases its summary judgment motion on the terms in the Operating Agreement alone, contending that the merger clause in the Operating Agreement prevents the plaintiffs from relying on outside evidence, including FedEx policies and procedures. The merger provision states: “This Agreement, the Addenda hereto, and the Attachment to the Addenda, constitute the entire agreement and understanding between the parties . . . . This Agreement, the Addenda and
40

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 41 of 103
Attachments shall not be modified, altered, changed or amended in any respect unless in writing and signed by both parties.” FXG OA, ¶ 13, FXHD OA, ¶ 10. FedEx Policy-007 similarly provides that the Operating Agreement and its addenda can’t be modified unless in writing signed by both parties. Policy-007 states that the Operating Agreement and addenda “set forth the mutual obligations and objectives of FedEx Ground and the independent contractor owner-operators and must be adhered to by all officers, managers, agents and employees of FedEx Ground.” The Operating Agreement doesn’t generally incorporate FedEx policies and procedures.
FedEx reasons that the Operating Agreement alone governs the parties’ relationship and doesn’t contain any provisions requiring contractors to follow FedEx’s policies and procedures. The policies and procedures are, on their face, directed to FedEx employees, not to the plaintiffs. FedEx asserts that the policies and procedures generally aren’t shared with contractors because contractors aren’t bound by them. The policies and procedures, according to FedEx, “do not -and cannot -- reserve any rights that would conflict with the terms of the OA and its disclaimer of a right to control.”
The drivers respond that the court isn’t deciding whether the Operating Agreement creates an enforceable independent contractor relationship under contract law. Rather, they assert that the Operating Agreement and FedEx’s generally applicable corporate policies and procedures provide relevant evidence
41

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 42 of 103
concerning the relationship between FedEx and its drivers. The drivers reason that FedEx can’t contractually restrict the sources of relevant evidence bearing on the employment status inquiry. The corporate policies that empower FedEx’s managers to direct the drivers’ daily work activities, the drivers contend, are proof of FedEx’s retained right to control how drivers perform their work and are probative of the ultimate issue of whether the independent contractor label in the Operating Agreement is legally inaccurate.
The court generally agrees with the drivers. Pennsylvania law governs interpretation and construction of the Operating Agreement. FXHD, ¶ 16, FXG OA, ¶ 19. Were this a breach of contract dispute, the merger provision would, absent an ambiguity, fraud, or mistake, generally restrict the court’s review to the four corners of the agreement. Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425, 437 (Pa. 2004). But this isn’t a breach of contract dispute; it’s an employment dispute under the Kansas Wage Payment Act, and contract interpretation principles don’t necessarily apply. For example, the Kansas Supreme Court explained that when resolving employment status, “language in a contract that characterizes an individual as an independent contractor, rather than an employee, is not controlling.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Kansas Dep’t of Human Res., 32 P.3d 1146, 1154 (Kan. 2001). The Hartford Underwriters court stated that “such provisions in a contract are not effective to keep an
42

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 43 of 103
employer outside the purview of the [employment statute] when the established facts bring him within it.” Id.
The court’s focus should be on “what is done under the contract and not what it states.” Hartford Underwriters, 32 P.3d at 1154. Accordingly, “[t]he relationship of contracting parties depends on all the operative facts; the label which they choose to employ is only one of those facts.” Hartford Underwriters, 32 P.3d at 1154 (emphasis in original); see also Knoble v. National Carriers, Inc., 510 P.2d 1274, 1281 (Kan. 1973) (“[M]ere terminology cannot bind a court or prevent it from assessing the effect of the overall conduct of the parties.”).
The Operating Agreement’s merger clause doesn’t restrict the court to the four corners of the agreement when deciding employment status. FedEx notes, though, that the court has certified classes on the issue of right to control, not actual exercise of control. While FedEx is correct, the court finds it appropriate to review the policies and procedures that FedEx managers rely on when interacting with drivers to determine right to control. The court isn’t required to turn a blind eye to FedEx’s procedures implemented on a class-wide basis.
FedEx policies and procedures that fill out the broad terms of the Operating Agreement with more specific standards that FedEx managers are authorized and generally expected to enforce are probative of employment status. FedEx implemented these documents to guide the managers in their relationship with the drivers and to give meaning to what is more specifically expected under the
43

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 44 of 103
Operating Agreement. By putting such policies and procedures into place, FedEx acknowledges that the Operating Agreement depends on sources outside its four corners for implementation.
Further, Policy-007 doesn’t render other policies and procedures meaningless. The undisputed evidence establishes that FedEx management employees are expected to know the relevant policies and procedures and, to the extent it makes good business sense, follow them. FedEx’s right to control is restrained by the terms in the Operating Agreement, but to the extent the policies and procedures explain or more clearly or specifically define those terms, they are relevant and should be considered.
The court therefore finds it appropriate to consider the Operating Agreement and policies and procedures, as well, in deciding whether FedEx has a right to control its drivers on a class-wide basis.
B. FEDEX’S MOTION TO STRIKE FedEx says more than 1,600 pages of documents the plaintiffs filed with their summary judgment motions in class action states should be stricken because they contain individualized evidence. In its March 2008 class certification order (doc. # 1119), this court stated that it “has resolved these motions with the correlative assumption that the plaintiffs will not, at the summary judgment or trial stages, present evidence other than the Operating Agreement and generally
44

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 45 of 103
applicable FedEx policies.” Throughout the order, the court recognized the common application of the Operating Agreement and FedEx policies and procedures in determining the merits of class action cases, but indicated it wouldn’t consider any individualized evidence of the parties’ relationship.
In April 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Statement of Intent listing seven categories of evidence on which they intended to rely, asserting that such evidence is “common proof applicable to members of the class as a whole.” The court issued an order explaining that it didn’t read plaintiffs’ Statement of Intent to include “individualized evidence of driver intent and/or experience” and FedEx could file a motion to strike if plaintiffs included individualized evidence in their summary judgment motions. FedEx has filed its motion.
FedEx moves to strike the following evidence from the summary judgment record:
• A report listing hundreds of FedEx “Contractors in Jeopardy” of termination as a result of potential breaches of specific contractual obligations owed in the performance of the contractors’ duties
• Business discussion notes between managers and individual contractors
• Contractor Customer Service Ride Worksheets created during and at the conclusion of a contractor’s individual customer service “ridealong”
45

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 46 of 103
• Primary Service Area Analysis Worksheets detailing the package and load characteristics of a given contractor’s work area
• Business Plan Meeting Notes reflecting individual contractor’s circumstances, experiences, business goals, and approach to business
• Operator and Equipment Appearance Standard A.M. Checks (completed once per month) reflecting certain contractor’s circumstances on a particular day
• Safety Meeting Reports reflecting discussions at periodic voluntary safety meetings that take place in terminals around the country
FedEx asserts that those documents are contractor specific and anecdotal in nature and don’t represent the experiences of all contractors. By offering this evidence, FedEx contends the plaintiffs shift the substantive inquiry from the “right to control” under the Operating Agreement to an examination of the “reality of the relationship between drivers and FedEx across-the-board” and what managers across the country do “in fact.”
In response, the plaintiffs explain the relevance of the documents to the class-wide plaintiffs. They say that the report listing hundreds of FedEx “Contractors in Jeopardy” illustrates that drivers who have had an accident, customer complaint, or missed pickup are “in jeopardy” of contract termination. Further, the plaintiffs point out that the samples of completed forms submitted
46

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 47 of 103
show that FedEx managers document their regular oversight of drivers’ work performance, assignments, and training pursuant to FedEx policy. According to plaintiffs, the 128-page summary index of business discussion notes represents about two percent of the business discussion notes produced by FedEx. As FedEx policies require, FedEx managers throughout the country wrote those notes to document systematic counseling of drivers about a wide range of topics.
The plaintiffs offer these documents to prove that FedEx managers (1) systematically and routinely counsel drivers about compliance with a myriad of work methods established by FedEx; (2) follow FedEx’s written policies and procedures, including those applicable to drivers’ work methods; (3) evaluate, warn, discipline, and threaten to terminate drivers for violations of FedEx policies, procedures, and practices; (4) believe that the Operating Agreement and polices and procedures provide them with broad rights to control; and (5) limit drivers’ decision-making.
For the most part, the court agrees with FedEx. In class action summary judgment motions, the drivers can’t rely on individual contractors’ experiences — whether that information is in the form of a list of contractors in jeopardy, completed FedEx forms, or business discussions — to show FedEx’s right to control drivers on a class-wide basis. The detailed information the drivers produced represents anecdotal evidence of how FedEx treated individual drivers. Those instances amount to efforts to use actual control to show right to control.
47

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 48 of 103
The court has already explained that the plaintiffs can’t submit such individualized evidence in the class action lawsuits to prove employment status.
The substance of the drivers’ experiences contained in the submitted documents may differ from driver to driver, from manager to manager, and from terminal to terminal. For example, while each driver might have engaged in business discussions, the topic, number, and tone of the discussions would differ between drivers. FedEx presented evidence that managers have discretion in how and how often they conduct business discussions and what issues are addressed and their intended effect. Were the court to allow the plaintiffs to introduce evidence to show the substance of FedEx managers’ interaction with selected drivers, it would then have to allow FedEx the opportunity to produce contradictory evidence showing that other drivers weren’t treated in a similar fashion. Class actions can’t be based on such individualized evidence.
The plaintiffs have asked the court to review hundreds of “samples” of completed forms and business discussions and make generalizations about how all FedEx drivers were treated based on the experiences of the sample drivers. The court can’t make generalizations about the class as a whole from a review of the actual control FedEx exercised over a segment of drivers. The court’s analysis will focus on FedEx’s right to control all drivers based on the Operating Agreement and generally applicable polices and procedures.
48

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 49 of 103
The court does, however, look to the submitted evidence to see generally how FedEx implemented its policies and procedures on a class-wide basis, i.e., what forms managers used to evaluate drivers’ work methods, the information managers were expected to input, the information FedEx tracked for all drivers, and the general topics addressed between managers and drivers. For example, the court relies on the “Contractors in Jeopardy” to show that FedEx tracks contractors who have had an at-fault accident, complaint, or missed pick-up. The court also relies on the submitted documents to show that customer service rides, audits, and resulting business discussions are used at times to let contractors know they are in violation of their contract for service failures, which, if not remedied, could result in contract termination.
The court GRANTS FedEx’s motion to strike (doc. # 1389) to the extent the plaintiffs rely on the submitted documents to show individual contractors’ experiences in class certification cases. The court will consider the evidence to show generally how FedEx implemented its policies and procedures on a classwide basis. This ruling doesn’t apply to summary judgment motions filed in nonclass action cases.
C. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO AUGMENT RECORD The plaintiffs have moved to augment the summary judgment record with newly produced documents. In their first motion, the drivers seek to offer four
49

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 50 of 103
newly promulgated Addenda to the FedEx Operating Agreement and four newlyproduced IRS Notices of Proposed Assessment analyzing whether FedEx drivers are employees or independent contractors under the IRS’s right to control test. In their second motion, the drivers seek to offer FedEx’s Contractor Incorporation and Compliance Disclosure Announcement and a notification from FedEx’s president that Operating Agreements won’t be renewed, both dated May 2010. In their third motion, the plaintiffs seek to offer a decision of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and settlement between FedEx and the Department, a settlement agreement between the State of Massachusetts and FedEx, and transition announcements and ISP Transition guides in Tennessee, Massachusetts (including Albany, NY), Rhode Island, Vermont, Illinois, and Minnesota dated June or July 2010, explaining FedEx’s transition to its “Independent Service Provider Model.” The plaintiffs seek to offer these documents without further briefing.
The plaintiffs explain the materials they seek to introduce were produced after briefing concluded. The revisions to the Operating Agreement, the plaintiffs contend, are relevant and should be considered in deciding whether FedEx reserves any right to control the method, manner, or means of the drivers’ performance. The plaintiffs reason that the revisions show FedEx’s right to set and change at-will the continuing relationship between FedEx and its drivers and the compensation and means FedEx might use to enforce compliance with its rules.
50

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 51 of 103
FedEx responds that the newly-added Addenda should be rejected as cumulative because the documents are merely revisions of routine annual contract updates.
The Modified Term Addendum was given to drivers to sign in November or December 2009. It set a new contract termination date of May 15, 2010 for drivers who sign the Addendum. FedEx notes that this revision was for a limited number of contractors whose routes are based in or operate out of Maryland. Unless a contractor chooses to adopt the Modified Term Addendum and participate in the Maryland transition, the existing Operating Agreements and their terms remained in place.
The Employment Eligibility and Compliance Addendum, also given to drivers to sign in November or December 2009, requires E-Verify for all new hiring. FedEx explains that federal immigration laws require the E-Verify system. As a federal contractor, FedEx is required to ensure that subcontractors use E-Verify.
The Safe Driving Program and CCS Addendum were provided to drivers in January 2010, and revised versions were provided to contractors later. FedEx’s new Safe Driving Program imposes more restrictions on contractors’ ability to hire and retain workers. The drivers explain that the Program supercedes various Operating Agreement provisions and requires contractors to review and disqualify existing helpers or assistants who don’t meet the new requirements, authorizes FedEx to judge the “guilt” of a driver arrested for various infractions and temporarily disqualify those it finds likely to be found guilty, and mandates
51

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 52 of 103
termination of drivers for certain traffic offenses. The CCS Addendum changes the terms of the CCS bonus by precluding a contractor from receiving the bonus for three consecutive months upon disqualification under the “Safe Driving Addendum.”
FedEx notes that participation in the Enhanced CCS Program is contingent upon participation in the new Safe Driving Program. The revised Safe Driving Program Addendum was specifically “developed to further improve safety performance by rewarding contractors who operate safely each and every day.” A contractor who chooses to follow the requirements of the Enhanced CCS Program is “eligible to be paid . . . an individual, performance-related bonus.” These programs are optional, and a contractor who elects not to participate in the revised programs continues to operate under the existing Safe Driving Program and CCS bonus program in his Operating Agreement.
The drivers also seek to introduce IRS Notices of Proposed Assessment (NOPAs). On December 28, 2009, this court affirmed the magistrate judge’s decision ordering FedEx to produce the IRS’s four draft NOPAs, finding that the NOPAs are relevant and FedEx has placed the IRS’s opinion of its driver model at issue. The drivers now seek permission to offer the notices to supplement the record. The drivers explain that the 2007 and 2009 NOPAs include a lengthy and detailed analysis of the relationship of the drivers to FedEx and each reaches the
52

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 53 of 103
conclusion that FedEx drivers are employees under the IRS Code’s right-to-control employment test.
FedEx says the NOPAs are irrelevant and don’t represent the IRS’s position because the 2007 NOPA was a draft and the 2009 NOPA has been withdrawn. Further, FedEx asserts that according to applicable law and the IRS’s own procedures, the application of Section 530 of the 1978 Revenue Act (safe harbor) renders the draft NOPAs of no substantive effect in establishing that any plaintiff or absent class member is an employee.
The plaintiffs respond that under the NOPAs’ plain language, the IRS found, after detailed analysis, that FedEx contractors are employees under the common law right-to-control test applied by the IRS. The drivers assert that the right-tocontrol analysis in the NOPAs provides persuasive authority that this court should consider. The IRS ultimately decided that the “safe harbor” prevented it from seeking back taxes from FedEx, so it didn’t issue a final determination of employee status. The drivers reason that the IRS’s “safe harbor” ruling doesn’t undercut the substance of the IRS’s prior analysis and conclusion that FedEx reserves the right to control how the drivers perform their work.
The drivers also seek to include documents provided to FedEx contractors in May 2010. The first document is the Contractor Incorporation and Compliance Disclosure Announcement, which provides generally that FedEx will contract only with incorporated entities, registered in good standing, who agree to treat all
53

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 54 of 103
personnel who provide services under the Operating Agreement as employees. Contractors must sign and submit a new Addendum once FedEx confirms these standards have been satisfied. The Announcement provides that all Operating Agreements will be non-renewed. Contractors fulfilling the terms of the Agreement will be eligible to continue a relationship with FedEx if they satisfy the new standards at least thirty days before their contract expiration date. The second document is a related letter from FedEx’s president. The drivers contend that the Announcement and letter show that FedEx retains the right to terminate at-will contracts unless and until the contractor conforms to FedEx’s latest business edict.
Finally, in the third motion to augment, plaintiffs seek to introduce a decision from the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development determining that under the Tennessee Employment Security Law, FedEx drivers are employees for certain purposes. FedEx appealed, and the Department and FedEx entered into a settlement agreement. The plaintiffs similarly seek to introduce an agreement entered into between FedEx and Massachusetts in response to an administrative finding that the drivers were employees under Massachusetts law. The plaintiffs contend that the settlement agreements reflect FedEx’s abandonment of its current business model and the introduction of its “Independent Service Provider Agreement,” including the non-renewal of all Operating Agreements in these states.
54

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 55 of 103
Beginning in June 2010, FedEx provided documents to drivers introducing its transition to the “Independent Service Provider Model” in Tennessee, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Illinois, and Minnesota and to certain contractors who work out of “cross-border” FedEx stations in neighboring states. According to the transition documents, for contractors to continue their relationship as FedEx pickup and delivery drivers, they must incorporate by a certain date, acquire at least three primary service areas within one terminal by a date certain, register with the state, and execute certain forms. The transition documents also indicate that Operating Agreements are non-renewed and swing routes will “cease to exist.” FedEx has offered incentives for drivers to terminate their current contracts and meet the requirements for this new model. The plaintiffs argue that these documents evidence FedEx’s right to dictate the method of the drivers’ performance and shows FedEx’s right to terminate and non-renew contracts at-will.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) provides in pertinent part that the “court may permit an affidavit to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or additional affidavits.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(1). The court has discretion to allow the drivers to supplement the summary judgment record. Wren v. McCain, 23 F.3d 411 (Table), No. 93-2183, 1994 WL 142884, at *2 (7th Cir. Apr. 20, 1994) (affirming magistrate judge’s decision permitting party to supplement summary judgment record after motion had been filed). The court
55

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 56 of 103
concludes that the submitted documents are relevant to only a small segment of the plaintiff classes, cumulative of the evidence already submitted, or of little evidentiary value. Accordingly, the court declines to allow the plaintiffs to supplement the record.
The Addenda to the Operating Agreement — Modified Term Addendum, Employment Eligibility and Compliance Addendum, Safe Driving Program and CCS Addendum — were provided to drivers in late 2009 or early 2010 and apply only to a small segment of the plaintiff classes: those working for FedEx in the last seven months who signed the new Addenda. The plaintiffs contend the Addenda evidence FedEx’s right to control the drivers by illustrating FedEx’s ability to change the terms of the parties’ agreement, but these Addenda are voluntary. It’s undisputed that FedEx can change the terms of the Operating Agreement upon the contractor’s voluntary signature to an Addendum and has retained the right to not renew contracts upon expiration of the contract term. Accordingly, further evidence showing FedEx’s ability to change the Operating Agreement’s terms by agreement of the contractors or by non-renewal of their contracts is cumulative.
The evidence is also of limited relevance. The Modified Term Addendum only applies to drivers whose routes are based in or operate out of Maryland and isn’t necessarily applicable to other classes. Federal immigration laws require the Employment Eligibility and Compliance Addendum. The Safe Driving Program imposes more restrictions on drivers’ ability to hire and retain workers, but is a
56

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 57 of 103
voluntary program tied to the Enhanced CCS Program. To receive the CCS bonus already in effect, contractors had to similarly comply with certain FedEx standards. These Addenda are cumulative of documents already in the record and of little relevance to the pending motions for summary judgment.
The Contractor Incorporation and Compliance Disclosure Announcement and letter from FedEx’s president were provided to FedEx contractors in May 2010, so their relevance is limited to drivers who were working for FedEx in the last several months. Because the documents illustrate FedEx’s right to not renew contracts after the stated term and to change the terms of new contracts, the evidence is cumulative and doesn’t shed additional light on the class members’ relationship with FedEx during the relevant class period. The court declines to augment the record with new Addenda that apply only to a small segment of contractors and are submitted for the purpose of showing that FedEx has the right to not renew the contractors’ agreements at the end of their term.
Further, the transition documents offered in plaintiffs’ third motion to augment only relate to eight states and are dated in June or July 2010. In those states, FedEx has changed its current business model and implemented the ISP Model in response to particularities of the states’ law. The new business model isn’t at issue in the cases in this docket. The documents merely show FedEx’s ability to non-renew contracts and to enter into new contracts with entities of its choosing; a right FedEx has retained under the Operating Agreement. FedEx has
57

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 58 of 103
also given the parties the option of ending their contracts early by offering transition incentive payments. The transition documents, therefore, are of limited relevance for the same reasons as the newly submitted Addenda.
Although the NOPAs may have some persuasive value, their value is limited because they don’t represent a final determination. This court required FedEx to produce the documents because they are relevant and material to this litigation, but relevancy for discovery can differ from relevancy for summary judgment purposes. The determination that FedEx drivers are employees under the common law right-to-control test as applied by the IRS is of little value without some showing that the applicable state or federal law at issue in the class action suit would give weight to such opinions.
Further, the Tennessee and Massachusetts settlements addressed in the plaintiffs’ third motion to augment the record are also of limited relevancy and not admissible to show liability. See FED. R. EVID. 408(a). The decision that resulted in the Tennessee settlement is also of limited persuasive authority because it doesn’t represent a final judgment on the merits. To the extent it has any persuasive authority, the court will only consider it in the Tennessee class action.
At this stage in the litigation, the relevancy of the newly submitted documents to the summary judgment motions doesn’t justify augmentation of the already voluminous record. The court therefore DENIES the plaintiffs’ motions to augment the record (docs. ## 1992, 2064, and 2087).
58

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 59 of 103
III. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A. STANDARD
The plaintiffs and FedEx have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to the interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). In deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, “the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). No genuine issue of material fact exists when a rational trier of fact couldn’t find for the nonmoving party even when the record as a whole is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Crull v. Sunderman, 384 F.3d 453, 459-460 (7th Cir. 2004). “The mere existence of an alleged factual dispute will not defeat a summary judgment motion; instead, the nonmovant must present definite, competent evidence in rebuttal.” Butts v. Aurora Health Care, Inc., 387 F.3d 921, 924 (7th Cir. 2004).
When cross motions for summary judgment confront the court, it must consider each party’s motion individually to determine if that party has satisfied the summary judgment standard. See McKinney v. Cadleway Props., Inc., 548 F.3d 496, 504 n.4 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The motions are treated separately.”); Midwest Title Loans, Inc. v. Ripley, 616 F. Supp. 2d 897, 902 (S.D. Ind. 2009) (“[C]ourts
59

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 60 of 103
must consider each party's motion individually to determine if that party has satisfied the summary judgment standard.”). The standard for determining whether summary judgment should issue is unchanged from that which applies when only a single party has moved for the relief. McKinney v. Cadleway Props., 548 F.3d at 500.
Whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor generally is considered a question of fact for the jury or trier of fact. McCubbin v. Walker, 886 P.2d 790, 795 (Kan. 1994). When the facts are undisputed or the evidence is susceptible of only a single conclusion, however, it is a question of law for the court. Id.
B. DISCUSSION The Kansas plaintiffs allege that FedEx’s classification of Kansas pickup and delivery drivers as independent contractors violates the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The Act circularly defines an employee as “any person allowed or permitted to work by an employer,” KAN. STAT. ANN. § 44-313(b), so courts look to various facts and circumstances surrounding the parties’ relationship to determine the package and delivery drivers’ employment status. Herr v. Heiman, 75 F.3d 1509, 1512 (10th Cir. 1996) (Kansas Wage Payment Act) (citing Wallis v. Secretary of Kan. Dep’t of Human Res., 689 P.2d 787, 792 (Kan. 1984) (Kansas Employment Security Act)).
60

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 61 of 103
Kansas courts appear to use the same test to determine employment status for claims brought under various employment statutes and for respondeat superior liability. FedEx contends the court shouldn’t give weight to cases deciding employment status under the Worker’s Compensation Act because those cases reflect a policy favoring employee status and so don’t afford the same “considerable weight” to the parties’ intent as is required here. The court disagrees. The cases determining employee status under the Kansas Worker’s Compensation Act set forth an employment test that is similar to the test under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. Under the applicable common law test, intent is just one factor to consider in determining employment status; the right to control is the most significant factor. The court therefore finds these cases persuasive in deciding whether FedEx drivers in Kansas are employees or independent contractors.
There is no absolute rule for determining whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee. Wallis v. Secretary, 689 P.2d at 792; see also Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Department of Human Res., 32 P.3d at 1151 (Kansas Employment Security Act). The facts and circumstances of each case determine whether one is an employee or an independent contractor, taking into consideration broad legal principles. Wallis v. Secretary, 689 P.2d at 792; McCubbin v. Walker, 886 P.2d at 794.
61

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 62 of 103
“An independent contractor is generally described as one who . . . contracts to do certain work according to his own methods, without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the results or product of his work.” Wallis v. Secretary, 689 P.2d at 792. The primary test used in determining whether an employment relationship exists is “whether the employer has the right of control and supervision over the work of the alleged employee, and the right to direct the manner in which the work is to be performed, as well as the result which is to be accomplished.” Id. The existence of the right or authority to interfere or control by the employer, not the actual interference or exercise of control, renders one an employee rather than an independent contractor. Id.; Hartford Underwriters, 32 P.3d at 1151.
The right to control the manner and methods of the worker is the single most important factor in determining a worker’s status, McCubbin v. Walker, 886 P.2d at 794, but it isn’t exclusive and other relevant factors should be considered. McDonnell v. Music Stand, Inc., 886 P.2d 895, 899 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994) (citing Jones v. City of Dodge City, 402 P.2d 108, 111 (Kan. 1965)). Other relevant factors include: whether there is an agreement to perform a certain kind of work for a definite period of time; whether the employer has the right to discharge the worker at any time; whether the worker must furnish necessary tools, supplies, and materials; whether the worker is paid by the hour or by the job; whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer; whether the worker’s business is
62

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 63 of 103
independent in nature; and whether the worker has the right to employ assistants and supervise their work. See, e.g., McCubbin v. Walker, 886 P.2d at 794 (length of contract, independent nature of business, employment of assistants, furnishing equipment, method of payment, and regular part of business); Wallis v. Secretary, 689 P.2d at 792 (right to discharge, method of payment, furnishing equipment); McDonnell v. Music Stand, 886 P.2d at 899 (length of agreement, power to terminate, and method of payment).
Other cases have relied on similar factors as set forth in the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220(2):
(a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work;
(b) whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;
(c) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision;
(d) the skill required in the particular occupation; (e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; (f) the length of time for which the person is employed;
63

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 64 of 103
(g) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; (h) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the employer; (i) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant; and (j) whether the principal is or is not in business. See Knorp v. Albert, 28 P.3d 1024, 1028 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001) (respondeat superior liability); Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill. v. Challenger Fence Co., 119 P.3d 666, 668 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005) (Worker’s Compensation); see also Herr v. Heiman, 75 F.3d 1509, 1512 (10th Cir. 1996) (action brought under Kansas Wage Payment Act, considering twenty similar factors used by Kansas Department of Human Resources to determine employment status). “[T]here are numerous factors which may be considered in determining an individual’s employment status, and many of those factors overlap.” Hill v. Kansas Dep’t of Labor, Div. of Workers Comp., 210 P.3d 647, 655 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). Several Kansas courts have applied the right to control test to find employee status when the employer retained control over numerous aspects of the employer’s work. In Wallis v. Secretary, 689 P.2d at 789, the issue was whether individuals who were dealers of Kirby Vacuum Cleaners were employees of Mr. Wallis or independent contractors. The court held that the district court
64

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 65 of 103
incorrectly determined that the salesmen were independent contractors based on the adopted findings of fact from the Department of Human Resources. Id. at 795.
Mr. Wallis recruited potential “dealers” to sell vacuum sweepers within his distributorship and had the dealers sign what was designated as an independent dealer agreement. The newly associated dealers took a training course carried out by Mr. Wallis in which they were oriented with the product and counseled with regard to sales techniques. During the early course of their sales experience, new dealers were accompanied by more experienced dealers. The dealers were free to establish their own hours of service and the territories they serviced. Mr. Wallis didn’t compensate or reimburse them for their expenses or provide them office space. The dealers didn’t sell competing products. They could negotiate the product’s price with the customer, but the distributor reviewed the sale for acceptance. Either party could terminate the “independent contractor” agreement upon thirty days written notice. Mr. Wallis could terminate the contract “in those instances wherein he finds the dealer to be not representative of the product or product line.” 689 P.2d at 789-790.
In holding that the dealers were employees, the court noted that Mr. Wallis maintained direction and control with respect to training the dealers and the prices of the products. For example, experienced dealers initially accompanied new dealers during their door-to-door sales. Further, the dealers had to be authorized through Mr. Wallis, and he retained the right to terminate the contract
65

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 66 of 103
without cause upon thirty days notice. The court reasoned that although the dealers could sell the products in whatever method they chose, Mr. Wallis could terminate the contract with the dealer if he found that the dealer wasn’t representative of the product or product line. The dealers didn’t service the equipment and weren’t responsible for repossession of the vacuum cleaners when installment contracts fell through. The court found, based on these facts, that the distributor had the right to control the dealers, even if he hadn’t exercised that right. 689 P.2d at 795.
In Danes v. St. David’s Episcopal Church, 752 P.2d 653 (Kan. 1988), the court affirmed the district court’s order classifying a church organist as an employee. The plaintiff organist entered into an agreement with the defendant church to provide services as organist and choirmaster. Although the church didn’t withhold Social Security or income tax from the organist’s wages, the church rector had the authority to determine when the organist performed, to make final decisions concerning the amount, nature, and type of music that was played, and to make final selections of the music. The church paid the organist by the month and could fire him upon ninety days’ notice. The church supplied the church organ, which was the basis of the organist’s service. In light of these facts, the court held that the district court correctly determined that the plaintiff was an employee rather than independent contractor. 752 P.2d at 660.
66

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 67 of 103
In other cases, Kansas courts have found independent contractor status when the purported employer gave the hired worker general instructions to follow, but didn’t control the means and manner of the work. In Home Design, Inc. v. Kansas Dep’t of Human Res., 2 P.3d 789 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000), the court held that siding installers were independent contractors. The court noted that the siding installers were free to set their own hours as long as the job was completed within a reasonable time frame (with only the minimal requirement that they should be there at a decent time, in decent clothes, and put in a day’s work). They were paid by the job and free to turn down work, work for other siding companies, or negotiate better deals. There wasn’t continuity in the relationship between Home Design and the installers; the installers could refuse to accept a relationship or an assignment as they desired. Home Design provided the siding materials for the job, but didn’t provide the tools, equipment, or training to the installers. The siding installers had to carry liability insurance and workers compensation insurance, but could be added to Home Design’s policies for a fee. 2 P.3d at 792793.
The Home Design court held that the general instructions given to the installers “were nothing more than what would be expected of any subcontractor working under the overall auspices of a general contractor.” 2 P.3d at 793. There was no evidence that Home Design actually controlled the work of the siding installers or instructed them on how to perform their task or install the siding.
67

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 68 of 103
The court explained that Home Design or one of its salespersons would visit the job site to check the progress and address any problems the siding installers were encountering, but the company didn’t supervise the siding jobs in the true sense of the word. Checking the job site for progress or problems, the court reasoned, was typical of any general contractor or architect. Accordingly, the court held that the siding installers weren’t subject to Home Design’s control in any meaningful sense other than as to results. 2 P.3d at 793.
The court in Crawford v. Department of Human Res., 845 P.2d 703 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989), addressed whether people who appear at stores or events to promote food or demonstrate how products work were employees or independent contractors. The administrative law judge ruled that the demonstrators were employees because Ms. Crawford exercised control by requiring a dress code and completion of recap sheets and retaining the right to terminate a demonstrator for cause.
The appellate court reversed. The court noted that the instructions and directions concerning the demonstrations came from the manufacturers of the products and the stores in which the demonstrations took place. Ms. Crawford merely transmitted the instructions to the workers; she had no part in formulating the instructions and didn’t check on the workers or supervise them during the demonstrations. The court noted, too, that no training was provided, and Ms. Crawford didn’t set the order or sequence of work or require that services be
68

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 69 of 103
provided personally by the demonstrators. Any set work hours were established by the store. Ms. Crawford didn’t furnish tools, equipment, or materials, and demonstrators were paid by the job. Demonstrators could work for more than one demonstrating company and acceptance of each new job offer was a voluntary decision made by the worker. 845 P.2d at 704-707.
The Crawford court explained that the recap forms were simply a way of tracking the person and days worked, and the “appropriate dress” statement was merely a general instruction to not wear jeans and to dress appropriately. Because Ms. Crawford didn’t appear to have much knowledge of the specific products demonstrated or of the manufacturers’ instructions, nor did she supervise, direct, or control the workers doing the demonstrations, the court held that substantial evidence didn’t exist to support a finding of employee status. Id. at 707-708.
These cases6 illustrate that no single factor is dispositive when determining employment status, and the court must consider the facts as a whole when making this determination. Under the undisputed facts in today’s summary judgment record, the totality of circumstances requires a finding of independent contractor status. Without question, there are facts in the record that cut both ways. But this case differs from Wallis v. Secretary and Danes v. St. David’s because the Operating Agreement doesn’t provide FedEx with the right to control
6
The plaintiffs and FedEx have filed extensive supplemental authority on their summary judgment motions, but none specifically addressing Kansas law. The court has considered the supplemental authority offered by the parties, but doesn’t find that the cases would change the effect of the application of Kansas law in this order.
69

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 70 of 103
the drivers’ means and methods of work or the manner in which they complete their contractual obligations. Further, FedEx drivers can’t be terminated without cause before the expiration of their contract term. Cf. Wallis v. Secretary, 689 P.2d at 790 (termination upon thirty days written notice); Danes v. St. David’s, 752 P.2d at 660 (termination upon ninety days written notice).
FedEx has retained oversight and supervision over its drivers, but as in Home Design v. Department of Human Res., FedEx provides general instructions that it expects drivers to follow, not requirements on how to perform daily tasks. FedEx reviews drivers’ work to check their progress or address problems, but its right to control is limited to offering suggestions and best practices, not mandatory courses of action. FedEx’s retained control is limited to the results of the drivers’ work, not how the drivers’ achieve those results. As in Crawford v. Department of Human Res., FedEx doesn’t set the order or sequence of the work or even require that services be provided personally by the contractors. Many general instructions set forth by FedEx are based on customer demands. FedEx’s requirement that drivers meet these customer demands involves the results of the drivers’ work. FedEx contractors can hire helpers or replacement drivers to perform their work and they can even sell their routes to other qualified drivers. The evidence, therefore, leads to one reasonable inference, i.e., the plaintiffs are independent contractors.
70

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 71 of 103
1. Intent of the Parties The court considers the parties’ intent as expressed in their agreement when deciding employment status. Knorp v. Albert, 28 P.3d 1024, 1030 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001); see also Lowe v. Surpas Res. Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d 1209,1233 (D. Kan. 2003) (finding intent of parties to create independent contractor relationship evidenced by unambiguous language in the agreement was factor weighing heavily in favor of independent contractor status). The Kansas class plaintiffs, either individually or through a sole proprietorship or corporation, entered into Operating Agreements with FedEx acknowledging that they would provide services as independent contractors and not as employees. OA, Background. In several provisions, the Operating Agreement says FedEx directs the results, but not the manner and means, of the plaintiffs’ work. OA, Background, FXHD OA, ¶ 1.14; FXG OA, ¶ 1.15 (“Contractor shall be responsible for exercising independent discretion and judgment to achieve the business objectives and results . . . and no officer, agent or employee of [FedEx] shall have the authority to direct Contractor as to the manner or means employed to achieve such objectives and results.”). The Operating Agreement more specifically provides that FedEx can’t “prescribe hours of work, whether or when the Contractor is to take breaks, what route the Contractor is to follow, or other details of performance.” FXHD OA, ¶ 1.14; FXG OA, ¶ 1.15.
71

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 72 of 103
Further, under the Operating Agreement, FedEx has no responsibility to make deductions for, or to pay, health, welfare, and pension costs, withholding for income taxes, unemployment insurance premiums, Social Security taxes, or any other similar charges with respect to the contractors or their employees. OA, ¶ 4.2. The contractors receive a Form 1099 at each year end and compute their income taxes as independent contractors.
The contractors understood they were classified as independent contractors and the parties intended to create an independent contractor agreement. This factor weighs strongly in favor of independent contractor status.
2. Right to Control The Operating Agreement sets forth the basic parameters in which FedEx is required to operate in its interactions with drivers. While FedEx’s policies and procedures provide specific guidelines that fill out the Operating Agreement’s broad terms, FedEx’s right to control ultimately is restrained by the parties’ agreement. FedEx might actually exercise more control than authorized, but as explained, the court is limited in determining whether FedEx retained the right to control. The court relies on the policies and procedures to the extent they show how FedEx implemented its authority as retained by the Operating Agreement.
72

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 73 of 103
After reviewing the common undisputed evidence offered by the parties, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.
a. Drivers’ Obligation to Complete Daily Assigned Work Various provisions of the Operating Agreement authorize FedEx to control the days of service, the contractor’s daily workload, and certain time windows when pick-ups and deliveries must be made. These requirements weigh in favor of employee status, but are more suggestive of a results-oriented approach to management when viewed with the totality of circumstances. FedEx has contracted for the performance of certain work and has the right to require that the work be completed as agreed. As long as contractors complete their daily assigned work, they can decide their work schedule. For example, they can hire helpers to finish their assigned work more quickly or, alternatively, hire a replacement driver to take over their route. Drivers agree to provide daily pick-up and delivery services to customers in their primary service area on days and at times that are compatible with their schedules, as consistent with the competitive standards within the industry. OA, ¶ 1.10(a). Under this provision, FedEx has reserved the right to require contractors, or their approved replacement drivers, to provide service on days that
73

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 74 of 103
FedEx agrees to provide service to customers. FedEx also has authority to change the days of service.
A driver is responsible for delivering every package in his work area each day and every package assigned under the Flex Program, if applicable. OA, ¶ 1.10(a). To enable full use of their equipment as set forth in the Operating Agreement, FedEx structured the drivers’ routes so each vehicle was in use nine to eleven hours per day. This measurement varies somewhat between facilities and has been modified recently, but essentially sets forth a daily expected workload for drivers. Requiring workers to accept assigned work weighs in favor of employee status. Compare Knorp v. Albert, 28 P.3d at 1029 (physician not permitted to refuse service to any patients, a factor weighing in favor of employment status); with Home Design v. Kansas Dep’t of Human Res., 2 P.3d at 792 (siding installers could refuse to accept relationship or assignment as they desired); Crawford v. Department of Human Res., 845 P.2d at 707 (acceptance of each new job offer was voluntary decision made by worker).
In the Operating Agreement, though, FedEx says it will provide enough packages to make full use of the contractor’s vehicle; FedEx is required to fulfill this obligation pursuant to the parties’ agreement, so it isn’t necessarily indicative of employee status. See, e.g., P.S. ex rel. Nelson v. The Farm, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1299 (D. Kan. 2009) (requirement that foster care agency accept custody of foster child within four hours of referral by the Social and Rehabilitation
74

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 75 of 103
Services didn’t equate to control over scheduling because the contractual requirement bound SRS as well as the agency; SRS couldn’t insist on shorter time frame absent modification of contract). Further, contractors can terminate their contracts upon thirty days’ notice, in which case, they would be relieved of any future work assignments.
FedEx requires contractors to deliver packages outside their primary service area through the Flex Program. Home Delivery contractors must agree to flexing, FXHD OA, ¶ 1.10(a), but Ground contractors are given the option, FXG OA, ¶ 1.10(a). FedEx can also reassign packages to another driver under both the Ground and Home Delivery Operating Agreements when the packages in the driver’s primary service area exceed the volume that he can reasonably be expected to handle that day. OA, ¶ 1.10(a).
FedEx also is authorized to reconfigure a contractor’s primary service area upon five days’ written notice, unless the driver is able to show during the notice period that he can continue to service the area. FXHD OA, ¶ 6.2; FXG OA, ¶ 5.2. FedEx’s goal through restructuring is to provide each contractor with a full day’s work (nine to eleven hours a day). FedEx must compensate the driver if the reconfiguration results in fewer customers or accounts. FXHD OA, ¶ 6.3, Addendum 5; FXG OA, ¶ 5.3. Even though FedEx has the right to control contractors’ daily workloads by flexing and reconfiguration of primary service areas, FedEx is bound by the parties’ agreement to provide full use of the
75

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 76 of 103
contractors’ vehicles and can only reconfigure a primary service area under certain conditions. Employers generally aren’t confined to such limitations.
FedEx places some restrictions on drivers’ abilities to complete deliveries on their time schedule. Although drivers aren’t required to appear at delivery stops at specific times, FedEx can negotiate pick-up or delivery windows upon a customer’s request. FedEx requires drivers to make the appointed pick-ups or deliveries within the set window of time or negotiate a different time through FedEx or directly with the customer. FedEx also offers customers an evening service that guarantees delivery between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. FedEx drivers must provide this service when FedEx requests or pass it on to another driver. Ground drivers must return to the terminal by a certain time at the end of the day, and Home Delivery or Ground drivers who collect charges for C.O.D. packages must return the charges to the terminal at the end of the day.
Within the confines of the Operating Agreement’s terms, FedEx has retained the right to determine some time parameters for providing service to customers, but FedEx doesn’t have authority to dictate what hours or how many hours drivers work. OA, ¶ 1.15. Drivers must work certain days of the week, deliver all packages assigned to them that day based on a nine to eleven hour work day, and, on occasion, meet pick-up and delivery windows, but aren’t otherwise required to work a set schedule. These facts therefore aren’t necessarily indicative of employee status. Compare Home Design v. Department of Human Res., 2 P.3d at 792
76

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 77 of 103
(expecting installers to arrive around 8 a.m. and put in a good day’s work, not indicative of employee status), with Danes v. St. David’s Episcopal Church, 752 P.2d at 660 (authority to determine when organist performed weighed in favor of employee status).
Further, FedEx establishes the pick-up and delivery windows based on customer requests, so those windows focus on the results of the drivers’ work. See Crawford v. Department of Human Res., 845 P.2d at 707 (“Any set work hours were established by the store and not by Crawford.”). Although, unlike Crawford, FedEx decides what services are provided to customers and consults with customers to determine when those services can be provided, contractors nevertheless are hired to provide such services. FedEx can dictate the results it expects of contractors without creating an employment relationship.
No less importantly, contractors can hire replacement drivers to run their full routes or hire assistants to help with their routes, thereby freeing them from any time parameters or delivery duties. The replacement drivers are subject to certain approval requirements set forth by FedEx, some of which exceed DOT regulations, and the contractors ultimately are responsible for ensuring that their replacement drivers fulfill the same obligations the Operating Agreement requires of the contractors. OA, ¶ 2.2. Contractors’ ability to hire assistants and replacement drivers, though, even under FedEx’s approval requirements, allows them to have complete freedom in their schedules.
77

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 78 of 103
Accordingly, FedEx’s retained right to control the days of service, daily workload, and certain parameters when pick-ups or deliveries must be made isn’t strongly indicative of employee status under these facts, especially in light of FedEx’s obligation to make full use of the vehicles, restrictions on reconfiguration of work areas, lack of control over drivers’ specific work schedules, and the ability of contractors to hire assistants or replacement drivers to complete their assigned work.
b. Driver Appearance and Vehicle Suitability Standards FedEx has some right to control the drivers’ personal appearance and the appearance and suitability of their vehicles. The Operating Agreement requires contractors to foster FedEx’s professional image and good reputation, including adhering to vehicle identification and operator appearance standards. OA, ¶ 1.10(e). Drivers must wear the FedEx uniform and maintain it in good condition. Each driver is to “keep his/her personal appearance consistent with reasonable standards of good order as maintained by competitors and promulgated from time to time by [FedEx].” OA, ¶ 1.12. FedEx has authority to prohibit drivers from servicing customers if they aren’t in proper uniform or aren’t properly groomed. FedEx dictates certain appearance standards for its drivers to reinforce its brand and maintain a professional image, but requiring proper attire isn’t precisely the same thing as a
78

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 79 of 103
right to control the drivers’ manner and means of work. See, e.g., Home Design v. Department of Human Res., 2 P.3d at 792-793 (mere instruction to dress appropriately wasn’t indicative of employee status); Crawford v. Department of Human Res., 845 P.2d at 707-708 (general instruction not to wear jeans and to dress appropriately wasn’t indicative of employee status). FedEx’s requirement to wear a uniform, though, is more than a general instruction to dress appropriately and so weighs in favor of employee status, but, ultimately, doesn’t affect the means or methods of the drivers’ work.
FedEx managers also have the right to evaluate drivers’ trucks for appearance and maintenance standards and can inspect the vehicles every thirty days. Drivers must submit vehicle maintenance reports monthly. Even though FedEx drivers supply their own vehicles, FedEx requires each vehicle to be painted “FedEx White,” bear FedEx logos and advertising, and meet FedEx’s minimum bumper height; interior shelving requirements; and, in some cases, age restrictions. FedEx also decides what size and configuration of truck is appropriate for each particular route. See OA, ¶ 1.1 (“[S]ubject to the determination of [FedEx] of its suitability for the service called for in this Agreement, the selection and replacement of the Equipment is within the discretion of Contractor.”). Other than these requirements, contractors have the right to determine what vehicle to purchase.
79

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 80 of 103
Federal regulations set commercial vehicle maintenance and marking requirements for vehicles of 10,001 pounds or more, but while the existence of those regulations “may indeed furnish reasons for at least part of the control exercised,” FedEx’s requirements go beyond federal regulations. Knoble v. National Carriers, Inc., 510 P.2d 1274, 1280 (Kan. 1973) (“While such regulations may indeed furnish reasons for at least part of the control exercised, they do not alter the fact of its existence.”). Thus, FedEx’s right to determine and enforce driver and vehicle appearance and vehicle suitability standards slightly favors employee status. As noted though, while appearance standards may indicate control, they don’t dictate the manner in which contractors must perform their work.
c. Supervision over Drivers’ Work Various Operating Agreement provisions set forth objectives that contractors must meet in performing their work. For example, FedEx requires contractors to make reasonable efforts to retain and increase their customer base and volume; handle and transport packages using methods designed to avoid theft, loss, and damages; provide package tracking information; and cooperate with FedEx’s employees, customers, and other contractors to achieve efficient package pick-up and delivery. OA, ¶¶ 1.10(b), (c), (d). Drivers agree to conduct all business activities with integrity and honesty, in a professional manner and with proper decorum, and to operate equipment safely. OA, ¶¶ 1.10(e), (g), (h).
80

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 81 of 103
To ensure contractors meet these objectives, FedEx has established policies and procedures that managers are to consult when reviewing drivers’ work. These policies and procedures set forth guideposts for supervising drivers and determining their compliance with FedEx’s expected standards of conduct. FedEx’s requirement that drivers comply with certain standards of conduct and obligations set forth in the Operating Agreement, however, illustrates FedEx’s concern with the results of the drivers’ work, not their method in performing the work. See, e.g., Lowe v. Surpas Res. Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1233 n.19 (D. Kan. 2003) (finding that “[bank’s] right to review collection efforts reflects its concern with the result of [debt collection agency’s] work, not the method of collection and such authority does not indicate the type of control that would create an agency relationship under Kansas law.”).
FedEx offers training to new drivers on its customer service procedures, but under the Operating Agreement, contractors have the responsibility to ensure that any person operating the equipment is fully trained and capable of meeting the customer service standards set forth in the agreement. FXHD OA, ¶ 1.13; FXG OA, ¶ 1.14. Depending on the applicant’s experience, he might be required to take the FedEx QPDL training course as a precondition to becoming a contractor. As of 2007, contractors could take a substitute course from an approved vendor. The QPDL course teaches federal safety regulations and other customer service procedures. FedEx also conducts a ten-hour orientation program during drivers’
81

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 82 of 103
first thirty days to familiarize them with various service quality procedures. FXHD OA, ¶ 1.13; FXG OA, ¶ 1.14. FedEx used to provide drivers with the Contractor’s Companion — a reference guide to assist contractors in performing their work. FedEx also holds safety meetings that were previously mandatory. Training is factor weighing in favor of employee status. Wallis v. Secretary, 689 P.2d at 789.
FedEx offers bonus incentives to contractors who meet certain standards. Contractors receive the CCS bonus monthly if they have no at-fault accidents and no verified customer complaints. FXHD OA, Addend. 8; FXG OA, Addend. 6. Contractors can expunge one verified complaint from their record by participating in the CARE training program, which teaches ways to achieve customer satisfaction. Ground contractors can receive a weekly Pick-Up Service Bonus if they don’t miss any pick-ups, all pick-ups are made within the drivers’ requested windows (with a grace period), and the scanner is used to process all pick-up stops (with an allowance for two instances of non-compliance). FXG OA, Addend. 6. These bonuses, however, aren’t mandates requiring the driver to perform in a certain manner. Incentives aren’t controls.
FedEx has processes in place to track the drivers’ performance. Drivers should perform a “check-out” with their mangers before leaving the terminal in the morning so that the manager might review the driver’s settlement report and deliveries made the previous day and discuss any DNAs or other service failures with the driver. Drivers also must use a FedEx scanner to record information
82

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 83 of 103
relating to pick-up and deliveries. The scanners are connected to FedEx’s computer system and allow package tracking information to be transmitted to FedEx.
FedEx reviews its drivers’ performance through audits and customer service rides. Managers are authorized to conduct daily van service audits to ensure drivers are complying with FedEx procedures for undelivered packages. FedEx also hires security specialists who perform random in-route van security reviews to inspect drivers’ vehicles to verify that drivers are properly securing them. At Home Delivery, FedEx reserves the right to perform driver release audits on the drivers, where the manager follows the drivers, and sometimes interviews customers, to see whether customers’ packages are being driver-released properly.
Managers are to conduct at least two, but not more than four, customer service rides each year, giving managers a chance to see whether FedEx drivers are complying with FedEx’s customer service standards and to ensure that drivers are operating their vehicles safely. FXHD OA, ¶ 1.13; FXG OA, ¶ 1.14. FedEx procedures direct managers to review almost every aspect of the driver’s work during these rides, including specific details about the driver’s method and means of performance. For example, the manager is to observe whether the driver puts the address of the next stop into the scanner on his way back to the vehicle after a delivery. In general, managers review the contractor’s package handling procedures, customer contact skills, safe driving techniques, and critical safe
83

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 84 of 103
behaviors. As noted though, FedEx managers can only go on four customer service rides a year, which binds FedEx from mandating additional oversight. See, e.g., P.S. ex rel. Nelson v. The Farm, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d at 1299 (requirement not necessarily indicative of control where it also limited the purported employer from exercising more control).
FedEx managers discuss performance with the contractors at least twice a year through business discussions. During these discussions, managers make recommendations and counsel drivers in the performance of their contracted work. A wide range of topics can be raised during business discussions, such as overall performance, customer complaints or positive customer feedback, or violations of the Operating Agreement. While FedEx may not be able to force the contractor to engage in a business discussion, not participating will reflect poorly on the contractor upon contract renewal.
FedEx presents evidence that the purpose of the customer service rides, audits, and resulting business discussions is to provide contractors with recommendations, not requirements that must be followed. Under the Operating Agreement, FedEx doesn’t have the right to determine the drivers’ means and methods of work, but retains the right to exercise control over the results of the drivers’ work. FedEx supervises drivers as to the means and methods of their work and provides them with suggestions they should follow, but, pursuant to their contractual arrangement, aren’t required to follow. FedEx’s supervision over the
84

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 85 of 103
drivers is therefore insufficient to show control over the means and methods of the drivers’ work. See, e.g., Lowe v. Surpas Res. Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d at 1233 (noting that even though the bank had great latitude to review SRC’s collection activity, such facts don’t suggest that the bank retained the type of control over SRC necessary to establish an agency relationship).
The managers’ suggestions might have the intended effect to get drivers to behave in a certain manner, but FedEx’s ability to enforce these suggestions is limited. FedEx can restructure drivers’ routes, but only if the drivers aren’t able to provide reasonable means to continue to service their Primary Service Area. If the reconfiguration results in less customers or accounts, the Operating Agreement requires compensation to the contractor.
FedEx also can terminate drivers, but only if they breach or fail to perform the contractual obligations imposed by the Operating Agreement. FedEx’s policies and procedures indicate that contract termination might be justified for repeated customer complaints, failure to service work area, integrity issues, unsafe driving, DOT and/or maintenance violations, or other such problems. RCRL-162, at 5. FedEx therefore retains a right to terminate contractors only when they have failed to perform the contracted-for results set forth in the Operating Agreement. Cf. Wallis v. Secretary, 689 P.2d at 789-790 (possible discharge if distributor determines worker isn’t representative of product was fact weighing in favor of employee status); but see Crawford v. Department of Human Res., 845 P.2d 706-
85

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 86 of 103
707 (termination for cause not indicative of employee status). While FedEx has some discretion in deciding what actions constitute a violation of the broad terms of the Operating Agreement, its decision to terminate is subject to review by a neutral party. If contractors believe they have been wrongfully terminated, they can sue FedEx through arbitration and recover damages.
FedEx also can choose not to renew a driver’s contract upon expiration of the contract’s term, but such an option isn’t atypical of an independent contractor relationship where a hiring party can simply decide not to re-hire a worker. Home Design, 2 P.3d at 793 (stating that the reliable siding installers “frequently received repeat business, but that is true with any prudent business which might wish to deal with reliable suppliers, middlemen, or subcontractors”).
In sum, FedEx managers’ right to supervise the drivers and provide suggestions of best practices isn’t indicative of employee status given FedEx’s restricted ability to enforce its suggestions. Similarly, in Nelson v. The Farm, 658 F. Supp. 2d at 1299, Social and Rehabilitation Services retained certain rights of control and oversight over the foster care agency, e.g., it required minimal qualifications for agency employees, use of certain forms, certain approaches for recruiting and assessing foster families, the acceptance of a foster child within four hours of referral, approval of changes in placement, 24-hour access to the agency, and certain information from the agency. The court stated that the right
86

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 87 of 103
to such oversight didn’t grant SRS the right to control in a general sense the manner in which the agency performed its duties on a daily basis.
The court in Home Design v. Department of Human Res. also held that Home Design didn’t supervise the siding jobs in the true sense of the word, even though it would visit the job site and check the progress and any problems the siding installers were encountering. The court explained:
It strikes us that a general contractor on a major project . . . would develop, in conjunction with the engineers, very detailed and specific instructions as to the work desired of the subcontractors, including the exact way certain items should be installed or erected, along with very specific cutoffs and deadlines for completion of various phases of the project. Surely it would not be seriously argued that such indicia would turn subcontractors into employees. 2 P.3d at 793. Home Design didn’t instruct the siding installers on how to perform their tasks, but the evidence in this case doesn’t show that FedEx retained the right to require drivers to follow managers’ instructions as to the manner in which they performed. Even though FedEx controls the area each driver must service, the services drivers must provide for customers, the prices charged for services, and certain customer service standards that drivers should meet, those requirements are result-oriented and would generally be expected of any hired party. FedEx doesn’t have the right to dictate the course contractors take in completing routes, specific times contractors must pick up or deliver packages (except for some delivery and pick-up windows requested by the parties’ mutual customers), or specifics as to
87

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 88 of 103
how contractors must complete their contractual obligations. FedEx supervises contractors and provides incentives for them to perform their work according to its suggested best practices, but the evidence doesn’t show that FedEx has a right to require contractors to follow its advice. FedEx is bound by the terms and limitations set forth in the Operating Agreement.
Some facts suggest control — driver and vehicle appearance requirements, training provided by FedEx, and supervision and monitoring over drivers’ work — but the facts also show that FedEx didn’t have the right to ultimately control the means and methods used to complete the work.
3 . Length of Job Commitment If the length of the job commitment is short, the worker is less apt to subject himself to control as to details. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY, § 220, cmt. j (1958). The Operating Agreements are for an initial term of one, two, or three years and automatically renew absent notice of non-renewal. Non-renewal of the contract is permitted by either party upon thirty days’ written notice before expiration of the term. FXHD OA, ¶ 8.2; FXG OA, ¶ 11.2. The contractor also may terminate the contract upon thirty days’ prior written notice. FXHD OA, ¶ 9.1; FXG OA, ¶ 12.1. The Operating Agreement is for a definite term; FedEx can non-renew at the end of the term and the contractor can terminate upon thirty days’ notice.
88

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 89 of 103
Although contractors aren’t hired for short-term projects, the Operating Agreement doesn’t necessarily contemplate a long-term relationship. This factor doesn’t weigh strongly in favor of either party.
4. The Right to Employ Assistants Contractors have the right to hire replacement drivers to run their routes or assistants to help with their routes, subject to FedEx’s approval requirements. FedEx retains the right to monitor the replacement drivers’ performance and hold the contractor responsible if the driver fails to comply with the requirements imposed upon the contractor. Contractors must, therefore, supervise their replacement drivers. Because contractors can hire others to help perform their contractual obligations, they aren’t personally subject to FedEx controls with respect to days, hours, or amount of work, leaving them free to work part-time or perform other jobs. Subject to FedEx approval, contractors can own more than one service area and hire other drivers to run their additional routes, providing the contractor with an opportunity to expand his business and income. The contractors’ ability to hire others to complete their work affords contractors more autonomy in running their business. This factor, therefore, weighs in favor of independent contractor status. Crawford v. Department of Human Res., 845 P.2d 707-708 (Crawford didn’t require services be provided
89

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 90 of 103
personally by the demonstrators, a factor weighing in favor of independent contractor status).
5. Proprietary Interest in Routes Contractors have a proprietary interest in their routes and as long as they are in good standing under the Operating Agreement, they can sell the route upon thirty days’ written notice to FedEx. The new driver assignee must be acceptable to FedEx as qualified to provide services under the Operating Agreement. FXHD OA, ¶ 15; FXG OA, ¶ 18. The new driver, therefore, must meet the same minimum requirements and is subject to the same screening as contractors and temporary drivers. CRL-551, at 5. If FedEx terminates a contractor’s agreement for cause, he cannot assign his contractual rights. Contractors also have the ability to expand their routes by acquiring additional service areas from FedEx or other contractors as they become available, subject to FedEx approval. The contractor can own and operate more than one vehicle with the qualification that additional vehicles be driven by qualified operators. FedEx has certain restrictions on the maximum number of routes a contractor can own at any one terminal. Multiple work area contractors have a greater ability to profit from their routes than single work area contractors and so have greater entrepreneurial opportunities.
90

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 91 of 103
A contractor’s proprietary interest in his route — i.e., the right to sell the route or ability to obtain additional routes — weighs in favor of independent contractor status.
6. Furnishing of Necessary Tools, Supplies, and Materials That a worker supplies his own tools is some evidence that he isn’t an employee. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY, § 220 cmt. k (1958); see also Home Design v. Department of Human Res., 2 P.3d at 793 (requirement that siding installer supply his own tools, while Home Design provided no equipment, weighed in favor of independent contractor status). The Operating Agreement provides that contractors “shall not be required to purchase or rent any products, equipment, or services from [FedEx] as a condition to entering into [the agreement].” OA, ¶ 7. FedEx supplies contractors with software and a computer network for tracking packages and provides terminals and sorting equipment for packages, sales and marketing services, and customer service personnel. Contractors are responsible for obtaining other necessary equipment and supplies, including their vehicle. Contractors must maintain and bear all costs and expenses associated with their vehicles. OA, ¶¶ 1.2, 1.3. They can use their vehicles for other purposes when not carrying FedEx packages as long as identifying FedEx marks and logos are masked or removed. OA, ¶ 1.5.
91

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 92 of 103
FedEx dictates certain specifications for the equipment and supplies contractors must use. While contractors supply their own vehicles, the vehicles must meet FedEx’s minimum specifications. FedEx decides the size and configuration of the vehicle appropriate for a particular route, and vehicles must be painted FedEx White and bear FedEx logos according to FedEx’s specifications. Contractors must also obtain certain tools and supplies dictated by FedEx, some of which are FedEx specific, e.g., uniform and scanners.
FedEx provides contractors an option of purchasing or renting supplies — FedEx uniforms, scanners, printers, and communications-related equipment — through FedEx’s Business Support Package. Under that program, FedEx deducts the cost of the items purchased from the contractor’s weekly settlement. FXHD OA, ¶ 7 and Addend. 6; FXG OA, ¶ 7 and Addend. 7. Prior to 2008, drivers could also purchase or lease vehicles directly from FedEx. Alternatively, contractors may purchase equipment and supplies through outside vendors who are generally recommended by FedEx.
Even though FedEx dictates certain specifications for the equipment and supplies and gives contractors the option of purchasing them through FedEx or recommended vendors, the responsibility for acquiring equipment and supplies ultimately rests with the contractors. The option to participate in certain programs doesn’t establish a right to control. Because contractors are responsible for acquiring their vehicles and most other supplies necessary to the performance of
92

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 93 of 103
their work (excluding infrastructure), this factor weighs slightly in favor of independent contractor status.
7. Regular Business of the Employer FedEx provides small-package pick-up and delivery services through a network of pick-up and delivery drivers. Home Delivery generally is responsible for residential delivery of packages and FedEx Ground generally is responsible for pick-up and delivery of packages to businesses. The parties don’t dispute that FedEx drivers’ work is a regular and integral part of FedEx’s business. FedEx Vice President of Contractor Relations Robert Ostrov testified that contractors are a cornerstone of FedEx’s business. Ostrov Dep., pp. 192-193. Former FedEx CEO Dan Sullivan testified that the contractor is intended to be a “centerpiece” of FedEx’s “work force” and is an “essential component of [FedEx’s] business.” Sullivan Dep., pp. 27, 106. This factor weighs in favor of employee status.
8. Compensation and Benefits A court determining employment status also considers the method of payment, type of compensation, and negotiation of pay rates. “[P]ayment by the hour or the day is more indicative of an agency relationship, while payment by the job is more indicative of an independent contractor relationship.” McDonnell v.
93

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 94 of 103
Music Stand, 886 P.2d 895, 899 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). FedEx drivers aren’t paid by the hour and not necessarily by the job. They are paid weekly and their compensation formula is based on fixed and variable factors, including a daily rate, piece rates, and bonuses. OA, ¶ 4.1 and Addend. 3. This method of payment doesn’t weigh strongly in favor of either party.
FedEx also offers its drivers benefits, such as a driver-funded retirement plan, matching contributions to the “Service Guarantee Account,” a college scholarship for drivers with children, and a time-off program based on seniority. But FedEx contractors can choose not to participate in these programs. That FedEx merely offers such benefits, therefore, doesn’t weigh in favor of employee status.
Compensation rates aren’t negotiated, except that contractors can choose not to sign yearly modified settlement addendum and others have requested and received changes to their core zone density settlement. Compare Lewis v. ASAP Land Express, Inc., 554 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1225 (D. Kan. 2008) (“The record contains evidence that plaintiff could not negotiate pay based on his level of experience, which suggests employee status.”); with Home Design v. Department of Human Res., 2 P.3d at 792-793 (noting that some more experienced installers would negotiate price with Home Design, a fact in favor of independent contractor status). Contractors’ limited ability to negotiate compensation rates weighs slightly in favor of employee status.
94

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 95 of 103
On the other hand, FedEx has no responsibility to make deductions for, or to pay, health, welfare, and pension costs, withholding for income taxes, unemployment insurance premiums, Social Security taxes, or any other similar charges with respect to the contractors. OA, ¶ 4.2. Drivers must obtain and keep work accident or worker’s compensation insurance. OA, ¶ 3.6. FedEx issues contractors a Form 1099 at the end of each year. These facts weigh in favor of independent contractor status. See Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill. v. Challenger Fence Co., Inc., 119 P.3d 666, 669 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005) (purported employer didn’t pay taxes, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, or provide other benefits to plaintiff and plaintiff wasn’t provided W-2 wages; these facts weighed in favor of independent contractor status); cf. Danes v. St. David’s Episcopal Church, 752 P.2d at 660 (not withholding Social Security or income tax from agent’s compensation doesn’t alone establish agent’s status as independent contractor).
9. Termination At Will The inability to terminate a worker at will supports independent contractor status. See McDonnell v. Music Stand, 886 P.2d at 899 (“[S]ince the contract required a 30-day notice, termination at will was not permitted”; a factor favoring independent contractor status). The Operating Agreements allow termination under five limited circumstances, including by either party “if the other party breaches or fails to perform the contractual obligations imposed by [the]
95

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 96 of 103
Agreement,” or by the contractor upon thirty days prior written notice. FXHD OA, ¶ 9.1; FXG OA, ¶ 12.1.
FedEx managers can recommend contract termination by documenting reasons for termination and discussing the contractor’s file with the regional managing director. If the regional managing director agrees with the recommendation after reviewing supporting documentation, the file is forwarded to Contractor Relations for review and then to FedEx’s legal department. Under the Operating Agreement, if a contractor believes he has been wrongfully terminated, he must submit his claim to arbitration. FXHD OA, ¶ 9.3 and Addend. 7; FXG OA, ¶ 12.3.
FedEx drivers aren’t terminable at will. FedEx may terminate for breach of the Operating Agreement after several layers of review by FedEx management, and contractors can assert claims of wrongful termination through arbitration. See Richards v. Bryan, 879 P.2d 638, 645 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994) (employer couldn’t terminate employment contract “for any reason, at its pleasure” where contract provided for discharge only in event plaintiff failed to “perform his duties credibly”); PaineWebber, Inc. v. Agron, 49 F.3d 347, 352 (8th Cir. 1995) (construing Kansas employment at-will doctrine and stating that contemplation of arbitration procedures “necessarily alters the employment relationship from atwill to something else — some standard of discernable cause is inherently required in this context where an arbitration panel is called on to interpret the
96

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 97 of 103
employment relationship”). This factor weighs in favor of independent contractor status.
10. Skill, Independent Business, and Kind of Occupation The amount of skill required to complete a job is indicative of employment status. The skill factor focuses on whether the work requires performance by someone who is “highly educated or skilled” because such workers are less likely to submit to the hiring party’s control. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY, § 220 cmt. h (1958). The Operating Agreement requires the contractor to have a certain number of skills, including management of business expenses and costs (¶ 1.3), compliance with federal, state, and local licensing and regulatory requirements (¶¶ 1.6, 1.10), and training and management of additional drivers (¶ 1.14). Such skills aren’t highly specialized; most of the contractor’s required skills, such as driving and customer service skills, can be learned in the workplace, either through training (company orientation or QPDL when applicable) or on-the-job supervision. Multiple area contractors, on the other hand, must manage multiple routes and employees effectively and so must have a greater degree of business management skills than single area contractors. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiffs, this factor weighs in favor of independent contractor status for multiple area contractors, but not single area contractors.
97

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 98 of 103
Another factor the court should consider is whether the contractors are engaged in a distinct occupation or business. Some contractors have their own business and contract with FedEx through sole proprietorships or corporations. Contractors can be engaged in another occupation, especially if they choose to hire assistants or replacement drivers to help run their routes. Contractors can use their vehicles for other commercial or personal purposes when not actually carrying FedEx packages as long as identifying FedEx marks and logos are masked or removed. OA, ¶ 1.5. Since anecdotal evidence is excluded, the record contains no evidence that any contractor was engaged in a distinct occupation or business as a package pick-up or delivery driver. Cf. Lowe v. Surpas Res. Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d at 1233 (debt collection agency hired by bank was in the business of collecting debts; a factor weighing in favor of independent contractor status). But the Operating Agreement doesn’t give FedEx the right to prevent contractors from using their vehicles for other commercial purposes. This factor, therefore, weighs slightly in favor of independent contractor status.
The kind of occupation also can be indicative of employment status, depending on whether the work is usually done under the principal’s direction or by a specialist without supervision. UPS, one of FedEx’s primary competitors in the small package and delivery industry, performs its pick-up and delivery functions using employees. Other competitors — USPS and DHL — sometimes use contract carriers to pick-up and deliver packages. This factor weighs more in favor
98

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 99 of 103
of employee status because, in general, FedEx’s primary competitors use employees to deliver and pick-up packages.
11. Totality of Circumstances All of these factors are important when deciding employment status, but the most significant factor is the right to control. See McCubbin v. Walker, 886 P.2d at 795 (“The single most important factor in determining a worker's status as an employee or independent contractor is whether the employer controls, or has the right to control, the manner and methods of the worker in doing the particular task.”). The court must determine whether FedEx has the right of control and supervision over the drivers’ work, and the right to direct the manner in which the work is performed, as well as the result that is to be accomplished. Wallis v. Secretary of Kan. Dep’t of Human Res., 689 P.2d at 792. The court considers the totality of all the relevant facts when determining employment status. When the facts in the record are undisputed or susceptible to only a single conclusion, the issue of employment status is a question of law for the court. Mitzner v. State Dep’t of SRS, 891 P.2d 435, 438 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). When all reasonable inferences are drawn in plaintiffs’ favor, the evidence is insufficient to show that FedEx retained the right to control the plaintiffs and direct the manner in which they performed their work.
99

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 100 of 103
The evidence shows that FedEx retains the right to control the days of service, daily workload, and certain parameters when pick-ups or deliveries must be made. FedEx also retains the right to determine and enforce driver and vehicle appearance and vehicle suitability standards. FedEx offers training, supervises and monitors the drivers’ work, and suggests best practices to drivers to follow in the performance of their work. While these facts weigh in favor of employee status, they are insufficient to show a right to control the manner and means of the drivers’ work. FedEx can’t control the drivers’ specific work schedule, and contractors can hire assistants or replacement drivers to complete their assigned work, relieving them of any time restrictions or workload requirements. The evidence doesn’t establish that FedEx has a right to require drivers to follow its suggested best practices; contractors can choose the best way to manage their routes as long as they are meeting the customer service obligations set forth in the Operating Agreement. FedEx’s customer service requirements focus on the results expected of contractors in performing their assigned work, not the means and methods of their performance. Control over the results of the work — telling the worker what work must be accomplished — doesn’t indicate employee status. McCubbin v. Walker, 886 P.2d at 799. Accordingly, while there are facts pointing to FedEx’s right to control, they don’t raise to the level of control necessary to show employee status.
100

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 101 of 103
If several other factors weighed strongly in favor of employee status, the right to control analysis, standing alone, might not be enough under these facts to establish independent contractor status. But many of the other factors also point to independent contractor status, and when viewing all the various factors together, the court finds that the drivers are independent contractor as a matter of law.
Importantly, the parties’ intent pursuant to the terms in the Operating Agreement was to enter into an independent contractor relationship. The court in Lowe v. Surpas Res. Corp., held that the bank’s great latitude to review the debt collection agency’s collection activity didn’t overcome the unambiguous intent of the contracting parties to establish an independent contractor relationship. 253 F. Supp. 2d at 1233. Similarly, the type and extent of control FedEx exercises doesn’t outweigh the parties’ unambiguous intent to create an independent contractor arrangement.
Other factors also weigh in favor of independent contractor status. Contractors have the ability to hire others to complete their work, which gives them more freedom in running their business. Contractors have a proprietary interest in their routes and can sell them to another qualified driver. If they become multiple area contractors, they can increase their entrepreneurial opportunities and ability to earn profits. Contractors are responsible for acquiring a vehicle and can use the vehicles for other commercial purposes. Finally,
101

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 102 of 103
contractors aren’t terminable at will; FedEx can only terminate for breach of the Operating Agreement after several layers of review by FedEx management, and contractors can assert claims of wrongful termination through arbitration.
Although the contractors’ work is a regular and integral part of FedEx’s business, the skill required for single area contractors isn’t highly specialized, and FedEx’s competitors generally use employees to complete pick-up and delivery services, the other relevant factors favor independent contractor status. Accordingly, the court holds that after considering all the relevant factors, the drivers are independent contractors as a matter of law. Pursuant to the plaintiffs’ agreement during class certification, the court notes that it makes this finding based on a limited review of the evidence relevant to the right to control, not actual exercise of control.
IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART FedEx’s motion to strike individualized proof (doc. # 1398); DENIES the plaintiffs’ motions to augment the record (doc. ## 1992, 2064, 2087); DENIES FedEx’s request for oral argument (doc. ## 1400 and 1471); DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. ## 1163 and 1248); and GRANTS FedEx’s motion for summary judgment (doc. # 1215).
102

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN document 2097 filed 08/11/10 page 103 of 103 In class action cases where summary judgment motions pend, the court
INSTRUCTS the parties to file a supplement statement within thirty days, not to exceed five pages, indicating why the outcome should be different or the same as this Kansas opinion.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: August 11, 2010
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge United States District Court
103

 
 case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 1 of 182

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

) CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

ALL CASES

)

_____________________________________ )

OPINION and ORDER

The court today addresses all outstanding motions for summary judgment

and disposes of all other pending cases in this FedEx Multidistrict Litigation

docket. In August, this court granted FedEx’s motion for summary judgment in

the Kansas case and ordered the parties to file five-page supplementary briefs for

each of the outstanding class cases addressing why the outcome in those cases

should be the same as or different from Kansas.

The court incorporates here the background and findings of fact contained

in its Kansas decision and assumes the reader’s familiarity with the contents of

that decision and other substantive decisions in this MDL litigation. See generally

Op. and Ord., Aug. 11, 2010 [Doc. No. 2097]1 (“Kansas Decision”).2 The court

1 All document numbers are found in the general MDL docket, 3:05-md-527.
2 See also, e.g., Class Certification Orders, Mar. 25., 2008 [Doc. No. 1119], July 27, 2009 [Doc. No. 1770], Feb. 10, 2010 [Doc. No. 2004] (clarifying Nevada certification); Evidentiary Orders, Feb. 23, 2010 [Doc. No. 2010] (granting in part Rule 56 motion to strike), Mar. 29, 2010 [Doc. No. 2016] (judicial notice), May 4, 2010 [Doc. No. 2056] (granting Rule 56 motion to strike and exclude expert testimony and report of Robert Wood); Dispositive Orders, Apr. 21, 2010 [Doc. No. 2029] (denying request to give preclusive effect to Estrada), as amended by May 18, 2010 [Doc. No. 2062], May 28, 2010 [Doc. No. 2068] (Illinois), June 28, 2010 [Doc. No. 2078] (ERISA).

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 2 of 182
applies the summary judgment standard set forth in the Kansas Decision, at 5960.
When appropriate, the court will incorporate its reasoning from the Kansas decision. The reasoning for each of today’s dispositions is provided state by state in alphabetical order and, for ease of reference, an appendix at the end of this opinion and order summarizes today’s dispositions.
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION Before turning to the specifics of today’s decisions, the court addresses some common themes arising from the parties’ briefs in these FedEx MDL cases and offers some general comments that might help to understand these decisions.
A. These MDL Decisions Won’t Preclude Most Future Litigation Concerning Employment Status of FedEx Ground Drivers.
The plaintiff drivers in these FedEx MDL cases have entered into independent contractor agreements with FedEx Ground to provide package delivery services. Generally, the drivers seek determinations that they are employees under the various states’ laws and they seek reimbursement of business expenses and backpay for overtime and other wages. The nationwide character of this litigation makes it a truly unique set of cases, unlike anything that has appeared in the cases cited in the parties’ briefs.
Employment status questions typically arise when someone is physically harmed—either a third party or a worker. Courts developed the common law right
2

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 3 of 182
to control test to determine whether an employer had reserved enough control over a worker to justify holding the employer liable for the worker’s tortious conduct towards a third party. Modern statutes have extended worker’s compensation protection to employees, sometimes using the common law right to control approach and sometimes broadly redefining the term “employee” to include a larger group of workers than the common law test would have included.
Today’s cases don’t involve physical harm to third parties or to the plaintiffs. Some of the states considered today have wage statutes that recognize the harm of illegal methods of paying wages to workers, such as not paying overtime, deducting business expenses from employees’ wages, and the like. Cases involving these wage statutes often involve state agencies seeking to penalize wayward employers and to vindicate workers’ statutorily created rights or the state’s statutory rights to collect employment taxes. Though it is less common, workers also may vindicate their rights in private causes of action by seeking to have a court declare that they are employees instead of independent contractors. In other states lacking these statutes—and in all the states in this MDL litigation—there remains these MDL plaintiffs’ generalized effort to be reclassified as employees so as to shift the balance of rights and duties in the working arrangement between themselves and FedEx: the plaintiff drivers then would have fewer duties and increased rights (but likely also decreased entrepreneurial opportunities with FedEx and decreased gross pay) and FedEx would face increased duties.
3

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 4 of 182
Beyond the substantive character of these claims, the procedural uniqueness of these cases—an MDL proceeding consisting of class actions—is particularly noteworthy because this procedural posture has substantially limited the scope of evidence available to this court to decide the drivers’ generalized employment status question. Under the procedural posture of these cases, this court has considered evidence common to the drivers’ relationships with FedEx on a nationwide basis: the Operating Agreement and generally applicable Policies and Procedures. As a condition of class certification, the court excluded particularized evidence of actual control between FedEx and the drivers. This condition was appropriate to satisfy the commonality requirement for class certification, to satisfy the commonality and judicial economy considerations motivating the consolidation of these cases in an MDL court, and to address the very nature of these plaintiffs’ generalized claims.
The cases’ substantive nature and procedural posture might limit the preclusive effect of this court’s decisions in these cases. These decisions aren’t expected to preclude injured persons from seeking respondeat superior liability or worker’s compensation. Such personal injury cases would surely involve the review of much extrinsic and individualized evidence of a particular driver’s relationship with FedEx. Today’s decisions also don’t address what the outcomes of these cases might be if the classes were defined differently.3
3 The court directs the parties to the trial court’s decision in Estrada v. FedEx Ground, No. BC 210130 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 26, 2004) [Exh. B to Pltfs’ Req. for Judicial Notice, Apr. 24, 2008], for an example highlighting how class definitions might make a difference.
4

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 5 of 182
B. The Procedural Posture of These Cases Limits the Scope of Evidence Reviewed. In their supplemental briefs, the drivers have complained at times that the
court “refused” to consider extrinsic evidence of FedEx’s actual conduct towards them. The cases’ procedural posture limits the court to considering evidence truly common across the nation: the Operating Agreement and generally applicable Policies and Procedures. These cases might or might not come out differently under a different procedural posture allowing wider scope for review of extrinsic and particularized evidence, but that situation is not before the court today.4
The drivers’ characterization of the court’s use of evidence, after the court indulged their strategy of coming before an MDL court as classes, isn’t well-taken. To disagree with the court’s rulings is fair (and is a matter better handled through a motion to reconsider or an appeal), but to say the court “refused” to do something when the court accepted the drivers’ own arguments on the matter isn’t accurate.5 The parties have heaped numerous insults upon each other’s arguments and reasoning in their various briefs, and the court has patiently
4 The scope of evidence surely has affected today’s decisions, but a good example showing that the scope of evidence isn’t determinative by itself is the trial court’s decisions concerning Single Work Area and Multiple Work Area drivers in Estrada v. FedEx Ground, No. BC 210130 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 26, 2004) [Exh. B to Pltfs’ Req. for Judicial Notice, Apr. 24, 2008]. On the flip side, the parties might find it helpful to review today’s Pennsylvania decision, which involves discussion of two Pennsylvania cases containing very similar contractual arrangements, but very different outcomes due to the differing scopes of evidence available to the deciding courts. Compare Green v. Independent Oil Co., 201 A.2d 207, 210 (Pa. 1964), with Juarbe v. City of Philadelphia, 431 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981).
5 The court chronicles one example of the plaintiffs’ flip-flop on their approach to the scope of evidence in today’s Louisiana decision.
5

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 6 of 182
overlooked their excursions into the land of uncivil arguments, exaggerations, and mischaracterizations (and the court has avoided wasting time on listing citations to all the foul balls the parties pitched in their arguments); the court is less patient with mischaracterizations of its own efforts to rule fairly on the issues in this litigation.
The drivers have known at least since this court’s first order granting class certification that the scope of evidence would, under the approach taken by the drivers, be limited to the Operating Agreement and generally applicable Policies and Procedures. See generally Op. and Ord., Mar. 25, 2008 [Doc. No. 1119]. In July 2005, the drivers argued to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Denver that their cases were appropriate for MDL centralization and that they could satisfactorily litigate their case based on common evidence. The drivers’ ensuing briefs seemed to indicate that they were perfectly comfortable with, and felt they could win their case based on, the use of common evidence. The court tried to remind the drivers that their cases would be decided on the basis of common evidence. See, e.g., Op. and Ord., July 27, 2009, at 6 n.5 [Doc. No. 1770] (“The court notes that the plaintiffs may have indicated a desire to introduce anecdotal evidence to support their claims in this action. If the plaintiffs intend to introduce anecdotal evidence of FedEx’s actual exercise of control to support their claims, they should inform the court immediately because this may require reevaluation of class certification.”); Ord., Apr. 22, 2008 [Doc. No. 1152].
As the court stated in the Kansas Decision: 6

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 7 of 182
The court sets forth the facts from the perspective of what control FedEx has the right to exercise over its drivers and not necessarily what control FedEx actually exercises on a daily basis. While FedEx managers might exercise more control than what is retained in the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable policies and procedures, the class was certified on the basis of right to control, not actual exercise of control. The plaintiffs reiterated to this court during class certification that they could show right to control by reliance solely on the Operating Agreement and applicable policies and procedures and wouldn’t go beyond those documents to prove their case. In short, the issue for today’s purposes is what control FedEx had the right to exert pursuant to the parties’ contractual relationship.
* * * FedEx might actually exercise more control than authorized, but as explained, the court is limited to determining whether FedEx retained the right to control. The court relies on the policies and procedures to the extent they show how FedEx implemented its authority as retained by the Operating Agreement.
Kansas Decision, at 3-4, 72.
C. Collateral Estoppel Issue
The California court of appeals affirmed the Estrada trial court’s decision
finding FedEx Single Work Area (SWA) drivers to be employees. Estrada v. FedEx
Ground Package Sys., Inc., 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). The Estrada
trial court held that the FedEx Multiple Work Area (MWA) plaintiff driver before
it was an independent contractor, and that decision wasn’t appealed. SWA drivers
own and operate a single delivery route for FedEx, while MWA drivers own and
operate two or more delivery routes. On the evidence before it, the Estrada trial
court found that the MWA driver was subject to the same “strict controls” as the
SWA drivers and that the MWA driver and SWA drivers were all integral to FedEx’s
7

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 8 of 182
business. Estrada v. FedEx Ground, No. BC 210130, at *17 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 26, 2004) [Exh. B to Pltfs’ Req. for Judicial Notice, Apr. 24, 2008]. Although the Estrada trial court held SWA drivers to be employees, it held the MWA driver to be an independent contractor based on his opportunity for profit as a MWA driver. MWA drivers testified at trial “as to their enthusiasm for their entrepreneurial opportunities for making good money,” and the court noted that “a MWA has the opportunity to hire drivers and slowly but surely create a little financial empire under the aegis of FEG.” Id. at *18. The opportunity for profit, and not how much profit the MWA plaintiff made, was dispositive. Id.
The plaintiff drivers have argued vigorously throughout this litigation that Estrada’s SWA finding should be given preclusive effect in all these MDL cases. This court has addressed the drivers’ argument and denied granting preclusive effect to the Estrada decision. See generally Op. and Ord., Apr. 21, 2010 [Doc. No. 2029]. The court denied collateral estoppel because Estrada involved facts specific to the California class in that case. The facts before the Estrada court and those before this court are dissimilar insofar as the facts available to this court don’t go beyond the Operating Agreement and generally applicable Policies and Procedures. See Op. and Ord., Apr. 21, 2010, at 25-29 [Doc. No. 2029]. Also, the SWA class in Estrada was markedly different from the classes before this court because the MDL classes lump together SWA and MWA drivers. Thus, though the parties litigated a right to control issue in Estrada, the issue decided in Estrada isn’t identical to issue before this court.
8

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 9 of 182
The drivers never addressed how the collateral estoppel issue might differ for the California class as distinct from other states’ classes, even though California adds an economic realities twist to the common law right to control test and other states in this centralized docket don’t add such a twist. Also, in the interest of fairness, the court hasn’t precluded FedEx from litigating the right to control factor in today’s cases when the drivers haven’t addressed the potential preclusive effect of the Estrada trial court’s finding that a MWA driver was an independent contractor under the California test. Op. and Ord., Apr. 21, 2010, at 41. Indeed, the drivers have all but ignored the Estrada trial court’s MWA finding and have hardly addressed this court’s findings in the Kansas Decision relating to their entrepreneurial opportunities. It can’t work both ways: the drivers can’t argue persuasively that Estrada should have preclusive effect on the California class (and other states’ classes) while ignoring the Estrada trial court’s MWA finding. As in Estrada, this court has found the drivers’ entrepreneurial opportunities to be highly persuasive evidence indicating independent contractor status. Unlike Estrada, and because of the classes defined in these MDL cases, the court has no occasion to distinguish between SWA and MWA drivers. To repeat the Order denying the grant of preclusive effect to Estrada, the court doesn’t apply the finding of a right to control in Estrada to these cases, but rather analyzes the right to control again.
D. Intent Wasn’t Dispositive in the Kansas Decision.
9

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 10 of 182
In their supplemental briefs, the drivers characterize the Kansas Decision as placing dispositive weight on the clearly expressed intent in the Operating Agreement that an independent contractor relationship exist between themselves and FedEx. The court stated that this “factor weighs strongly in favor of independent contractor status.” Kansas Decision, at 72. But among all the other factors, the intent factor weighed “strongly” because the intent expressed in the contracts was so clear, not because the intent factor had special status or carried dispositive weight. The court never said this factor was dispositive, and the court never believed this factor to be dispositive. The laws of every state considered in these cases generally require courts to look beyond contractual labels, and the court has done so by examining the Operating Agreement and generally applicable Policies and Procedures in their entirety, vis-à-vis the comprehensive list of factors that Kansas uses to determine employment status—the Kansas Decision would have been far shorter were it otherwise.
Most important in Kansas—and most important under the common law and Restatement tests generally—is the right to control, which typically is the weightiest factor. States often treat the right to discharge at will as the second most important factor. This court held that there was no reasonable inference that FedEx retained the right to control the methods and means of the drivers’ work on a class-wide basis. See Kansas Decision, at 73. This finding came in light of the distinction between control of means and control of results. In most states, control of results doesn’t indicate employee status; control of means used to achieve
10

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 11 of 182
contracted-for results does indicate employee status. Drawing the line between means and results is a challenging, highly contextual and fact-specific task. Bright-line rules prove elusive here. This court held that the controls reserved to FedEx were results-oriented: FedEx provides work to and pays contractor-drivers to provide the specific result of timely and safely delivered packages to FedEx customers. See Op. and Ord., Aug. 11, 2010, at 70, 73, 77, 81, 84, 85, 87, 100. The totality of the circumstances and review of all the relevant facts and factors led to this results-oriented conclusion. Buttressing this conclusion, FedEx has no right to discharge drivers at will. FedEx can non-renew a contract or cancel a contract for breach, but these are unexceptional rights common to any contractee in an independent contractor relationship; notably, FedEx is contractually unable to discharge a driver at a whim and on the spot the way an employee in an at-will employment relationship could be discharged.
In addition to the right to control and right to discharge factors, the court found the drivers’ entrepreneurial opportunities to be highly probative of independent contractor status. Also, the plaintiff drivers are responsible for acquiring their own equipment, such as their own delivery trucks (and nothing suggests that the drivers aren’t paid accordingly to cover these expenses), though the equipment factor generally weighs less heavily in indicating independent contractor status. The court repeats here what it stated in the Kansas Decision:
Upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the only reasonable inference is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to direct the manner in which drivers perform their work.
11

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 12 of 182
FedEx supervises the drivers’ work and offers numerous suggestions and best practices for performance of assigned tasks, but the evidence doesn’t suggest that FedEx has the authority under the Operating Agreement to require compliance with its suggestions. Further, other factors strongly weigh in favor of independent contractor status; in particular, the parties intended to create an independent contractor arrangement, the drivers have the ability to hire helpers and replacement drivers, they are responsible for acquiring a vehicle and can use the vehicle for other commercial purposes, they can sell their routes to other qualified drivers, and FedEx doesn’t have the right to terminate contracts at-will. Although some facts weigh in favor of employee status, after considering all the relevant factors, the court finds that the plaintiffs are independent contractors as a matter of [Kansas] law.
Kansas Decision, at 3 (emphasis added).
The drivers’ supplemental briefs gave little importance to their
entrepreneurial opportunities with FedEx. Generally, employees can’t sell their
jobs, and they can’t hire other people to do their jobs for them. The drivers call
these entrepreneurial opportunities a “sham,” but they haven’t shown the court
on the common evidence that these opportunities are but a sham. After
considering a wealth of extrinsic testimonial evidence, the trial court in Estrada
held a Multiple Work Area driver (a driver who took advantage of the
entrepreneurial opportunities available to him with FedEx by owning multiple
delivery routes) to be an independent contractor. This court made its own findings
using the common evidence available to it in the Kansas Decision. To characterize
the Kansas Decision as finding a contractual label to be dispositive is to
fundamentally misunderstand this court’s reasoning.
E. Kansas Law is Typical of the States’ Laws Reviewed Today.
12

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 13 of 182
The drivers’ supplemental briefs make a strong effort to distinguish Kansas law as being unique, while FedEx seizes on language from the Kansas Decision to say that what’s true in Kansas must be true elsewhere. These approaches have resulted in some jarringly inconsistent arguments between the summary judgment briefs and supplemental briefs, making it difficult for the court to accept the parties’ statements on what the law is. For example, in the Arkansas case, FedEx argued in its summary judgment response brief that Arkansas courts require each and every Restatement factor to favor either employee or independent contractor status for summary judgment to be appropriate. The drivers’ reply challenged this view of Arkansas law and persuasively distinguished the cases on which FedEx relied. In a move that reflects the parties’ parries in this litigation as a whole, the drivers’ post-Kansas supplemental brief now urges the very argument they previously condemned: that all Restatement factors must support independent contractor status in Arkansas for FedEx to win, and the drivers’ supplemental brief relies exclusively on the very cases the drivers had persuasively argued held dubious value for this docket.
Rather than helping the court to understand the law, some arguments have bordered on simple misrepresentations of the law. In any event, as today’s decisions will show, the court’s own review of the law of the various states has led to the conclusion that Kansas law is not strangely alien or sui generis, but rather is very typical of the states’ laws on determining employment status.
13

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 14 of 182
One of the drivers’ characterizations of the court’s understanding of Kansas law requires mention. The drivers try to distinguish the Kansas Decision by arguing that it carved out an exception in Kansas law: if an employer requires a worker to do a certain amount of work within customer-based time boundaries, that worker still can be considered an independent contractor if the employer (in this case, FedEx) is contractually bound to provide full days of work to the drivers. Without the employer’s exceptional contractual obligation—so the drivers’ argument goes—the worker would be considered an employee.
As today’s considerations of the various states’ laws should make clear, resolution of employment status at common law doesn’t allow for bright-line rules. Statutory redefinitions of the scope of employee status sometimes create clearer bright-line rules, unmistakably broadening the scope of who is an employee (often called “statutory employees”).6 But at common law, the test is the right to control the means and methods of achieving results; control of the results doesn’t indicate employee status. Determining the line between means and methods, and results, is context specific and requires considering multiple factors and examining the totality of the circumstances of a given working relationship.
The Kansas Decision carved out no exceptions to Kansas law: this court isn’t in a position to declare what Kansas law is when Kansas itself hasn’t declared what its law is or what its law most likely would be. Rather, the Kansas
6 The court directs the parties to today’s decisions in the Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Nevada cases.
14

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 15 of 182
Decision, and today’s decisions, take into consideration all the circumstances of the FedEx/driver working relationship and conclude that customer-based constraints on the drivers are results-oriented controls that don’t indicate employee status.
The drivers complain that FedEx makes them do so much work within so much time, which they say indicates control of means and methods. But the numerous cases across the states reviewed by the court indicate that “so much work within so much time” doesn’t, by itself, indicate employee status— subcontractors often agree to get a job done within a specified time. The Kansas Decision pointed out that FedEx is contractually bound to give drivers work. The parties agreed to something: FedEx would provide work, and the drivers would do that work. This type of agreement is common and unexceptional in all working relationships, whether of the employee or independent contractor variety, and is unexceptional to states’ laws differentiating between employee and independent contractor status. The court doesn’t agree that it created an exception in Kansas law, and the court doesn’t agree that Kansas law is alien and unique compared to the rest of the states’ laws relevant to today’s decisions.
15

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 16 of 182
F. FedEx’s Requests for Summary Judgment sua sponte. In eleven of the states with pending summary judgment motions filed by the drivers,7 FedEx didn’t file motions for summary judgment and instead argued in its summary judgment response briefs that the laws of those eleven states inflexibly required a trial on the employee vs. independent contractor question. The court held under Kansas law that the facts were susceptible to only one reasonable conclusion: on a class-wide basis, FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the drivers’ methods and means of doing their work. Kansas Decision, at 73. FedEx now urges the court to apply this same conclusion to these eleven states and enter judgment sua sponte in its favor. “[D]istrict courts are widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party was on notice that [it] had to come forward with all of [its] evidence.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986). Generally, sua sponte entry of judgment is a “hazardous procedure, . . . warrants special caution and is often unnecessary,” but it is permissible. Jones v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 302 F.3d 735, 740 (7th Cir. 2002). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(1), which became effective December 1, 2010, specifically authorizes granting summary judgment for a nonmovant—what the Rule calls “Judgment Independent of the Motion”—after notice and a reasonable time to respond. The drivers’ supplemental briefs make clear that they knew
7 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and West Virginia.
16

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 17 of 182
FedEx would seek such judgments. The drivers didn’t ask for additional briefing; instead, they explained their disagreement with FedEx’s view of the law and argued that judgment in favor of FedEx wouldn’t be appropriate. Thus, the court concludes the drivers have had a reasonable opportunity for response.
FedEx argues that judicial economy would best be served by entering what is now called judgment independent of the motion in its favor in these eleven states. The parties have fully litigated these MDL cases within their procedural posture. The evidence before the court—the Operating Agreement and generally applicable Policies and Procedures—isn’t in dispute, and the drivers didn’t take the position that this evidence contains ambiguous terms. The drivers’ presentation of facts is common and repeated across the board in these cases, and their arguments about how the court should view the facts don’t materially change from one state to the next.
FedEx’s about-face on the appropriateness of summary judgment in these cases seizes attention, but this court’s duty is to decide these cases as the states’ highest courts (or, in the absence of guidance from the highest courts, as the appellate courts) would decide them. E.g., Home Valu, Inc. v. Pep Boys, 213 F.3d 960, 963 (7th Cir. 2000). As set forth in the decisions in this opinion, the court has reviewed the laws of these eleven states and finds that resolution of the employment status question without a trial is appropriate in these states when the facts are undisputed and lend themselves to but one inference. The court hesitates to grant FedEx a windfall, but because the drivers had full opportunity
17

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 18 of 182
to present their position, judicial economy is best served by granting judgment to FedEx in these states if the states’ laws favor FedEx as did Kansas law. Also, insofar as it is most fair to give parties an answer to a question when the question is ripe and has been pending for quite some time, fairness to the parties is best served by answering now the general question presented in these MDL cases.
II. DISPOSITION OF FEDEX MDL CASES A. Alabama
(1) 3:06-cv-428, Floyd The Floyd drivers allege violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud; they seek an accounting, rescission, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. The drivers didn’t move to certify the ADTPA and fraud claims, but they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under Alabama law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Alabama), Apr. 2, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 583]. Only the drivers filed a motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the drivers’ motion and grants judgment independent of the motion to FedEx. Because the Alabama claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered for FedEx on all claims in this Alabama (Floyd) case.
18

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 19 of 182
As noted, FedEx didn’t move for summary judgment against the Alabama class. In its supplemental brief, FedEx asks the court to enter judgment sua sponte (now called judgment independent of the motion) in its favor. As set forth in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the court takes this request seriously because summary judgment is appropriate under Alabama law, the drivers’ employment status can be examined today without prejudice to the plaintiffs, and answering now the question of the plaintiff drivers’ employment status under Alabama law will conserve judicial resources.
FedEx’s summary judgment response brief argued that summary judgment on the employment status question is “practically unavailable” in Alabama. Yet Alabama courts have been perfectly willing to enter judgment on employment status without a trial when the facts are undisputed. See, e.g., Dickinson v. City of Huntsville, 822 So.2d 411, 416 (Ala. 2001) (affirming summary judgment finding independent contractor status where no substantial evidence was presented to show employee status); In re Curry v. Interstate Express, Inc., 607 So.2d 230, 233 (Ala. 1992) (reversing lower court and finding worker to be employee); Atchison v. Boone Newspapers, Inc., 981 So.2d 427, 434 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (affirming summary judgment finding worker to be independent contractor); see also Lankford v. Gulf Lumber Co., Inc., 597 So.2d 1340, 1344 (Ala. 1992) (“[W]hether a defendant reserved the right of control is generally a question of fact to be decided by the jury if the evidence is in dispute . . . .” (emphasis added)).
19

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 20 of 182
In Alabama “for one to be an employee, the other party must retain the right to direct the manner in which the business shall be done, as well as the result to be accomplished or, in other words, not only what shall be done, but how it shall be done.” Atchison v. Boone Newspapers, 981 So.2d at 431 (citations omitted). Alabama courts “look[] to the reserved right of control rather than the actual exercise of control.” Id. (quoting Turnipseed v. McCafferty, 521 So.2d 31, 32 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987)); see also In re Curry v. Interstate Express, 607 So.2d at 232 (“In the last analysis, it is the reserved right of control rather than its actual exercise that provides the answer.”). If the right of control extends no further than directing what is ultimately to be accomplished, employee status isn’t indicated. See Lankford v. Gulf Lumber Co., 597 So.2d at 1343 (finding right to supervise loggers was merely to ensure contracted-for results and didn’t indicate employee status); Williams v. Tennessee River Pulp and Paper Co., 442 So.2d 20, 21-22 (Ala. 1983) (finding the only reasonable inference from work site inspections was that company was supervising conformity with contract requirements, which didn’t indicate employee status); Atchison v. Boone Newspapers, 981 So.2d at 431; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. D&G Trucking, Inc., 966 So.2d 266, 268 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).
Alabama courts consider four factors to decide whether an employer has retained the right to control the manner of contract performance: (1) direct evidence of the right or exercise of control; (2) the method of payment used; (3) whether the alleged principal had the right to terminate employment; and (4) the
20

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 21 of 182
right to control another’s time. Dickinson v. City of Huntsville, 822 So.2d 411, 416 (Ala. 2001); see also Williams v. Tennessee River Pulp & Paper Co., 442 So.2d at 21 (“[T]he crucial factor is the right of Tennessee Paper to control the manner of Mauldin’s performance.”). Alabama courts sometimes consider the furnishing of equipment instead of the right to control another’s time. Atchison v. Boone Newspapers, 981 So.2d at 432.
The Floyd plaintiffs argue that if a company “controlled what loads [the driver] picked up and where he picked them up,” then Alabama views such control as establishing an employee relationship. Pltfs’ Supp. Brief (Alabama), Sept. 24, 2010, at 2 [Doc. No. 2161] (quoting In re Curry v. Interstate Express, 607 So.2d at 233, and citing Liberty Mut. Ins. v. D&G Trucking, 966 So.2d at 269 (“Trucking personnel decide which driver to dispatch . . . [and] [o]nce that driver has accepted a load, he or she is not permitted by D&G Trucking to run a personal errand that might involve significant travel beyond the pickup and delivery.”)). The presence of “some controls,” the drivers argue, is direct evidence of the right to control. Pltfs’ Supp. Brief, at 2-3 (quoting Liberty Mut. Ins. v. D&G Trucking, 966 So.2d at 270).
The drivers are right that at some point, “some control” amounts to enough control to indicate an employee relationship. But not here. In re Curry and Liberty Mutual are distinguishable from the case before the court today.8 The In re Curry
8 FedEx notes that these are worker’s compensation cases and at least one Alabama decision distinguishes worker’s compensation cases from other employment status cases. “The work[er’s] compensation law is liberally construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of the act and to
21

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 22 of 182
court didn’t find a right to control simply because “Interstate controlled what loads [Curry] picked up and where he picked them up, as well as the place of delivery of the cargo.” In re Curry v. Interstate Express, 607 So.2d at 233. Interstate ordered Mr. Curry to transport his load of dog food even after Mr. Curry expressed his concern that the load wasn’t properly secured, which led to Mr. Curry’s injury. Id. Reasonably, in light of the order to transport a load known to be improperly secured, Interstate should be responsible to Mr. Curry for worker’s compensation. Liberty Mutual involved a worker’s compensation insurance premium dispute where a company reclassified drivers as independent contractors without making significant changes to the company’s actual relationship with the drivers. Liberty Mut. Ins. v. D&G Trucking, 966 So.2d at 269-270. Besides the reclassification, D&G Trucking continued to control drivers as it had before and continued to own the trucks the drivers drove. In both cases, the defendants’ orders concerning the identity of loads and timing of pick up and delivery were not, by themselves, dispositive facts: those facts were surrounded by a larger context favoring employee status. Neither case involved facts that overlap in a compelling way with the facts before this court. Also, Alabama doesn’t treat any single fact as dispositive; employment status is a fact-intensive inquiry. See Hooker Constr., Inc. v. Walker, 825 So.2d 838, 843-844 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (“[T]he retention of
eliminate procedural technicalities.” Williams v. Tennessee River Pulp and Paper Co., 442 So.2d 20, 23 (Ala. 1983). The plaintiffs point out that no other Alabama decision makes this distinction. The court doesn’t rely on any distinction in Alabama between the liberal construction of worker’s compensation cases and other employment status cases.
22

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 23 of 182
control necessary to establish employee status is determined on a case-by-case basis. No one fact by itself can create an employer-employee relationship. . . . When taken as a whole, the evidence supports the trial court’s finding.” (citation omitted)).
The court incorporates here its reasoning in the Kansas Decision. As previously held, FedEx’s controls are results-oriented, and FedEx’s supervision exists to ensure contracted-for results. Such controls don’t indicate employee status in Alabama. “After reviewing the common undisputed evidence offered by the parties, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73.
As in the Kansas Decision, Alabama drivers don’t negotiate their pay: FedEx controls their pay. Some Alabama courts view control of pay as weighing in favor of employee status. See In re Curry v. Interstate Express, 607 So.2d at 233 (finding Interstate controlled payment where Interstate determined percentage driver received). Other courts don’t view it this way, but rather are satisfied that payment without deducting taxes and with provision of 1099 Forms weighs in favor of independent contractor status. See Atchison v. Boone Newspapers, 981 So.2d at 430, 432. Also, as in the Kansas Decision, FedEx doesn’t have the right to terminate Alabama drivers at will, and FedEx doesn’t have the right to control Alabama drivers’ time insofar as contractors can hire assistants and replacement drivers and can develop profitable package delivery businesses in contract with
23

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 24 of 182
FedEx. Finally, Alabama drivers are fully responsible for obtaining their own equipment—even though FedEx makes fulfilling this responsibility easier through its Business Support Package, the drivers have the ultimate responsibility of obtaining equipment with or without FedEx’s help. See Keebler v. Glenwood Woodyard, Inc., 628 So.2d 566, 568-569 (Ala. 1993) (noting that enabling contractor to work by providing equipment and insurance wasn’t the same as controlling the manner in which he worked). For these reasons, and the reasons stated in the Kansas Decision, the Floyd drivers are independent contractors under Alabama law.
(2) 3:07-cv-191, Gentle Bruce and Stephanie Gentle present the same claims as the Floyd drivers—violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud—and seek an accounting, rescission, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. The Gentles haven’t filed a motion for summary judgment, but today’s decision in Floyd applies to Bruce Gentle’s claims because he is a member of the Alabama class. The court has no information on whether Stephanie Gentle is a member of the Alabama class; if she isn’t, the transferor court will decide how much weight to give to today’s procedurally distinct decision in Floyd when deciding her case. The court will suggest remand of the Gentles’ case to its transferor court for further disposition. The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-one days of entry of this order. In addition to
24

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 25 of 182
summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
B. Arizona (3:07-cv-272, Gibson) The Gibson drivers allege violations of Arizona’s wage withholding statute, ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 23-352, and seek rescission, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. All claims are class certified; only the drivers filed a summary judgment motion. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the plaintiffs’ motion and grants judgment independent of the motion to FedEx. Because the Arizona claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered in FedEx’s favor on all claims in Gibson. As noted, FedEx didn’t file a motion for summary judgment against the Arizona class. In its supplemental brief, FedEx asks the court to enter judgment sua sponte (now called judgment independent of the motion) in its favor. As set forth in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the court takes this request seriously because summary judgment is appropriate under Arizona law, the drivers’ employment status can be examined today without prejudice to the
25

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 26 of 182
plaintiffs, and answering now the question of the plaintiff drivers’ employment status under Arizona law will conserve judicial resources.
FedEx insisted in its summary judgment response brief that Arizona law requires a trial on the employment status question. As in other states, summary judgment is appropriate in Arizona where the material facts are undisputed and only one inference can be drawn from those facts. Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 794 P.2d 138, 141 (Ariz. 1990). The Kansas Decision held that “[a]fter reviewing the common undisputed evidence offered by the parties, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. For purposes of this case, Arizona law doesn’t materially differ from Kansas law.
The parties agree that Arizona’s common law test for employment status provides the definition of “employee” under Arizona’s wage withholding statute. “The right to control or supervise the method of reaching a specific result determines whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor.” Home Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 599 P.2d 801, 803 (Ariz. 1979); see also Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, 713 P.2d 303, 306 (Ariz. 1986) (same); Hughes v. Industrial Comm’n, 558 P.2d 11, 12-13 (Ariz. 1976) (“[W]e must look to the right to control the method of reaching a desired result reposed in the employer. It is not the exercise of the power to supervise and control, but rather its existence which is to be considered.”).
26

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 27 of 182
Arizona doesn’t follow a single formula for its right to control test. Some courts have looked to the multi-factor Restatement test for employment status, discussed in the Kansas Decision. See, e.g., Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, 794 P.2d at 141 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220)). Other courts have examined the right to control in light of other factors that also were discussed in the Kansas Decision. See, e.g., id. at 145 n.6 (noting IRS list of twenty factors: instructions; training; integration; services rendered personally; hiring, supervising and paying assistants; continuing relationship; set hours of work; full time required; doing work on business premises; order of sequence set; reporting; payment by time, not job; payment of traveling expenses; furnishing of tools; investment; realization of profit or loss; working for more than one firm at a time; making service available to public; right to discharge; right to terminate without liability); Home Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 599 P.2d at 803 (“These indicia . . . include: duration of the employment; the method of payment; who furnishes necessary equipment; the right to hire and fire; who bears responsibility for workmen’s compensation insurance; the extent to which the employer may exercise control over the details of the work, and whether the work was performed in the usual and regular course of the employer’s business.”); Dial-A-Messenger, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 648 P.2d 1053, 1057-1059 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982) (discussing multiple factors: authority over an individual’s assistants; compliance with instructions; oral or written reports; personal performance; establishment of work sequence; right to discharge; set hours of work; training;
27

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 28 of 182
amount of time; expense reimbursement; availability to the public; compensation on job basis; realization of profit or loss; significant investment). The common denominator is that the test is the alleged employer’s reserved right to control. Arizona courts consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating the indicia of control, and no single factor is itself conclusive. Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, 794 P.2d at 143; Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, 713 P.2d at 306; Home Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 599 P.2d at 803 (“To determine the right to control, courts look to the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case, examining various indicia of control. . . . In undertaking an analysis none of the indicia is, in itself, conclusive.”).
The drivers’ supplemental brief highlights and relies on the use in some Arizona decisions of the disjunctive “or” to argue that a right to supervise contracted-for results indicates an employee relationship in Arizona. See Home Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 599 P.2d at 803 (noting employment status turns on “[t]he right to control or supervise the method of reaching a specific result” (emphasis added)). The language cited by the drivers doesn’t support their argument. The phrase doesn’t say that the right to supervise a result indicates employee status; the phrase says the right to supervise the method of reaching a specific result indicates employee status. This test is no different from other states using the right to control test, and it differentiates between results-oriented supervision of contracted-for rights and supervision and control of means and methods used to achieve those results.
28

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 29 of 182
If the drivers were correct, Arizona law would be radically different from Kansas law and Arizona cases would reflect their argument. But Arizona cases don’t interpret the “or” language as the drivers suggest. For example, the Home Insurance court, which used the disjunctive “or”, held that a hiring party could reasonably expect the worker’s compensation claimant to follow established departure and arrival times, and that he not deviate from well-recognized delivery routes, without creating an employment relationship. Home Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 599 P.2d at 804; see also Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, 713 P.2d at 306-307 (noting that applying Arizona’s right to control test “require[s] sufficient control over the method of reaching a desired result as opposed to merely controlling the end result of the work.”); Central Mgmt. Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 781 P.2d 1374, 1376-1377 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (“If the right of control of details goes no further than is necessary to ensure a satisfactory end result, it does not establish employment.” (citation omitted)).
The drivers also argue that the intent factor is “noticeably absent” from Arizona decisions. Arizona cases hardly mention intent at all. But, as discussed in the general introduction to today’s decisions, even though the intent factor weighs clearly in favor of an independent contractor relationship in states that weigh this factor, this factor wasn’t dispositive in the Kansas Decision and its absence from consideration under Arizona law doesn’t change today’s outcome.
The court has held that FedEx’s retained controls are results-oriented and there is no reasonable inference that FedEx has retained the right to control the
29

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 30 of 182
methods and means of the plaintiff drivers’ work on a class-wide basis. Kansas Decision, at 73. The Kansas Decision discussed nearly all the factors cited by Arizona courts, and the court incorporates that decision here. One factor not discussed in Kansas is the drivers’ availability to the public. The drivers are free to work for whomever else they wish, and, as discussed in the Kansas Decision, this freedom is far from illusory when the drivers take advantage of the entrepreneurial opportunities available to them. Their trucks, when covered with the FedEx logo, aren’t available to the public for service. Yet plumbers working at a job site aren’t available to the rest of the public when working a contract, so there’s nothing special in itself about a contractor or a van being tied up with a particular job. The availability factor could indicate employee status under numerous factual contexts, but in light of the drivers’ entrepreneurial opportunities, this factor doesn’t change the balance found by the court in its Kansas Decision. For the reasons stated here and in the Kansas Decision, the Gibson drivers are independent contractors under Arizona law.
C. Arkansas (3:06-cv-209, Harris) The Harris drivers allege violations of Arkansas’ Wage and Hour Law, breach of contract, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, conversion, quantum meruit, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act; they seek declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The drivers didn’t seek class certification on the breach of contract, misrepresentation, or FLSA claims, but they represented that “[a]t the
30

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 31 of 182
heart of the Arkansas claims is the common ‘overarching issue’ of whether FXG improperly labels these drivers as independent contractors.” Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Arkansas), Apr. 23, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 603]. Only the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the drivers’ summary judgment motion and grants judgment independent of the motion to FedEx on the state law claims only. To the extent the drivers’ claims depend upon Arkansas state law, the court decides their claims today because they turn on the central question of the drivers’ employment status under Arkansas law. The FLSA claim hasn’t been briefed and requires further development with individualized evidence. See Op. and Ord., July 27, 2009, at 916 [Doc. No. 1770]. The court will suggest remand of the FLSA-related claims for further disposition.
FedEx didn’t file a summary judgment motion with respect to the Arkansas class. In its supplemental brief, FedEx asks the court to enter judgment sua sponte (now called judgment independent of the motion) in its favor. As set forth in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the court takes this request seriously because summary judgment is appropriate under Arkansas law, the drivers’ employment status can be examined today without prejudice to the plaintiffs, and answering now the question of the plaintiff drivers’ employment status under Arkansas law will conserve judicial resources. Summary judgment is appropriate in Arkansas when the facts are undisputed and only one inference can reasonably be drawn from them. Howard v. Dallas Morning News, Inc., 918
31

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 32 of 182
S.W.2d 178, 185 (Ark. 1996); see also Dickens v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of
Arkansas, 868 S.W.2d 476 (Ark. 1994) (affirming summary judgment finding
independent contractor status).
Arkansas follows the multi-factor Restatement test for employment status
discussed in the Kansas Decision. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220.
The right to control is the most important factor, and the right to control, not
actual control, determines the relationship. Because a fact intensive inquiry is
required, each case must be decided on its own facts, under the totality of the
circumstances. See Conagra Foods, Inc. v. Draper, 276 S.W.3d 244, 249 (Ark.
2008); Arkansas Transit Homes, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty, 16 S.W.3d 545,
547-548 (Ark. 2000); Howard v. Dallas Morning News, 918 S.W.2d at 182-183.
Arkansas follows the distinction between controlling results and controlling
methods and means used to obtain those results:
It is not enough that the employer has merely a general right to order the work stopped or resumed, to inspect its progress or to receive reports, to make suggestions or recommendations which need not necessarily be followed, or to prescribe alterations and deviations. Such a general right is usually reserved to employers, but does not mean that the contractor is controlled as to his methods of work, or as to operative detail. There must be a retention of a right of supervision that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work his own way.
Conagra Foods v. Draper, 276 S.W.3d at 250 (quoting Williams v. Nucor-Yamato
Steel Co., 886 S.W.2d 586, 587 (Ark. 1994) (alterations omitted)).
[I]n contracts for the performance of work, the inclusion of such phrases as, “work is to be done in accordance with instructions,” “under direction and supervision,” and the like does not relate to the
32

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 33 of 182
method or manner in which work is to be done, and does not govern the details of the physical means by which the work is to be performed, or change the status of independent contractor to that of master and servant. Conagra Foods v. Draper, 276 S.W.3d at 250 (discussing Moore v. Phillips, 120 S.W.2d 722 (Ark. 1938)). Arkansas courts construe employee status more broadly in situations involving respondeat superior liability or worker’s compensation. Among all the states’ cases this court has examined, Arkansas courts have given special emphasis to the rule that although one entrusts work to an independent contractor, one may yet be liable for harm the contractor causes to others to the extent one has retained control of any part of the contractor’s work—even though the contractor still is generally considered an independent contractor and not an employee. Elkins v. Arkla, Inc., 849 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Ark. 1993) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 414). As the Arkansas Supreme Court put it, “[W]hen one is sought to be held responsible for the tortious act of another under the principle of respondeat superior, the question of responsibility will not depend entirely upon the existence of some actual contractual relationship of master and servant. It is sometimes allowable to prove the relation of master and servant by the fact that one performs service for another.” Conagra Foods v. Draper, 276 S.W.3d at 249, 250 (discussing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 414); Howard v. Dallas Morning News, 918 S.W.2d at 184; but see Blankenship v. Overholt, 786 S.W.2d 814, 816 (Ark. 1990) (finding no liability even where employer provided
33

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 34 of 182
numerous specifications to contractor). Still, personal injury caused by an independent contractor doesn’t automatically result in liability for the employer; when no factor supports a finding of employee status, no respondeat superior liability will attach. See Williams v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., 886 S.W.2d at 587 (stating that where there’s no exercise of actual control or retained right of control, there’s no liability for a company toward the injured employee of independent contractor). Yet Arkansas appears to give wider scope to employer liability in respondeat superior cases involving independent contractors, which has caused this court to read Arkansas respondeat superior cases with caution because today’s case involves no personal injury issues.
Additionally, Arkansas policy is to liberally construe the scope of employee status in worker’s compensation cases. See, e.g., Franklin v. Arkansas Kraft, Inc., 670 S.W.2d 815, 816 (Ark. Ct. App. 1984) (“It is well settled that the determination whether, at the time of injury, a person was an employee or an independent contractor, is a factual one, and the Commission is required to follow a liberal approach, resolving doubts in favor of employment status for the [injured] worker.” (citation omitted)); see also Irvan v. Bounds, 170 S.W.2d 674, 675 (Ark. 1943) (same). But this isn’t a worker’s compensation case, either.
The drivers rely on three key cases to argue that they are employees under Arkansas law,9 but those cases are distinguishable because they involve issues of
9 Ironically, the plaintiffs argued in their summary judgment reply brief that these non-summary judgment cases were, at a minimum, not controlling and, at most, held dubious persuasive value because their procedural posture involved jury verdicts and heavy burdens to overcome those jury
34

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 35 of 182
respondeat superior and worker’s compensation. See Conagra Foods, Inc. v. Draper, 276 S.W.3d 244 (Ark. 2008) (respondeat superior, personal injury); Arkansas Transit Homes, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty, 16 S.W.3d 545 (Ark. 2000) (worker’s compensation); Howard v. Dallas Morning News, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 178 (Ark. 1996) (respondeat superior, personal injury). The physical harm context sufficiently colored the decisionmaking of those courts to cast doubt on the cases’ controlling value for today’s decision. As noted, the Conagra Foods court stated respondeat superior liability sometimes is appropriate merely because one person performs service for another. Independent contractors, by definition, perform services for others, so the general question of employment status can’t be colored by a policy that imposes liability when physical injury occurs, because no physical harm is part of the case before the court today.
In the Kansas Decision, the court held FedEx’s controls to be resultsoriented controls, not controls over methods and means. Further, the court held that only one reasonable inference was available from the undisputed facts: although FedEx has reserved the right to control the contracted-for results, on the evidence available under this case’s procedural posture, FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis. See Kansas Decision, at 73. The court addressed the Restatement factors in its
verdicts. See Reply Memo. in Support of Mot. for Summ. Judg. (Arkansas) (Corrected), July 10, 2008, at 2 & n.2 [Doc. No. 1475]. The plaintiffs’ original argument is somewhat persuasive, but the differing issues of respondeat superior and worker’s compensation dispositively distinguish these cases.
35

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 36 of 182
Kansas Decision, and the reasoning from that decision is incorporated here. The court concludes that the Harris drivers are independent contractors under Arkansas law.
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-one days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the FLSArelated claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
D. California (1) 3:05-cv-528, Alexander The Alexander drivers allege violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act; violations of various California wage-related statutes, including failure to reimburse, failure to pay overtime, late payment of wages, failure to provide meal and break periods, and illegal deductions from wages; unlawful coercion; fraud; unfair business practices; and wrongful termination. They seek an accounting, civil penalties, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. The court granted certification for the state law claims, but denied certification for the FMLA claims because the federal claims require individualized evidence for predominant issues.
36

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 37 of 182
See Op. and Or., Mar. 25, 2008, at 65-66 [Doc. No. 1119]. The parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court grants summary judgment to FedEx and denies the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The holding that the plaintiffs are independent contractors under California state law resolves the state law claims. The parties haven’t briefed the FMLA-related claims, and those claims require further development. The court will suggest remand of the Alexander case for further disposition of the FMLA-related claims.
The parties agree that because the relevant statutes in question don’t define “employee,” the applicable employment status test is set forth in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. 543 (Cal. 1989). See Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327, 335 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). The principal test of employment status is “whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired. If control may be exercised only as to the result of the work and not the means by which it is accomplished, an independent contractor relationship is established.” S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. at 548 (citing Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 88 Cal. Rptr. 175, 177 (Cal. 1970)). The right to discharge at will, without cause, is strong evidence of the existence of employee status. S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. at 548 (citing Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 88 Cal. Rptr. at 179). Other factors to be
37

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 38 of 182
considered are the remaining factors from the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220. S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. at 548 (citing Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 88 Cal. Rptr. at 179-180 & n.4). Individual factors aren’t applied mechanically as separate tests; they are intertwined and their weight often depends on particular combinations and the circumstances and facts of each case. S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. at 548.
S.G. Borello & Sons pushed this traditional right to control test in the direction of an “economic realities” test, without eliminating the applicability of the right to control test and the Restatement factors. This way of approaching the common law factors differs materially from other states considered in today’s decisions. S.G. Borello & Sons was a worker’s compensation case and heavily emphasized the history and remedial and social purposes of California’s Worker’s Compensation Act: (1) to ensure that the cost of industrial injuries will be part of the cost of goods rather than a burden on society; (2) to guarantee prompt, limited compensation for an employee’s work injuries, regardless of fault, as an inevitable cost of production; (3) to spur increased industrial safety; and (4) to insulate the employer from tort liability for an employee’s injuries. S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. at 550. Traditional common law analysis didn’t meet these concerns:
The common law and statutory purposes of the distinction between “employees” and “independent contractors” are substantially different. While the common law tests were developed to define an
38

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 39 of 182
employer’s liability for injuries caused by his employee, the basic inquiry in compensation law involves which injuries to the employee should be insured against by the employer. S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. at 549 (citations and quotations omitted). In the face of employee-protective legislation, a worker’s status must be resolved “with deference to the purposes of the protective legislation” and “[t]he nature of the work, and the overall arrangement between the parties, must be examined to determine whether they come within the ‘history and fundamental purposes’ of the statute.” Id. at 550 (citations omitted). To assist with this analysis, S.G. Borello & Sons mentioned a six-factor test other jurisdictions use in the worker’s compensation context, while maintaining that the test was basically a re-hashing of the Restatement test: Besides the ‘right to control the work,’ the factors include (1) the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his managerial skill; (2) the alleged employee’s investment in equipment or materials required for his task, or his employment of helpers; (3) whether the service rendered requires a special skill; (4) the degree of permanence of the working relationship; and (5) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business. S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. at 551 (citations omitted). Each situation must still be evaluated on its own facts, and the dispositive circumstances may vary from case to case. Id. The S.G. Borello & Sons court applied a “right to control overall process” test that it believed met the policy objectives behind California’s Worker’s Compensation Act. The workers in S.G. Borello & Sons were cucumber harvesters who worked for short periods of time and were paid half the gross proceeds of the
39

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 40 of 182
cucumbers harvested. The harvesters alone were responsible for deciding the best method of hoeing, weeding, irrigating, and harvesting the cucumbers to maximize their payments, so the grower didn’t reserve a right to control the details of the harvesters’ work. Id. at 551-552; see also Rinaldi v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 278 Cal. Rptr. 105, 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (noting lack of traditional control over cucumber harvesters in Borello). But the Borello court turned to what later courts have described as the “economic realities” of the situation to take into account that the grower was in the business of producing and selling agricultural crops, and despite ceding control to the harvesters over a piecemeal aspect of the operation, the grower maintained “pervasive control over the operation as a whole.” S.G. Borello & Sons v. Departmentt of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. at 552. The grower controlled all meaningful aspects of the business relationship—price, crop cultivation, fertilization, insect prevention, payment, and the right to deal with buyers. The grower thus maintained all “necessary” control over the work, and the lack of control of the details was attributable to the simplicity of the work, not to a relinquishment of control. Id. at 552. In sum, the S.G. Borello & Sons court’s analysis found that S.G. Borello & Sons had a right to control the overall process, the harvesters were a regular and integral part of S.G. Borello & Sons’ business operation, the harvesters’ work was permanent insofar as they returned season after season for work, the harvesters didn’t hold themselves out as businesses, the harvesters made no investment other than
40

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 41 of 182
personal service and hand tools, the harvesters had no opportunity for profit or loss, and the harvesters’ terms of service were non-negotiable. Id. at 552-553.
Post-Borello courts have held the coupling of the right to control the overall process with the integral nature of a person’s work in a business to indicate employee status. See Air Couriers Int’l v. Employment Dev. Dep’t, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 37 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (affirming finding of employee status for employment tax purposes where courier retained all necessary control over the overall delivery operation, the work was simple, the workers weren’t engaged in a separate profession or operating an independent business, and the delivery work was an integral aspect of the courier’s business); JKH Enters., Inc. v. Department of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 563, 579 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (finding drivers in courier business to be employees because JKH retained all necessary control over the operation as a whole, drivers’ work wasn’t highly skilled, and drivers’ function was integral to courier business, even though JKH didn’t exercise control over the details of the work and JKH was more concerned with the results of the work than the means of its accomplishment); Rinaldi v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 278 Cal. Rptr. 105, 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (finding almond grower to be employer of injured worker because, although the grower lacked control in the traditional sense, he retained all necessary control over the Almond growing operation as a whole, harvesting almonds didn’t require much skill, and the harvesters’ work was integral to the grower’s operation). But no case before this court, except for the trial court’s decision in Estrada v. FedEx Ground, No. BC
41

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 42 of 182
210130 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 26, 2004) [Exh. B to Pltfs’ Req. for Judicial Notice, Apr. 24, 2008], indicates what might happen if the S.G. Borello & Sons workers had entrepreneurial opportunities such that their work could be conducted from the auspices of a separately operating business. Each case must be analyzed under its own facts and circumstances. Nothing indicates a rule of law that an employer’s right to control the overall operation together with integration into an employer’s business necessarily requires a finding of employee status regardless of the other factors to be considered.
Cases after S.G. Borello & Sons haven’t uniformly applied the “right to control overall operations” approach highlighted here. Some have focused on the traditional right to control methods and means test used by other states considered in today’s decisions. See Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 887, 899-900 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (using manners and means approach to evaluate the right to control); Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327, 335 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (“The essence of the [right to control] test is the ‘control of details’—that is, whether the principal has the right to control the manner and means by which the worker accomplishes the work.”). As in S.G. Borello & Sons, Antelope Valley Press was a worker’s compensation case where that court, in harmony with S.G. Borello & Sons’s policy analysis, expressed concern about newspaper carriers’ inability to distribute the risk and cost of injury as an expense of doing business because no evidence showed the carriers had other sources of business income. Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner, 75 Cal.
42

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 43 of 182
Rptr. 3d at 900. The Estrada court zeroed in on extensive extrinsic evidence of the right to control FedEx Single Work Area drivers’ methods and means of doing their work. Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 331-337.
The drivers haven’t argued the policies and purposes behind the California wage statutes in question. In a case similar to the one before this court, in which FedEx drivers sought reimbursement for work-related expenses, the Estrada appellate court didn’t discuss the wage statutes’ policies and purposes. Today’s case doesn’t involve concerns that injured employees should have their costs of on-the-job injuries covered, employers should cover those costs, employers should have their liability for these costs capped, and consumers of specific products of that work should ultimately bear the costs and not the public at large. See S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. at 551; Rinaldi v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 278 Cal. Rptr. at 111 (expressing concern that to come to a different conclusion “would virtually guarantee that in all such cases the costs of injuries would be borne by society at large through the Uninsured Employer’s Fund”). Rather, the concerns behind the statutes here at issue seem to be protecting employees from being deprived of their due wages and preventing employers from using contractual arrangements as a subterfuge to avoid paying due wages to employees. Cf. Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating, in the context of overtime, improper deductions, and business expenses claims, that “statutes enacted to confer special benefits on workers are designed to defeat rather than implement contractual arrangements” (quotation
43

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 44 of 182
omitted)). To the extent today’s plaintiff drivers agreed to bear certain expenses of their work and be paid by FedEx in a way that accounts for these expenses, the court doesn’t believe that special policy considerations (which the drivers didn’t bring before the court) should color today’s decision. Rather, the court applies the S.G. Borello & Sons common law test using both types of right to control found in California cases as a method of determining whether the contractual arrangement before the court is a subterfuge to avoid statutory duties imposed on employers or is a valid contractual arrangement between an employer and independent contractors.
The drivers state early in their supplemental brief that “[i]n California, local delivery drivers like the FXG drivers here are employees as a matter of law.” The drivers’ citations give this argument force, but the argument also forgets the Estrada trial court’s finding that the MWA plaintiff was an independent contractor. The cases cited by the drivers contain findings that drivers were integral to the employer’s business, but don’t indicate that the workers had entrepreneurial opportunities or opportunities for profit, and so are readily distinguishable from the Alexander drivers’ case for this reason (and for other reasons the court needn’t discuss here, such as deferential standard of review). See Messenger Courier Assoc. of the Ams. v. California Unemp’t Ins. Appeals Bd., 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797, 802 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009); Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 887, 900 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008); Air Couriers Int’l v. Employment
44

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 45 of 182
Dev. Dep’t, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 37, 46-48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007); JKH Enters. v. Department of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 563, 577 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
Under the right to control details approach, this court has held that there is no reasonable inference that FedEx has retained the right to control the plaintiff drivers’ methods and means of conducting their work on a class-wide basis. Kansas Decision, at 73. The court also addressed and weighed all the Restatement factors in its Kansas Decision and incorporates here its reasoning in that decision. Although the S.G. Borello & Sons court’s economic realities approach would give greater emphasis to the finding that the plaintiff drivers’ work is integral to FedEx’s business, that approach also would give greater emphasis to the plaintiff drivers’ class-wide entrepreneurial opportunities, which this court has held to be highly indicative of independent contractor status. California law, though different from Kansas law in its focus on economic realities, doesn’t produce an outcome materially different from that under Kansas law. For the reasons stated here and in the Kansas Decision, the Alexander drivers are independent contractors under the right to control details approach.
The right to control details holding doesn’t automatically apply under California’s “right to control overall process” approach. FedEx clearly has the right to control the overall process of its package delivery business. As in S.G. Borello & Sons, the drivers perform a service that is an essential part of FedEx’s overall business. FedEx controls the overall process by controlling pricing and by implementing many results-oriented controls to ensure proper package delivery,
45

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 46 of 182
as was discussed the Kansas Decision. Yet, the right to control, though a primary consideration, isn’t dispositive; what is dispositive here is the drivers’ class-wide ability to own and operate distinct businesses, own multiple routes, and profit accordingly. The court agrees with, and finds persuasive, the Estrada trial court’s distinction between SWA and MWA drivers.10 The court has weighed all the other relevant factors in the Kansas Decision and incorporates that decision here insofar as it addresses relevant factors other than the right to control details. The Alexander drivers are independent contractors under the right to control overall process approach.
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-one days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the FMLArelated claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
(2) 3:06-cv-429, Pedrazzi Jeremiah Pedrazzi, a sole plaintiff and a member of the California Alexander class, alleges illegal kickbacks, unfair business practices, violations of California’s
10 As already discussed, the court parts company with the Estrada trial court’s finding of FedEx’s right to control details, due to the differing evidentiary and procedural postures of these cases.
46

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 47 of 182
wage statutes and related statutes, breach of contract, retaliation, hostile work environment, employment discrimination based on disability, infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. FedEx moved for summary judgment, incorporating its Alexander arguments and also arguing that employment status under California’s antidiscrimination statutes is governed by the standard set forth in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Indus. Relations, 256 Cal. Rptr. 543. Mr. Pedrazzi responded, agreeing that S.G. Borello & Sons controls his antidiscrimination claims. For the reasons just stated in Alexander, the court grants in part FedEx’s request for summary judgment on Mr. Pedrazzi’s wage-related and breach of contract claims,11 which are identical to the claims made in Alexander, and the court will suggest remand of Mr. Pedrazzi’s case to its transferor court for further disposition on his discriminationrelated claims.
Although the parties agree that S.G. Borello & Sons applies to Mr. Pedrazzi’s disability discrimination claims, the court notes that S.G. Borello & Sons applies the common law employment status test in light of the remedial purposes of the California statute in question. See Alexander decision, supra at 37-48. The parties haven’t briefed the policy purposes behind California’s antidiscrimination statutes and how those purposes affect the common law analysis set forth in S.G. Borello
11 Mr. Pedrazzi’s breach of contract claim is premised on the argument that FedEx misclassified him as an independent contractor. Like most other breach of contract claims in today’s decisions, the determination that Mr. Pedrazzi is an independent contractor decides the breach of contract claim against him and in favor of FedEx.
47

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 48 of 182
& Sons. As discussed in Alexander, taking these policy purposes into account is essential under S.G. Borello & Sons. If, as Mr. Pedrazzi alleges in his complaint, FedEx terminated his contract because of his disabilities, the court can’t say without briefing on the issue that today’s Alexander holding should apply to Mr. Pedrazzi in the potentially different context of the remedial purposes of California’s antidiscrimination laws. Mr. Pedrazzi’s claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, retaliation, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy might be tied to a separate determination of Mr. Pedrazzi’s employment status under California’s antidiscrimination statutes. Additionally, Mr. Pedrazzi’s discrimination-related claims aren’t class claims, so further discovery of particularized evidence seems likely to be appropriate for the resolution of those claims.
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-one days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the discrimination-related claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
(3) 3:08-cv-52, Huerta
48

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 49 of 182
Ricardo Huerta, a member of the California Alexander class, brings several claims of breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and violations of California’s wage (and related) statutes. FedEx filed a motion for summary judgment incorporating its Alexander arguments, and Mr. Huerta’s response also incorporates the Alexander arguments. Because Mr. Huerta is a member of the Alexander class, today’s decision in Alexander is binding on him; he is an independent contractor. For the reasons stated in Alexander, the court grants summary judgment to FedEx. Unlike most breach of contract claims in these MDL cases, a number of Mr. Huerta’s breach of contract claims appear to be premised on his position as an independent contractor and so appear to require further disposition. The court will suggest remand of Mr. Huerta’s case to the transferor court for further disposition.
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-one days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
E. Florida
49

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 50 of 182
(1) 3:05-cv-664 Carlson The Carlson drivers claim violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligently supplied false information, breach of contract, and fraud; they seek rescission and declaratory judgment. The drivers indicated that all their claims would turn on the predominant, common issue of whether they are employees or independent contractors under Florida law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Florida), April 2, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 584]. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court grants summary judgment to FedEx and denies the Carlson drivers’ summary judgment motion. Because the Florida claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered for FedEx on all claims in this Florida (Carlson) case. The contents of the Operating Agreement and generally applicable Policies and Procedures are undisputed, so the determination of employment status “depends upon the legal relationship that the undisputed facts engender.” Hilldrup Transfer & Storage of New Smyrna Beach, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Emp’t Sec., Div. of Emp’t, 447 So.2d 414, 415 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (citing Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So.2d 173, 174 (Fla. 1966)); see also Harper v. Toler, 884 So.2d 1124, 1130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (“Thus, if the only reasonable view of the evidence compels the conclusion that an employment relationship did not exist, a court may determine the issue as a matter of law.”).
50

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 51 of 182
Florida courts have stated Florida’s common law employment status test in
various ways over the last few decades. Some have turned to a very traditional
four-factor test (see today’s Alabama decision, supra at 19-25), with right to
control being the weightiest factor. See Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v. Dunn, 438
So.2d 116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983). Others have concluded that the test involves
weighing seven of the Restatement factors. See Carroll v. Kencher, Inc., 491 So.2d
1311, 1312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986). Still others have held that the main test is
simply whether the purported employer has direction and control over the
purported employee. See Verchick v. Hecht Invs., Inc., 924 So.2d 944, 946 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 2006).
The Florida Supreme Court, however, has turned to the full list of factors
set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 220(2). See Cantor v. Cochran,
184 So.2d at 174. One particular appellate court nicely summed up the law in a
way fully consistent with other Florida appellate decisions and the Florida
Supreme Court’s decision in Cantor v. Cochran:
The “extent of control” referred to in Restatement section 220(2)(1) has been recognized as the most important factor in determining whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee. Of course, employees and independent contractors both are subject to some control by the person or entity hiring them. The extent of control exercised over the details of the work turns on whether the control is focused on simply the “result to be obtained” or extends to the “means to be employed.” A control directed toward means is necessarily more extensive than a control directed toward results. Thus, the mere control of results points to an independent contractor relationship; the control of means points to an employment relationship. Furthermore, the relevant issue is the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the details of
51

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 52 of 182
the work. Thus, [i]t is the right of control, not actual control or actual interference with the work, which is significant in distinguishing between an independent contractor and [an employee]. Harper v. Toler, 884 So.2d at 1131 (citations and quotations omitted; emphasis and alterations in the original); see also Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So.2d 167, 172 (Fla. 1995) (noting that intent and right to control factors must be given special weight among the Restatement factors so as to avoid inconsistent results when applying them). Florida courts consistently point out that no bright-line rule exists for applying these principles, and each case must be determined on its own facts and in light of the totality of the circumstances. Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So.2d at 170 (holding that presumption of newspaper delivery person’s status as independent contractor doesn’t exist because “the facts peculiar to each case govern the decision”); Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distribs., 1 So.2d 858, 861 (Fla. 1941) (“[E]ach case must stand on its own facts and, therefore, no useful purpose may be served by citing particular cases involving different factual conditions.”). Nonetheless, the parties’ arguments search for bright-line rules. FedEx urges the court to place dispositive weight on the intent expressed in the Operating Agreement that an independent contractor relationship should exist, an intent buttressed by provisions in the Agreement prohibiting FedEx from exercising control over drivers’ means and methods of conducting their work. As in the Kansas Decision, the intent factor weighs “strongly” in FedEx’s favor because of the clarity of the stated intent in the contracts, not because of its
52

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 53 of 182
relative weight vis-à-vis other factors, particularly the right to control. Some Florida courts have given the intent factor special significance, second only, perhaps, to the right to control. See Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So.2d at 171 (“Hence, courts should initially look to the agreement between the parties, if there is one, and honor that agreement, unless other provisions of the agreement, or the parties’ actual practice, demonstrate that it is not a valid indicator of status.”). But be that as it may, Florida courts also have issued the usual caution against accepting form over substance, so today’s decision doesn’t rely on giving the intent factor dispositive weight. See, e.g., Adams v. Department of Labor & Emp’t Sec., Div. of Unemp’t Comp., 458 So.2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (citing Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So.2d at 174 (Fla. 1966)).
The drivers rely heavily on Justice v. Belford Trucking Co., Inc., 272 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1972), in which a worker’s compensation claimant filled out an employment application with Belford Trucking and signed a contract that expressly stated the intent to create an independent contractor relationship. The claimant was to lease a trailer from Belford Trucking for five years for exclusive use in the service of Belford Trucking. The claimant made pickups and deliveries at the command of Belford and was told he risked termination if he refused a trip. Sometimes, Belford Trucking would lease the claimant over to other carriers without his input. Belford Trucking took worker’s compensation premiums out of the claimant’s paychecks, paid him a percentage of his freight, and issued W-2’s showing taxes withheld. Id. at 132-134.
53

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 54 of 182
The drivers argue that Justice is directly analogous to their situation, but the facts are readily distinguishable. FedEx drivers are ultimately responsible for obtaining their own equipment, which they can use for their own purposes so long as FedEx logos are removed; FedEx doesn’t lease the contractor-drivers over to other carriers; and FedEx drivers are paid as independent contractors, i.e., no taxes are withheld and 1099 Forms are issued. Justice is instructive, but it doesn’t compel a trial or judgment for the plaintiffs here: each case must be assessed on its own facts. Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So.2d at170; Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distribs., 1 So.2d at 861.
The court has held that “the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. Whether the court looks only to the right to control, or to all the Restatement factors or some number of factors in-between, the result is the same. The relevant factors are all addressed in the Kansas Decision, which is incorporated here. The Carlson drivers are independent contractors under Florida law.
(2) 3:09-cv-356, Ward Scott Ward and Juan Gomez allege age discrimination and tortious interference with their businesses; they seek declaratory relief finding that they are employees and not independent contractors.
54

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 55 of 182
Mr. Gomez might be a member of the Florida class; Mr. Ward might not be a member of the class. See Sealed Document, June 16, 2009 [Doc. Nos. 1758-18 & 1758-19]. Their complaint doesn’t specify their class status. If they are class members, today’s decision in Carlson binds them and they are independent contractors. If they aren’t class members, the transferor court will decide how much weight to give to today’s procedurally distinct decision in Carlson when deciding their case. The tortious interference claim appears to be premised on their position as independent contractors. Because these remaining claims wouldn’t benefit from continued inclusion in this docket, the court will suggest remand of their case to its transferor court for further disposition.
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-one days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding (including an indication of whether they are members of the Carlson class), without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
F. Georgia (3:05-cv-411, White) The White drivers allege unjust enrichment; they seek rescission, a constructive trust and other equitable relief, and injunctive and declaratory relief.
55

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 56 of 182
All the drivers’ claims are class certified and stand or fall on the determination of the drivers’ employment status under Georgia law. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court grants summary judgment to FedEx and denies the White drivers’ summary judgment motion. Judgment will be entered for FedEx on all the White claims.
The drivers rely on Atkins v. MRP Park Lake, L.P., 687 S.E.2d 215, 220 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009), to suggest that if the facts are disputed, Georgia law requires a trial on the question of employment status. The Atkins court found summary judgment improper because the parties had no written contract, and disputed evidence showed that the employer exercised control. Id. at 220. The matter before this court centers around the right to control retained in a written contract. The contract’s contents and the applicable policies and procedures aren’t in dispute; rather, the dispute relates to the law’s application to the undisputed facts.
As the drivers argued in their summary judgment motion, and as the court set forth in the class certification order, Georgia’s “chief test [of employment status] lies in whether the contract gives, or the employer assumes, the right to control the time, manner, and method of executing the work as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract.” Ross v. Ninety-Two West, Ltd., 412 S.E.2d 876, 881 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991); Op. and Ord., July 27, 2009, at 16-24 (citing cases) [Doc. No. 1770]; see also RBF Holding Co. v. Williamson, 397 S.E.2d 440, 441 (Ga. 1990); Larmon v. CCR Enters., 647 S.E.2d 306, 595 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kinzalow, 634
56

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 57 of 182
S.E.2d 172, 175 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). Some Georgia cases have turned to the factors recited in the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2), though those cases seem to be a small minority. See Murphy v. Blue Bird Body Co., 429 S.E.2d 530, 532 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (applying Restatement factors to employment status issue). Georgia courts recognize that a contracting company, such as FedEx, is “entitled to take steps to ensure compliance with its contract and to monitor the results obtained thereunder,” and that “the exercise of [its] right to protect and control its trade name and good will does not equate to managing the daily operations of [the drivers’] business.” Cotton States Ins. v. Kinzalow, 634 S.E.2d at 401-402; see also McLaine v. McLeod, 335 S.E.2d 695, 700 n.5 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (gathering cases where supervision to ensure contracted-for result didn’t result in employee status).
Georgia law holds somewhat uniquely that a rebuttable presumption of independent contractor status arises when a contract for services explicitly designates a worker as an independent contractor. This presumption disappears if the contract “provides that [the worker] shall be subject to any rules or policies of the employer which may be adopted in the future.” Ross v. Ninety-Two West, Ltd., 412 S.E.2d at 881; see also Cotton States Ins. v. Kinzalow, 634 S.E.2d at 175. The Operating Agreement in question obligates drivers to keep their personal appearance “consistent with reasonable standards of good order as maintained by competitors and promulgated from time to time by FedEx Ground.” OA, § 1.12 [Doc. No. 1237-2]. The Agreement also obligates drivers to purchase or lease
57

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 58 of 182
communications equipment, such as scanners, that comply “with specifications promulgated from time to time by FedEx Ground.” OA, § 1.13. These provisions allow FedEx to issue further rules in the future and raise a cautionary flag against presuming independent contractor status, but they don’t, by themselves, indicate employee status.
The drivers cite a few cases to suggest that, at minimum, a trial is needed. In Jordan v. Townsend, 197 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973), the appellate court reversed a grant of summary judgment because the contract at issue created a material issue of fact regarding whether the corporation retained the right to control a tractor-trailer contractor’s employee. The Jordan case is distinguishable because that contract expressly allowed the corporation to provide without restriction written specifications, which weren’t expressly articulated in the contract, to timber harvesters in the future. See id. at 483 (“There were no restrictions on what ‘reasonable rules’ might be adopted by Union Camp or what the rules might consist of.”). But, as noted in the Kansas Decision, the FedEx Operating Agreement places express limits on FedEx’s authority to direct the means and methods of FedEx Ground drivers’ work (and the question of whether FedEx actually breached those limits isn’t before the court).
The drivers also rely on the inapposite case of Brown v. Who’s Three, Inc., 457 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995), which involved the question of whether an apprentice facial esthetician was an employee or independent contractor in a personal injury matter. The Brown court discussed at length Georgia statutory
58

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 59 of 182
and public policy placing respondeat superior liability on apprentices’ supervisors. As a matter of policy, the esthetician couldn’t be considered an independent contractor so the Brown court didn’t examine the traditional common law test as to whether she was or wasn’t a contractor: it ruled simply, “[t]he statute precludes, by public policy, the status of independent contractor for an apprentice.” Id. at 191.
Finally, the court in Mark Six Realty Assocs., Inc. v. Drake, 463 S.E.2d 917 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995), held that a real estate salesperson was, atypically, an employee rather than an independent contractor, in a situation in which the agent sold a house containing numerous structural defects. Mark Six assigned the agent to work on the subdivision in question, required her to follow certain negotiating procedures and use standard forms, subjected her to quarterly performance reviews, and exercised other similar controls. Id. at 919-920. The case differs for two reasons. First, the case’s procedural posture was the appeal of a trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a jury found for Drake. Under that posture, the procedural rules weighed heavily in favor of the plaintiff: “The standard of review is whether any evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and we must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the jury.” Id. at 919. Nothing indicates what the trial court thought of the case at summary judgment, or whether such a motion had been filed. Because “some” evidence existed that Mark Six retained the right to exercise, and did exercise, control over the time, manner, and method of the agent’s
59

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 60 of 182
performance of her duties, the trial court didn’t err in denying the JNOV motion. Id. at 920. Second, the contract required the agent in question to work solely and exclusively for Mark Six during specified hours. Id. at 920. This MDL case involves much more freedom to apply the law to the undisputed facts and involves drivers who can have complete freedom in their schedules by hiring assistants or by otherwise taking advantage of the entrepreneurial opportunities allowed to them.
The court incorporates the Kansas Decision and its conclusion that there is no reasonable inference that FedEx has retained the right to control the plaintiffs’ work methods on a class-wide basis. Kansas Decision, at 73. To the extent Georgia law would recognize a broader examination of the employment status question using the Restatement test, the court again incorporates here the reasoning of the Kansas Decision. The White drivers are independent contractors under Georgia law.
G. Indiana (3:05-cv-390, Riewe) The Riewe drivers claim illegal deductions from wages, in violation of Indiana Code §§ 22-2-6 and 22-2-4-4, and fraud. They seek rescission and declaratory and injunctive relief. Though the drivers didn’t seek to certify the fraud claim, they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under Indiana law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Indiana), Mar. 12, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 556]. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below,
60

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 61 of 182
the court grants summary judgment to FedEx and denies the Riewe drivers’ summary judgment motion. Because the Indiana claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered for FedEx on all claims in the Indiana case.
The applicable Indiana statutes don’t define the term “employee,” and the parties agree the court should interpret the term by using Indiana’s common law test for employment status. See Mortgage Consultants, Inc. v. Mahaney, 655 N.E.2d 493, 495 (Ind. 1995). Indiana courts look to the ten-factor analysis outlined in Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 to resolve employment status. Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d 1007, 1009-1010 (Ind. 2001). The right to control the means and methods of achieving results is the most important factor; the right to control contracted-for results doesn’t indicate employee status. The Restatement factors should be weighed in a balancing test that takes account of the facts and circumstances as a whole and “not merely tallied in a majority-wins formulation.” See Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d at 1010 & n.3, 1011, 1013; Mortgage Consultants v. Mahaney, 655 N.E.2d at 495-496.
The drivers rely heavily on Dague v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 647 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), in which a husband was delivering newspapers for his wife, who herself had contracted to deliver newspapers for Fort Wayne Newspapers. The husband collided with a motorcycle and the motorcyclist was killed. The wife had signed a contract stating she was an independent contractor;
61

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 62 of 182
Fort Wayne Newspapers provided a list of subscribers to whom papers needed to be delivered; the delivery person could hire replacements; the delivery person bore the costs of papers delivered wet or torn; Fort Wayne Newspapers didn’t provide a vehicle or dictate the vehicle type; and Fort Wayne Newspapers provided a manual to carriers on how to generate sales, conduct collections, and provide good service. The Dague court reversed a grant of summary judgment to Fort Wayne Newspapers and held that a material issue of fact existed because competing inferences could be drawn from the undisputed facts. See id. at 1143.
A few overlapping facts aren’t enough to make Dague controlling under a legal test in which no one fact is dispositive and the totality of the circumstances must be considered. The Dague court made the effort to point out that “Christine could not buy or lease her route, and she could not sell the route to another person if she discontinued as a carrier.” Id. at 1141. The FedEx Ground drivers have a proprietary interest in their routes, can sell their routes, and can acquire multiple routes—they have real profit potential, and, like any independent business, loss potential. See Kansas Decision, at 35-37, 90-91, 101.
The drivers hint that because FedEx restricts the sale of routes to approved buyers and because FedEx can reconfigure routes, their situation is like that of the contractor in Dague, who had no proprietary interest in her newspaper delivery route. The court can’t agree: a mildly qualified right to sell isn’t equivalent to no right to sell—the Fort Wayne Newspaper employees couldn’t sell their job and didn’t have the contractual rights for entrepreneurial growth that FedEx
62

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 63 of 182
Ground drivers have. FedEx can’t be expected to provide this right to its contractors without ensuring contracted-for results. FedEx’s limitations on these rights are to the mutual benefit of drivers and FedEx: customer satisfaction means business for both. Nothing about the limitations in themselves compels a finding of employee status.
Additionally, Fort Wayne Newspapers provided subscriber lists indicating to whom the carriers had to deliver papers and required papers to be delivered dry and in one piece or else the carrier would bear the cost of the paper. Without more, these facts wouldn’t have indicated employee status. See Twin States Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Indiana Unemp’t Ins. Bd., 678 N.E.2d 110, 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (finding carriers weren’t employees even though they had to deliver “by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, place the guides in a dry place, and perform their services in a workmanlike manner”). As Indiana courts have repeated,
When the person employing may prescribe what shall be done, but not how it is to be done, or who shall do it, the person so employed is a contractor and not a servant. The fact that the work is to be done under the direction and to the satisfaction of certain persons representing the employer does not render the [worker] . . . a servant. Nash v. Meguschar, 91 N.E.2d 361, 363 (Ind. 1950); Dallas Moser Transporters, Inc. v. Ensign, 594 N.E.2d 454, 457 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). This court held that “the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. The Kansas Decision listed and addressed the Restatement factors, as well as all other relevant factors
63

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 64 of 182
under the totality of the circumstances, and the court incorporates here that decision. The Riewe drivers are independent contractors under Indiana law.
H. Kentucky (3:05-cv-599, Coleman) The Coleman drivers claim unlawful withholding of wages in violation of Kentucky’s Wage Payment statute and fraud; they seek rescission, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Though the drivers didn’t seek to certify the fraud claim, they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under Kentucky law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Kentucky), Apr. 23, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 602]. The drivers and FedEx filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The drivers’ claims raise two distinct questions: (1) whether the drivers are employees under Kentucky common law; and (2) whether the drivers are employees under Kentucky’s Wage Payment statute, KY. REV. STAT. §§ 337.060 and 337.070. For the reasons stated below, the court grants in part FedEx’s motion for summary judgment to the extent it seeks a determination that the drivers are independent contractors under Kentucky common law, and the court grants in part the drivers’ summary judgment motion to the extent it seeks a determination that they are employees under Kentucky Revised Statute § 337.010 et seq. To the extent the Kentucky plaintiffs’ claims rely on a generalized determination that they are employees under Kentucky common law, their claims won’t proceed beyond this stage. To the extent the Kentucky plaintiffs’ claims depend on a determination
64

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 65 of 182
that they are employees under Kentucky Revised Statute § 337.010 et seq., the court will suggest remand for further proceedings in the transferor court.
Kentucky common law considers the same multi-factor test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2), outlined in the Kansas Decision. See Kentucky Unemp’t Ins. Comm’n v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Kentucky, Inc., 91 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Ky. 2002). Both parties rely heavily on the Landmark Newspapers case, which clarifies that Kentucky treats the right to control differently from Kansas: rather than being the most important factor, the right to control is weighed as just one among many factors. See id. at 580. Though the Landmark Newspapers case was an unemployment insurance case, its analysis of the right to control test applies here. Each case must be addressed on its own facts and, when the facts are undisputed, employment status is a question of law for the court to decide. Id.
The drivers’ key argument is that the “regular business of the employer” Restatement factor is of prime importance and even dispositive in Kentucky. This court has held that the plaintiff drivers form an integral part of FedEx’s business, and a line of Kentucky worker’s compensation cases emphasize this factor. See Purchase Transp. Servs. v. Estate of Wilson, 39 S.W.3d 816, 818 (Ky. 2001); Uninsured Empl’rs Fund v. Garland, 805 S.W.2d 116, 118-119 (Ky. 1991); Chambers v. Wooten’s IGA Foodliner, 436 S.W.2d 265, 266 (Ky. 1969); Ratliff v. Redmon, 396 S.W.2d 320, 325 (Ky. 1965) (noting right to control should focus not on control of details of the work to be done but rather on “the nature of the
65

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 66 of 182
claimant’s work in relation to the regular business of the employer.”); see also
Hargis v. Baize, 168 S.W.3d 36, 42 (Ky. 2005) (noting that if the case were a
worker’s compensation case, the Garland (805 S.W.2d at 118-119) test would
apply). These cases refocus the Restatement inquiry into four factors, recognizing
“the difference between compensation law and vicarious liability in the purpose
and function of the employment concept” as a policy matter for worker’s
compensation. Ratliff v. Redmon, 396 S.W.2d 320, 324 (Ky. 1965). The four
factors are: (1) the nature of the work being performed as it relates to employer’s
business; (2) the extent of control that the employer exercises; (3) the professional
skill required of the worker; and (4) the true intentions of the parties. E.g.,
Purchase Transp. Servs. v. Estate of Wilson, 39 S.W.3d at 818.
The court can’t agree that this four factor test, which gives greater emphasis
to the integral nature of the work, is the test to be applied to whether, as a general
matter under Kentucky common law, the FedEx drivers are employees or
independent contractors. A review of Kentucky cases, published and
unpublished,12 shows that this shift in emphasis occurs only in the worker’s
12 See Crunk v. Dean Milk Co., Inc., No. 3:06-CV-609, 2008 WL 2473662 (W.D.Ky. June 17, 2008) (personal injury); Purchase Transp. Servs. v. Estate of Wilson, 39 S.W. 3d 816, 818 (Ky. 2001) (worker’s compensation); Uninsured Emp'rs Fund v. Poyner, 829 S.W.2d 430 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992) (worker's compensation); Husman Snack Foods Co. v. Dillon, 591 S.W.2d 701 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979) (worker’s compensation); Kelly Mountain Lumber v. Meade, Nos. 2007-SC-507 & 526, 2008 WL 3890701 (Ky. Aug. 21, 2008) (worker’s compensation); Ranck v. Gray, No. 2005-SC-863, 2006 WL 2456411 (Ky. Aug. 24, 2006) (worker’s compensation); Dixon v. Don Amburgey Plumbing, No. 2005-SC-426, 2006 WL 1652579 (Ky. June 15, 2006) (worker’s compensation); Hicks v. Eck Miller Transp., No. 2003-SC-272, 2004 WL 868489 (Ky. Apr. 22, 2004) (worker’s compensation); KC Transp., Inc. v. Thompson, No. 2009-CA-617, 2010 WL 3214062 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2010) (worker's compensation); Robinson v. Gatewood, No. 2009-CA-2328, 2010 WL 2052120 (Ky. Ct. App. May 21, 2010) (worker’s compensation); Boils v. Lovan, No. 2009-CA-256, 2010 WL 1253177
66

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 67 of 182
compensation and personal injury contexts. The full Restatement test, with no single factor being dispositive, applies here. See generally Kentucky Unemp’t Ins. Comm’n v. Landmark Cmty. Newpapers of Ky., Inc., 91 S.W.3d 575 (Ky. 2002) (applying Restatement test in unemployment insurance context).
The court incorporates here its reasoning from the Kansas Decision, which applies even when, as here, the right to control factor is considered as just one among the other factors. The parties explicitly stated their intent in the Operating Agreement that the drivers would be independent contractors. The drivers aren’t terminable at will, they hold proprietary interests in their routes, and they may hire assistants and expand their businesses to include multiple trucks and routes. These entrepreneurial opportunities show decreased control of the drivers (they are free to work or not work, as they please) and give rise to distinct businesses and increased need for skill. Also, the drivers are responsible for obtaining their own equipment. When weighed equally with the lack of right to control, these factors outweigh the factors pointing toward employment outlined in the Kansas Decision. Although some facts cut both ways, the court still may make a determination of law on the undisputed facts that the Coleman drivers are
(Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2010) (worker's compensation); Sweet v. Slusher, No. 2007-CA-1245, 2009 WL 792547 (Ky. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2009) (personal injury); Broughton v. Quality Carriers, No. 2006CA-62, 2006 WL 2382747 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2006) (worker’s compensation); Golden Rule Publishers v. Edwards, No. 2003-CA-1596, 2004 WL 2315272 (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2004) (personal injury); Adjuster Serv. of Ky., Inc. v. Hamilton, No. 2003-CA-672, 2004 WL 1909379 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2004) (worker's compensation).
67

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 68 of 182
independent contractors under Kentucky common law. See Kentucky Unemp’t Ins. Comm’n v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers, 91 S.W.3d at 581.
The Kentucky drivers’ claims also turn on whether they are employees under Kentucky’s Wage Payment statute, KY. REV. STAT. § 337.010 et seq. The wage payment statute defines “employee” broadly as “any person employed by or suffered or permitted to work for an employer.” KY. REV. STAT. § 337.010(1)(e). Kentucky’s Administrative Regulations clarify that employee status under Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 337 is “broader than the traditional common law concept of the master and servant relation.” 803 KY. ADMIN. REGS. 1:005 §1(2).
Kentucky’s Administrative Regulations identify factors similar to the Restatement and common law factors discussed in the Kansas Decision. Some factors favor a finding of an independent contractor relationship, such as the right to control, 803 KY. ADMIN. REGS. 1:005 § 4(1), and the alleged employee’s opportunities for profit and loss. Id. at § 4(2)(c). But the Regulations also identify factors broadening the scope of statutory employees beyond the traditional common law factors. “Where the facts clearly establish that the possible employee is the subordinate party, the relation is one of employment.” Id. at § 4(3). Factors used to determine whether the drivers are subordinate parties are:
a. Whether there are restrictive provisions in the contract between the possible employer and possible employee which require that the work must be satisfactory to the possible employer and detailing, or giving the possible employees the right to detail how the work is to be performed;
68

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 69 of 182
b. Whether the possible employer has control over the business of the person performing work for him even though the possible employer does not control the particular circumstances of the work;
c. Whether the contract is for an indefinite period or for a relatively long period;
d. Whether the possible employer may discharge employees of the alleged independent contractor;
e. Whether the possible employer may cancel the contract at his discretion, and on how much notice;
f. Whether the work done by the alleged independent contractor is the same or similar to that done by admitted employees.
803 KY. ADMIN. REG. 1:005 § 4(3)(a)-(f). Though the court’s research finds no case law to guide its interpretation of these Regulations, it seeks here to follow the plain meaning of the Regulations’ text and the explicitly stated purpose of broadening the scope of who is an employee beyond the common law. On balance, these factors indicate that the plaintiff drivers are “subordinate” to FedEx and so are employees for purposes of Kentucky’s Wage Payment Act.
Factor (a) eliminates the results vs. means distinction at common law. Though the drivers have the right to detail how their work is to be accomplished, the Operating Agreement contains many results-oriented controls and the results of the drivers’ work must be satisfactory to FedEx for the drivers’ contracts to continue. Factor (b) eliminates any distinction between “a little control” and “a lot of control” of the drivers’ businesses. FedEx limits the number of routes drivers may own at a given terminal, sets minimum requirements for who may be a hired
69

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 70 of 182
assistant or employee of the contractor (though it is up to the driver to find assistants or employees and not up to FedEx to suggest candidates to the driver), requires drivers to accept assigned work, and controls the flow of packages through individual trucks (though this is a mutually beneficial contractual obligation on FedEx to maximize efficient use of drivers’ trucks). Factor (f) partially indicates employee status because the drivers’ work as drivers (but not as business owners) is the same as that done by admitted employees of FedEx Express and by employees at UPS, DHL, and the USPS.
Factors (c), (d), and (e) don’t outweigh the refocusing of the employment status balance caused by factors (a) and (b). The drivers’ contracts are for limited duration, but they renew automatically absent any other action. FedEx can’t discharge drivers’ employees, but FedEx can refuse to dispatch a truck if a driver’s employee is unsatisfactory to FedEx. FedEx can’t cancel the contract at will, but it can cancel the contract for breach or on thirty days’ notice (as can the drivers). While factors (c), (d), and (e) cut in the direction of independent contractor status, they don’t do so strongly enough to outweigh the reshaping of the control question caused by factors (a) and (b). Finding the drivers to be subordinate to FedEx, in light of the clearly stated policy of the Kentucky statutes and regulations, the Coleman drivers are employees for purposes of the Kentucky Wage Payment statute, KY. REV. STAT. § 337.010 et seq.
No reason exists for the statutory wage payment claims to remain in this centralized docket, so the court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed
70

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 71 of 182
pretrial order with this court within twenty-one days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the wage payment statute-related claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
I. Louisiana (3:08-cv-193, Boudreaux) The Boudreaux drivers allege fraud, misrepresentation, violations of Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 23:631, 23:634, 23:635, 23:824, and 23:963, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. They seek rescission and declaratory relief. The drivers didn’t move to certify the fraud and misrepresentation claims. This court denied certification of the drivers’ claims under Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 23:635 and 23:963, as well as their rescission claim. See Op. and Ord., July 27, 2009, at 25-40 [Doc. No. 1770]. The drivers have argued—and have never indicated otherwise—that all their claims are premised on a determination of whether they are employees or independent contractors under Louisiana law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. for Summ. Judg., Sept. 28, 2009, at 1 [Doc. No. 1797] (“The over-arching issue in this case is whether FXG has categorically misclassified its workforce of pickup and delivery drivers as independent contractors.”); Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class
71

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 72 of 182
(Louisiana), Aug. 4, 2008, [Doc. No. 1540]. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court grants summary judgment to FedEx and denies the drivers’ motion for summary judgment. The Louisiana drivers are independent contractors under Louisiana law. Because the Louisiana claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered in FedEx’s favor in the Louisiana case.
In their original summary judgment motion, the Louisiana drivers argued that the common law right to control test applied to their employment status question and that the test was no different from other states’ right to control tests. See Memo. in Support of Mot. for Summ. Judg., Sept. 28, 2009, at 1 (citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323 (1992), as in the plaintiffs’ other summary judgment motions). The drivers originally argued that “it is not the supervision and control which is actually exercised which is significant; the important question is whether . . . the right to do so exists.” Memo. in Support of Mot. for Summ. Judg., at 7 (citing multiple Louisiana cases emphasizing this point). The plaintiffs also emphasized that the principal test is the “control over the work reserved by the employer.” Id. at 9 (discussing Hickman v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 262 So.2d 385, 390-391 (La. 1972)). In their motion for class certification—consistent with all their motions for class certification and their arguments to get their case before this MDL court—the Louisiana drivers argued that “FXG’s reserved rights to control the Louisiana pickup and delivery drivers
72

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 73 of 182
flow directly from the standard form Operating Agreement (“OA”) that every driver must sign and FXG’s standardized policies and procedures the company uses to implement the OA. These common controls lie at the heart of each and every Louisiana driver’s claim and provide the common proof from which the Court can make a categorical determination of each driver’s employment status.” Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Louisiana), Aug. 4, 2008, at 1.
After the Kansas Decision, the Louisiana drivers took a turn in their argument and now complain that this court “refused” to consider extrinsic evidence in the Kansas Decision. They further argue that Louisiana law looks to evidence of actual control to determine employment status. For years, the Louisiana drivers have been on notice of this case’s procedural posture and the resulting consequences on the scope of evidence the court could consider. Louisiana law looks to evidence of actual control to infer a right to control, but so do all the other states considered in today’s decisions. See Fuller v. United States Aircraft Ins. Group, 530 So.2d 1282, 1289 (La. Ct. App. 1988) (“The degree of supervision and control actually exercised by the principal over the work performed . . . is highly indicative of reserved control.”). But just like other rightto-control states, Louisiana law doesn’t require a court to look to extrinsic evidence of actual control to infer a right to control. As the Fuller court stated, “[t]he amount of supervision and control actually exercised is not the crucial question, but rather the amount of supervision and control reserved by the principal from the nature of the relationship.” Id.; see also McLeod v. Moore, 7
73

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 74 of 182
So.3d 190, 193 (La. Ct. App. 2009) (“[I]t is not the supervision and control actually exercised that is significant; the important question is whether, from the nature of the relationship, the right to do so exists.”); Arroyo v. East Jefferson Gen. Hosp., 956 So.2d 661, 664 (La. Ct. App. 2007) (“The important question is whether, from the nature of the relationship, the right to [control] exists, not whether supervision and control was actually exercised.”); Hughes v. Goodreau, 836 So.2d 649, 656 (La. Ct. App. 2002) (“It is not the actual supervision or control which is actually exercised by the employer that is significant, but whether, from the nature of the relationship, the right to do so exists.”). Louisiana courts, like courts in other states, take the evidence before them as it is and decide whether the right to control exists. See generally Smith v. Prime, Inc., 20 So.3d 1184 (La. Ct. App. 2009) (relying on written agreement to determine nature of relationship); compare Green v. Independent Oil Co., 201 A.2d 207 (Pa. 1964) (finding independent contractor status on evidence available to court, which was mostly the parties’ written agreement), with Juarbe v. City of Philadelphia, 431 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981) (finding employee status where testimony of actual exercises of control shed light on the nature of the parties’ agreement, and distinguishing that case from the almost identical contractual agreement in Green v. Independent Oil Co.). As noted in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the Louisiana drivers’ argument on this point isn’t well-taken; the drivers should have requested decertification if they found the procedurally limited scope of evidence to be disadvantageous to them. The law doesn’t require the court to consider evidence
74

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 75 of 182
that would violate the commonality requirement for class certification and the law
doesn’t require the court to ignore the conditions it set forth for class certification.
The court reads the worker’s compensation cases cited by the drivers with
a wary eye because Louisiana’s worker’s compensation statute contains a
statutory presumption of employee status that might have colored the way
Louisiana courts have viewed the facts in worker’s compensation cases. See, e.g.,
Pitcher v. Hydro-Kem Servs., Inc., 551 So.2d 736, 740; Fuller v. United States
Aircraft Ins. Group, 530 So.2d at 1288 (quoting LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:1044).
Louisiana courts look to five factors to examine the right to control:
(1) whether there is a valid contract between the parties; (2) whether the work being done is of an independent nature such that the contractor may employ non-exclusive means in accomplishing it; (3) whether the contract calls for specific piecework as a unit to be done according to the individual’s own methods, without being subject to the control and direction of the principal, except as to the result of the services to be rendered; (4) whether there is a specific price for the overall undertaking agreed upon; and (5) whether the duration of the work is for a specific time and not subject to termination or discontinuance at the will of either side without a corresponding liability for its breach.
Hickman v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 262 So.2d at 390-391. The most important
factor is the right to control. See Smith v. Prime, Inc., 20 So.3d at 1188 (“[T]he
essence of an employer/employee relationship, rather than a[n] independent
contractor relationship, is the right of control.”); Guillory v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
662 So.2d 104, 117 (La. Ct. App. 1995) (“[T]he key issue in determining
independent contractor status is control over the process of performing the
work.”). No one factor is dispositive, and each case must be decided on its own
75

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 76 of 182
facts and circumstances. Smith v. Prime, Inc., 20 So.3d at 1188; Tate v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 4 So.3d 915, 916 (La. Ct. App. 2009); Kibodeaux v. Progressive Ins. Co., 4 So.3d 222, 225 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
The drivers argue that under Louisiana law, FedEx’s control of their workloads—requiring every package to be delivered every day, pickup and delivery within certain time windows, and the like—isn’t “results-oriented,” but rather indicates control of the process of performing work. Louisiana maintains the common law distinction between control of results, which doesn’t indicate employee status by itself, and control of means and methods of work, which does indicate employee status. Hence, telling a truck driver “where and from whom to pick up loads of sand, the times to be at a particular site to begin loading, and the location where loads of sand were to be deposited” doesn’t indicate employee status because these are contracted-for results. Tate v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 4 So.3d at 917 & 921-922 (“[T]o suggest that Mr. Brown should have been given the discretion of delivering the loads to wherever he chose is not reasonable.”); see also McLeod v. Moore, 7 So.3d at 193 (finding independent contractor status even though company “controlled the process of loading and unloading the asphalt, and all drivers were expected to operate under the same [company] rules and procedures for loading, delivering, and unloading the asphalt” and drivers were expected to deliver the asphalt quickly); Kibodeaux v. Progressive Ins. Co., 4 So.3d at 225 (“Both servant and independent contractor are engaged in the performance of an employment for the benefit of the employer.”); Mullen v. R.A.M. Enterprises,
76

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 77 of 182
844 So.2d 376, 379 (La. Ct. App. 2003) (finding independent contractor status even though deliverymen were required to obtain signatures for each delivery, fill out a daily manifest form, and deliver each day’s packages every day); Guillory v. State Farm Ins. Co., 662 So.2d at 107-108, 117 (reversing jury determination and finding independent contractor status even where State Farm threatened to terminate Guillory’s agency contract if he didn’t comply with State Farm’s “added cars only program,” stating that “requiring a contractor to comply with the owner’s rules does not signify the requisite right of operational control necessary to vitiate the independent contractor relationship”).
The drivers argue that their ability to hire assistants and drivers doesn’t count in the Louisiana analysis because their assistants and drivers are subject to FedEx’s approval. The plaintiffs offer a dubious citation to Pitcher v. Hydro-Kem Services., Inc., 551 So.2d at 739, to argue the point. In Pitcher, an injured carpenter was held to be an employee deserving worker’s compensation benefits. In examining the worker’s right to hire helpers and assistants, the court found that the carpenter had to ask his employer to provide assistants if he needed them; the carpenter had no right to hire assistants at all. There is quite a leap from having no right at all to hire assistants to saying that Louisiana holds that if a worker has a qualified right to hire, that qualified right to hire is equivalent to no right to hire. The drivers’ argument on this point isn’t the law in Louisiana.
The drivers also argue that the “independent nature” factor is viewed in light of the worker’s integration into the employer’s business and that Louisiana courts
77

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 78 of 182
place heavy emphasis on this factor. As one court put it, “it would be specious” to say that an employer couldn’t control the particulars of a job when that work is integral to the employer’s business. Fuller v. United States Aircraft Ins. Group, 530 So.2d at 1291. The Fuller court’s statement, however, applied to the facts and circumstances before that court. The integral nature of work to a business isn’t dispositive. Otherwise, an insurance agent working exclusively for a single insurance company could never be considered an independent contractor, yet Louisiana courts have considered insurance agents to be independent contractors. See Guillory v. State Farm Ins. Co., 662 So.2d 104 (La. Ct. App. 1995) (reversing a jury’s finding of employee status and finding independent contractor status as a matter of law for State Farm insurance agent).
Finally, the drivers argue that the payment factor favors them because, they say, the relevant inquiry under Louisiana law is whether payment is made at regular intervals and whether the individual can bill for services provided. They rely on Kibodeaux v. Progressive Ins. Co., 4 So.3d 222 (La. Ct. App. 2009), where an electrical inspector who was paid bi-monthly for years and wasn’t allowed to bill for his own services was found to be an employee. Id. at 226. However, the regularity of payment in Kibodeaux wasn’t dispositive—the facts as a whole were dispositive, with the “most telling” fact being that the contract in question was terminable at will. Id. at 227; see also Smith v. Prime, Inc., 20 So.3d at 1188 (“None of these factors is determinative. Instead, the totality of the factors must be considered.”); Tate v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 4 So.3d at 918-919 (finding
78

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 79 of 182
truck driver to be independent contractor even though he was paid every Friday and worked primarily for a single company for many years).
For purposes of this case, Louisiana’s common law right to control test doesn’t differ materially from Kansas’ method of distinguishing independent contractors from employees. “[T]he only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. The court addressed all other relevant factors in its Kansas Decision and incorporates that reasoning here. The Boudreaux drivers are independent contractors under Louisiana law.
J. Maryland (3:06-cv-485, Westcott; 3:07-cv-189, Jones) The Westcott drivers allege violations of Maryland’s Wage Payment and Collection Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment; they seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Though the drivers didn’t move to certify the fraud claim, they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act, MD. CODE ANN., LAB. & EMPL. § 3-501 et seq. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Maryland), Mar. 12, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 546]. The parties indicate that both Maryland cases depend on the briefing in Westcott case because Laron Jones is a member of the Westcott Maryland class. The court grants FedEx’s motions for summary judgment in both cases and denies the drivers’ summary judgment motion in Westcott. Because the Maryland claims stand or fall on the common question of
79

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 80 of 182
whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered for FedEx on all claims in both Maryland cases.
The parties rely heavily on cases that don’t apply to whether FedEx drivers are employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act, MD. CODE., LAB. & EMPL. § 3-501 et seq. Many cases the parties cite deal with the worker’s compensation statutes, in which Maryland courts have distilled a test to be used in a context different from that presented here. See, e.g., Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. v. Imbraguglio, 697 A.2d 885, 893-894 (Md. 1997) (setting forth five factors and citing cases setting forth same five factors for worker’s compensation context).
The court instead must consider the six factors set forth in Baltimore Harbor Charters, Ltd. v. Ayd to determine whether the drivers are employees covered by the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act:
1. Whether the employer actually exercised or had the right to exercise control over the performance of the individual’s work;
2. Whether the individual’s service is outside all the usual course of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed;
3. Whether the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business;
4. Whether it is the employer or the employee who supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and location for the work to be performed;
80

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 81 of 182
5. Whether the individual receives wages directly from the employer or from a third party for work performed on the employer’s behalf; and
6. Whether the individual held an ownership interest in the business such that the individual had the ability and discretion to affect the general policies and procedures of the business.
780 A.2d 303, 318-319 (Md. 2001). The Baltimore Harbors court emphasized the right to control factor, see id. at 315-316, 318, and distilled these six factors from the multi-factor test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 220(2). See id. at 318. The Baltimore Harbors court expressly stated that it wasn’t following the broad definitions of employee, “such as ‘any person suffered or permitted to work by an employer,’” contained in the statutes of other jurisdictions, and instead turned to the traditional common law distinctions made between employees and independent contractors. Id. at 315.
Baltimore Harbors clarified that “[t]he emphasis on the right to exercise control is whether [the alleged employer] could have exercised control over [the alleged employee], not whether [it] actually did.” Id. at 319. As in the Kansas Decision, the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts before the court, under the posture of this case, is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ performance on a class wide basis. Kansas Decision, at 73. The court incorporates here the reasoning of the Kansas Decision.
Addressing the other Maryland factors, this court has held that the drivers’ service is integral to FedEx’s business, so the second factor weighs in favor of employee status. The third factor also weighs in favor of employee status because
81

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 82 of 182
drivers for UPS, DHL, FedEx Express, and the USPS are employees, yet it also weighs in favor of a finding of an independent contractor relationship because the Maryland FedEx drivers have the ability to grow their businesses in the service of FedEx. Drivers ultimately are responsible for supplying their own instrumentalities and tools, though FedEx supplies the routes by virtue of its own package delivery business. Drivers receive wages directly from FedEx, and no evidence before the court suggests drivers have an ownership interest in FedEx.
Because of the emphasis Maryland places on the right to control as being the weightiest factor in this and other employment question contexts, see, e.g., Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. v. Imbraguglio, 697 A.2d at 894 (stating in workers’ compensation context, “control is paramount and, in most cases, decisive,” and citing cases with similar strong language), the court holds that the Maryland (Westcott and Jones) drivers are independent contractors for purposes of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act.
K. Minnesota (3:05-cv-533, Lee) The Lee drivers allege illegal deductions from wages, in violation of Minnesota Statutes § 181.79; failure to keep records, in violation of Minnesota Statutes § 177.30; violations of the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, MINN. STAT. § 325F.69; and fraud. They seek rescission and declaratory and injunctive relief. The drivers didn’t move to certify the fraud claim, but they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status
82

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 83 of 182
under Minnesota law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class, Apr. 2, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 576]. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the drivers’ motion for summary judgment and grants FedEx’s summary judgment motion. The Minnesota drivers are independent contractors under Minnesota law. Because the Minnesota claims all stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered for FedEx on all claims in the Minnesota case.
Minnesota law looks to five factors to resolve employment status: (1) the right to control the means and manner of performance;13 (2) the mode of payment; (3) the furnishing of material or tools; (4) the control of the premises where the work is done; and (5) the employer’s right to discharge. Boily v. Commissioner of Econ. Sec., 544 N.W.2d 295, 296 (Minn. 1996) (citing MINN. R. 3315.0555). Other factors can be considered if the five factors are inconclusive. See MINN. R. 3315.0555. The court doesn’t review all those additional factors here because these five factors are conclusive.14
13 Criteria for determining control include: authority over assistants; compliance with instructions; oral or written reports; place of work; personal performance; existence of a continuing relationship; right to discharge; set hours of work; training; amount of time; tools and materials; expense reimbursement; and satisfying requirements of regulatory and licensing agencies. MINN. R. 3315.0555, Subp. 3. The court considered all these factors in the Kansas Decision.
14 The court already has weighed most of Minnesota’s additional factors in the Kansas Decision by examining the totality of the circumstances. These factors include, but aren’t limited to, availability to public; compensation on job basis; realization of profit or loss; obligation; substantial investment; simultaneous contracts; responsibility; and services in the course of the employer’s organization, trade, or business. MINN. R. 3315.0555, Subp. 2.
83

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 84 of 182
The right to control the means and manner of performance is the most important factor. Boily v. Commissioner of Econ. Sec., 544 N.W.2d at 296; see also Corbin v. Commissioner of Revenue, 240 N.W.2d 809, 812 (Minn. 1976) (“The approach invariably used by this court for determining whether one is an employee or an individual contractor focuses on the nature and extent of control reserved by the person for whom the work is done.”); Pettis v. Harken, Inc., 116 N.W.2d 565, 567-568 (Minn. 1962) (“The most important factor is the right of the employer to control the means and manner of performance.”). The second key factor is the right to discharge. MINN. R. 3315.0555, Subp. 1(B); see also Pettis v. Harken, Inc., 116 N.W.2d at 568 (finding that company’s right to reclaim equipment and terminate relationship at any time supplied necessary authoritative control to establish employer-employee relationship); Anfinson v. A.O.U.W. Ins. Co., 3 N.W.2d 7, 9 (Minn. 1942) (“Th[e] unrestricted right of discharge afforded adequate means for controlling Anfinson’s work.”).
Regular payment doesn’t by itself indicate employee status. Relevant to the payment factor is whether wages are based on hours worked or are tied to the amount of contract performance. See Boily v. Commissioner of Econ. Sec., 544 N.W.2d at 296 (noting independent contractor dentists were paid monthly). Providing space and fixtures and major equipment doesn’t by itself indicate employee status, particularly if the contractors are responsible for some of their own equipment. See id. (noting independent contractor dentists were provided office space, fixtures, and major items of equipment but had to supply their own
84

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 85 of 182
hand instruments and pay their own malpractice insurance premiums and continuing dental education fees). On the other hand, even if the pay and equipment factors weighed clearly in favor of independent contractor status, these two factors don’t indicate independent contractor status if there is a right to control the means and manner of performance. See Pettis v. Harken, Inc., 116 N.W.2d at 292-293 (deciding that person supplying his own tractor and being paid on acreage basis rather than hourly rate was employee where there was a right to terminate at any time); Anfinson v. A.O.U.W. Ins. Co., 3 N.W.2d at 9 (deciding that neither the fact that employee supplied his own sawmill nor that he was paid on the basis of what he produced was controlling).
The Minnesota drivers complain in their supplemental brief that in the Kansas Decision the court “refused to consider instances in which FXG exercised control.” They argue that in Minnesota an exercise of actual control “form[s] a basis for inferring a right of further control if and when it should become necessary.” Minnesota Pltfs’ Supp. Stmt., Sept. 24, 2010, at 3 [Doc. No. 2177] (quoting Anfinson v. A.O.U.W. Ins. Co., 3 N.W.2d 7, 9 (Minn. 1942)). Today’s general introduction addresses the drivers’ characterization of this court’s approach to the scope of the evidence.15 The court doesn’t read Minnesota law as requiring courts to look to the actual exercise of control. The Anfinson case was unique because no written agreement existed between a log cutter and a farm
15 The court also chronicled an example of the inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ arguments on the scope of evidence in today’s Louisiana decision.
85

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 86 of 182
manager; they had an oral and informal relationship. Anfinson v. A.O.U.W. Ins. Co., 3 N.W.2d at 8. To see whether the farm manager had a right to control the log cutter’s manner and means of performance, extrinsic evidence of the parties’ agreement was necessary, including an examination of letters the farm manager wrote to the log cutter. See id. at 8. The letters showed actual control of the details of the logger’s work, and the Anfinson court found that in the absence of a written agreement it could properly assume that the employer had an unrestricted right to discharge the log cutter, and “[t]his unrestricted right of discharge afforded adequate means for controlling [the log cutter’s] work.” Id. at 9.
The drivers cite no case other than this unique 1942 case to support their complaint that the court didn’t look at extrinsic evidence of actual control. The right to control, not the actual exercise of control, is determinative under Minnesota law. See, e.g., Hunter v. Crawford Door Sales, 501 N.W.2d 623, 624 (Minn. 1993) (“Furthermore, the fundamental test of employment is the right, not just the exercise, of the employer to control the details of the work.”); Pettis v. Harken, Inc., 116 N.W.2d at 568 (“As to the element of control, we have held that the right to control rather than the exercise of the right is decisive.”); see also MINN. R. 3315.0501 (“‘Control’ is the power to instruct, direct, or regulate the activities of an individual whether or not the power is exercised.”). The evidence available under this case’s procedural posture—the Operating Agreement and generally applicable policies and procedures—has allowed the court to examine FedEx’s right to control the methods and means of the plaintiff drivers’ work.
86

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 87 of 182
Articulating a principle that applies across all these MDL cases, the Anfinson court stated, “[i]t must be remembered that manner and means as opposed to result necessarily vary in kind and degree with each fact situation.” Anfinson v. A.O.U.W. Ins. Co., 3 N.W.2d at 9; see also Iverson v. Independent Sch. Dist., 257 N.W.2d 572, 573 (Minn. 1977) (“The very nature of the work [driving handicapped students] required some form of control by the school district.”). Each case must be resolved on its unique facts, and what constitutes control of results in one case (“I agree to deliver dry newspapers by 7 a.m. everyday”) may constitute control of means in another case (“I agree to drive a load of newspapers from Indianapolis to Chicago by noon tomorrow, but you also tell me to overload my truck, take the scenic route to avoid police, and leave before I’ve finished my coffee, or else you’ll hire someone else”). See Pettis v. Harken, Inc., 116 N.W.2d at 567 (“No general rule can be laid down which covers all situations. Each case must depend to a great extent upon its own particular facts.”); MINN. R. 3315.0555, Subp. 1 (“Other factors, including some not specifically identified in this part, may be considered if a determination is inconclusive when applying the essential factors, and the degree of their importance may vary depending upon the occupation or work situation being considered and why the factor is present in the particular situation.”). Thus, for example, a newscarrier can be an independent contractor even if she must complete deliveries in a timely fashion, maintain a certain order in her deliveries to meet customer expectations, maintain records of her deliveries, and respect the contractee’s concerns if one of her freely hired
87

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 88 of 182
assistants incurs customer complaints directed to the contractee. See Neve v. Austin Daily Herald, 552 N.W.2d 45, 46-47 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). In the world of newspaper deliveries, where customers expect dry newspapers delivered on time every day, such “controls” go to contracted-for results and not to how those results are to be achieved. Id. at 48. The same can easily be said of package delivery services.
Despite the uniqueness of each case, the plaintiffs argue that Corbin v. Commissioner of Revenue, 240 N.W.2d 809 (Minn. 1976), requires a grant of their summary judgment motion because, they say, the facts overlap in a controlling fashion. In Corbin, sales drivers were assigned routes and stops, couldn’t change a route without the employer’s agreement, and had no freedom to shop around for other suppliers. Beyond that, though, the employer owned the trucks, the employer maintained worker’s compensation insurance for its sales drivers, and, more importantly, “[e]ither party could terminate the relationship without any contractual liability with the exception that a driver was bound by a 5-year covenant not to compete.” Id. at 811-812. The facts of Corbin don’t overlap with today’s case in a compelling way. As Corbin stated, it is “necessary to examine the overall relationship between the parties to determine” employment status. Id. at 812.
The court already has decided—taking into account numerous subfactors under the totality of the circumstances—that “the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the
88

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 89 of 182
contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. Further, FedEx doesn’t have the right to terminate the plaintiff drivers at will. Less importantly in Minnesota, the plaintiff drivers ultimately are responsible for obtaining their own trucks, and the drivers are paid according to a complex formula that takes into account the number of packages they deliver. Finally, FedEx doesn’t control the premises because the contracts are performed on public roadways. See Iverson v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 547, 257 N.W.2d at 573. The court incorporates here its reasoning in the Kansas Decision and concludes that the Lee drivers are independent contractors under Minnesota law.
L. Nevada (1) 3:07-cv-120, DeCesare The DeCesare drivers allege violations of Nevada’s False Claims Act, NEV. REV. STAT. Chap. 357, violations of Nevada’s Tax Liability Statutes, NEV. REV. STAT. § 363B.110(2), multiple violations of Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 608, failure to fulfill statutory duties concerning unemployment insurance and worker’s compensation, NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 612.455 & 616B.612, and fraud. They seek rescission and declaratory and injunctive relief. The court denied the Nevada drivers’ motion to certify, except for the worker’s compensation claim, NEV. REV. STAT. § 616B.612, which is class certified. Only the drivers moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the DeCesare drivers are statutory employees for purposes of their worker’s compensation claim, NEV.
89

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 90 of 182
REV. STAT. § 616B.612. The court will suggest remand of all claims for further disposition.
Nevada’s Industrial Insurance Act defines “employee” as “every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire.” NEV. REV. STAT. § 616A.105. Independent contractors are expressly classified as statutory employees for purposes of Chapters 616A through 616D. NEV. REV. STAT. § 616A.210. A limited scope of employers of independent contractors are excluded from the provisions of Chapters 616A through 616D—a person isn’t a statutory employer if (a) the person enters into a contract with another person or business that is an independent enterprise and (b) the person isn’t in the same trade, business, profession, or occupation as the independent enterprise. NEV. REV. STAT. § 616B.603(1). The test is fully conjunctive, so if either prong isn’t met, the independent contractor is a statutory employee for purposes of Chapters 616A through 616D. See Hays Home Delivery, Inc. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada, 31 P.3d 367, 370 (Nev. 2001) (emphasizing conjunctive nature of test).
The Nevada drivers’ work is a regular and integral part of FedEx’s business and is essential to FedEx’s business. See Kansas Decision, at 93. The drivers and FedEx are engaged in the same trade, business, profession, or occupation: package delivery. FedEx concedes as much by not addressing the plaintiffs’ certified class claim under Chapter 616 in its post-Kansas supplemental brief. Because FedEx and the plaintiff drivers are engaged in the same business, the DeCesare drivers are statutory employees for purposes of Nevada Revised Statutes
90

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 91 of 182
Chapter 616. See Hays Home Delivery, Inc. v. Employers Ins. Co., 31 P.3d at 371 (“[N]otwithstanding any minimal distinction between Green’s and Hays’s functions, both are in the same trade of delivering merchandise.”). Whether the plaintiff drivers are “independent enterprises” makes no difference here. See id. at 370 (“We conclude that although Green was an independent enterprise, Green and Hays were, in fact, in the ‘same trade.’ Therefore, an employment relationship existed between Green and Hays, and Green is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.”).
The court denied class certification for the drivers’ claims under Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 608 because no statutory language or case law clarified the test for dividing employees from independent contractors for those claims. See generally Op. and Ord., Feb. 17, 2010 [Doc. No. 2004]; Op. and Ord., July 27, 2009, at 44-50 [Doc. No. 1770]. FedEx now asks the court, based on Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96 (Nev. 2008), to deny the drivers’ Chapter 608 claims for failure to pursue administrative remedies. The court declines to do so because the question at issue is the DeCesare drivers’ status as employees or independent contractors. The Chapter 608 claims weren’t certified, and the defense FedEx raises involves a question that can’t be answered by the common evidence available for purposes of determining the drivers’ employment status.
The drivers argue that the test distinguishing employees from independent contractors under Chapter 616A through 616D should be applied to their Chapter 608 claims. This court has expressly rejected the drivers’ argument to
91

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 92 of 182
superimpose the Chapter 616 test onto Chapter 608. See generally Op. and Ord., Feb. 17, 2010 [Doc. No. 2004]; Op. and Ord., July 27, 2009, at 44-50 [Doc. No. 1770]. Further, the definitions in Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 616A.105, 616A.210, and 616B.603 expressly reference Chapters 616A through 616D, which would, by the plain terms of the text, appear to limit the scope of the test applicable to the Chapter 616 claims to only the Chapter 616 claims. In the absence of interpretive guidance, the court denied the drivers’ motion for class certification on their Chapter 608 claims. Now, without a class for the Chapter 608 claims, evidence need not be limited in scope for the named Nevada plaintiffs in the same way the evidence has been limited in scope for the MDL plaintiffs’ classes. The court again declines to accept the drivers’ argument on this issue.
No reason remains under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for these statutory Nevada claims to remain in this centralized docket. The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-one days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
(2) 3:08-cv-234, Campbell
92

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 93 of 182
Rob Campbell alleges unjust enrichment, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207. His complaint is distinct from the other Nevada case (DeCesare) in that many of his claims appear to be premised on his relationship with FedEx as an independent contractor and not on an allegation that FedEx has misclassified him as an independent contractor. No motion for summary judgment has been filed in the Campbell case, and the common question concerning the DeCesare drivers’ employment status doesn’t apply to Mr. Campbell’s case. No reason of efficiency or economy appears to justify this case’s continued placement in this centralized docket, so the court will suggest remand of Mr. Campbell’s case to its transferor court.
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-one days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
93

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 94 of 182
M. New Hampshire (3:05-cv-601, Gennell) The Gennell drivers allege failure to pay overtime and provide meal breaks, conversion, fraud, unfair business practices, and failure to reimburse employee expenses; they seek rescission, an accounting, and declaratory judgment. Though the drivers didn’t seek to certify the fraud claim, they don’t indicate that their claims turn on the anything other than a determination of their employment status under New Hampshire law. See, e.g., Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (New Hampshire), May 17, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 655]. The drivers filed the only summary judgment motion, which requires the court to resolve two distinct questions: (1) whether the drivers are employees under New Hampshire common law; and (2) whether the drivers are employees within the various New Hampshire statutes under which the New Hampshire drivers seek relief. For the reasons stated below, the court grants in part what is now called judgment independent of the motion to FedEx because the drivers are independent contractors under New Hampshire common law. The court grants in part the drivers’ summary judgment motion because the drivers are employees under the relevant New Hampshire statutes. The drivers’ common law claims are denied here and won’t proceed beyond this stage. The court will suggest remand for further proceedings in the transferor court for the drivers’ statutory claims. As noted, FedEx didn’t file a motion for summary judgment against the New Hampshire class. In its supplemental brief, FedEx asks the court to enter judgment sua sponte (now called judgment independent of the motion) in its favor.
94

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 95 of 182
As set forth in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the court takes this request seriously because summary judgment is appropriate under New Hampshire law, the drivers’ employment status can be examined today without prejudice to the drivers, and answering now the question of the drivers’ employment status under New Hampshire law will conserve judicial resources.
FedEx argued at first that New Hampshire law requires a jury to determine the question of employment status even if the facts are undisputed. FedEx quoted New Hampshire courts as saying, “we [have] concluded that our concern will usually be ‘whether on all the facts the community would consider the person an employee.’” Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d 328, 329 (N.H. 1994) (quoting Hunter v. R.G. Watkins & Son, Inc., 265 A.2d 15, 17 (N.H. 1970)). FedEx also relied on First Circuit case law stating that “New Hampshire . . . has decided to leave the marshalling and weighing of the factors, and the unavoidable policy judgments lurking beneath the surface of the amorphous ‘control’ test to a properly instructed jury.” Kassel v. Gannett Co., 875 F.2d 935, 941-942 (1st Cir. 1989). In their supplemental brief, the drivers, who had previously argued strongly in favor of summary judgment issuing in New Hampshire, now rely on the Kassel language in an effort to prevent a result similar to Kansas.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court hasn’t shied away from affirming summary judgments when the facts are undisputed. See, e.g., Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d 328 (N.H. 1994). The “community” language FedEx quotes appears in a case in which the New Hampshire Supreme Court
95

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 96 of 182
affirmed without fuss a summary judgment holding of non-employee status. See id. at 329. The Kassel case was before the First Circuit following a jury trial. The court can’t say whether the First Circuit would have had something different to say about the case had its procedural posture been different. The court today follows the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s lead from the later case of Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d 328 (N.H. 1994), and holds that summary judgment on the employment status question is appropriate in New Hampshire when the facts are undisputed.
New Hampshire common law on the distinction between employees and independent contractors follows a totality of the circumstances approach using the multi-factor test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220. Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d at 329; Hunter v. R.G. Watkins & Son, 265 A.2d at 17. The drivers argued in their original summary judgment briefs that the right to control was dispositive in New Hampshire; they have retreated from that position. New Hampshire adopted the totality of the circumstances approach because the old approach of looking only to the right to control was too narrow. Yet, as this court noted when granting class certification to the New Hampshire plaintiffs, the right to control remains a weighty consideration: employee status is likely if the right to control exists; other factors might yet indicate employee status if the right to control doesn’t exist. Op. and Ord., Mar. 25, 2008, at 96-97 [Doc. No. 1119]; see also Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d at 329 (discussing only the right to control when
96

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 97 of 182
affirming summary judgment); Continental Ins. Co. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 422 A.2d 1309, 1311 (N.H. 1980) (noting that control is an important factor); Hunter v. R.G. Watkins & Son, Inc., 265 A.2d 15, 17 (N.H. 1970) (“[W]here other facts indicate the nonexistence of an employer-employee relationship, control may be a decisive factor.”).
The drivers argue in their supplemental brief that New Hampshire law makes no distinction between the right to control contracted-for results and the right to control the means and methods of obtaining those results. The court can’t agree. As with other common law tests, the results vs. means distinction applies in New Hampshire. See Boissonnault v. Bristol Federated Church, 642 A.2d at 329 (“[T]he judge found that although the church may have had control over the tasks assigned to Seeler, it had no right to control the physical performance or the details of the accounting services she performed. To carry the plaintiffs’ argument to its logical conclusion could result in a client of a certified public accountant being liable for the accountant’s negligent driving while delivering the client’s tax return.”); Continental Ins. Co. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 422 A.2d at 1311(“The State determined when and where Mitch’s trucks would plow snow, but there was no evidence that the State either exercised or had the right to control the actual operations of the truck itself.”).
The New Hampshire drivers also argue that the stated intent of their contracts—that the drivers be independent contractors—carries no weight in New Hampshire. New Hampshire common law follows the Restatement test, so intent
97

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 98 of 182
is a factor to be considered along with all the other factors. See Continental Ins. Co. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 422 A.2d at 1312 (noting that “all of the facts” considered included the actual contract between the State and truck driver). The drivers are correct that intent isn’t dispositive, see Merchants Ins. Grp. v. Warchol, 560 A.2d 1162, 1165 (N.H. 1989) (holding worker to be employee where intent of oral contract was the only factor court found favoring independent contractor relationship and other factors outweighed the intent factor), but that doesn’t change the outcome here.
The court addressed the right to control test, the Restatement factors, and the totality of the circumstances in the Kansas Decision. For the reasons stated in the Kansas Decision, the Gennell drivers are independent contractors under New Hampshire common law.
The New Hampshire drivers’ claims also turn on whether they are employees under several New Hampshire statutes that state broadly, “‘Employee’ means and includes every person who may be permitted, required, or directed by any employer, in consideration of direct or indirect gain or profit, to engage in any employment.” N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 275:4 II, 275:42 II, 279:1 X. New Hampshire statutes contain a narrow exception to the definition of “employee” for independent contractors who meet all of certain enumerated criteria, meaning that if any one factor weighs in favor of employee status, then there must be a finding of such status. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 275:4 II; 275:42 II; 279:1 X. Effective January 2008, the New Hampshire legislature narrowed the independent
98

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 99 of 182
contractor category by increasing the number of required exception factors from five to twelve. The additions to the list of criteria don’t affect the outcome of today’s decision because at least one factor that was part of the original five factor list indicates employment status.
One factor common to the old and new lists of factors asks whether “[t]he person holds himself or herself out to be in business for himself or herself.” N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 275:4(e); 275:42 II(e); 279:1 X(e). The drivers’ delivery services are a regular and integral part of FedEx’s business. See Kansas Decision, at 8-9, 93. At the same time, the drivers can take advantage of their entrepreneurial opportunities to own and operate multiple delivery routes and can profit accordingly. But even if the drivers take advantage of those opportunities, they still must hold themselves out as part of the FedEx system. FedEx requires drivers’ trucks to bear the FedEx logo when used for deliveries, and requires drivers to wear FedEx uniforms because “the presentation of a consistent image and standard of service to customers throughout the system is essential in order to be competitive . . . and to permit recognition and prompt access to customers’ places of business.” Kansas Decision, at 14 (quoting OA, ¶ 1.12). The goal of the results-oriented contractual requirements is simple: “Contractors agree to conduct their businesses so that they can be identified as part of the FedEx system.” Id., at 4-5 (citing OA, Background). The New Hampshire “holding out” statutory factor eviscerates the common law distinction between results and means that otherwise has applied under these facts. Nothing in the evidence before the court supports
99

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 100 of 182
an inference that FedEx drivers hold themselves out as being in business for themselves (even though in many respects they can be). Drivers are contractually required to hold themselves out as being part of the FedEx system so as to further FedEx’s business objectives. The New Hampshire drivers are FedEx employees under the relevant New Hampshire statutes.
No reason of economy or efficiency supports retaining this case in this centralized docket. The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-one days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the New Hampshire statutory claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
N. New Jersey (1) 3:05-cv-595, Tofaute The Tofaute (class) drivers assert violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-1 et seq., misrepresentation, violations of New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law, N.J. STAT. ANN. § 34:11-4.1(a), and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. They seek rescission and declaratory relief. The New Jersey plaintiffs didn’t seek to certify their misrepresentation claim, but they don’t
100

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 101 of 182
indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under New Jersey law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify, Mar. 12, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 552]. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court grants summary judgment to FedEx and denies the drivers’ motion for summary judgment. Because the New Jersey (Tofaute class) claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered for FedEx for all claims in this New Jersey (3:05-cv-595, Tofaute) case.
The parties agree that New Jersey courts look to the multi-factor test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 to decide if an employment relationship exists. Carter v. Reynolds, 815 A.2d 460, 464 (N.J. 2003) (“[W]e recognize § 220 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency as the touchstone for determining who is a servant.”); Mavrikidis v. Petullo, 707 A.2d 977, 984 (N.J. 1998); MacDougall v. Weichert, 677 A.2d 162, 190-191 (N.J. 1996) (Pollock, J., dissenting) (“Traditionally, this Court has adopted the test in Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220 when determining whether a hired person is an employee or an independent contractor.”). The essence of the employment relationship is control or the right to control the person employed. Carter v. Reynolds, 815 A.2d at 464.
The drivers urge the court to view the outcome in Tofani v. Lo Biondo Brothers Motor Express, Inc., 200 A.2d 493 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1964), a
101

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 102 of 182
worker’s compensation case, as controlling. As in many other states, New Jersey law may consider a worker to be an independent contractor for some purposes, but will, by force of public policy, consider that worker to be an employee for other purposes. MacDougall v. Weichert, 677 A.2d at 166 (majority opinion). To give effect to the remedial purposes of New Jersey’s worker’s compensation law, courts construe employee status under that law more broadly than employee status under the common law. See Tofani v. Lo Biondo Bros. Motor Express, Inc., 200 A.2d at 501-503 (using “relative nature of the work” test); see also Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Board of Review, 937 A.2d 318, 324 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007) (acknowledging broader scope of employee status for remedial purposes of unemployment benefits statute). The court can’t agree that Tofani’s outcome controls this case because the Tofani court added to the right to control analysis a broad “relative nature of the work” test to be applied in the worker’s compensation context, and the plaintiffs’ case here isn’t a worker’s compensation case.
The drivers’ supplemental brief comes terribly close to misleading the court. While the drivers correctly state that New Jersey follows the Restatement test, they quote and underline in the same paragraph the following language: “Any single one [factor favoring employee status] is virtually proof of the Employment relation; while contrary evidence as to Any one fact is at best only mildly persuasive evidence of contractorship and sometimes is of no force at all.” Pltfs’ Supp. Br., Sept. 24, 2010, at *1 (quoting Tofani v. Lo Biondo Bros. Motor Express, 200 A.2d
102

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 103 of 182
at 498 (alteration by the plaintiffs)). In their supplemental briefs in these MDL cases, the drivers generally tend to rely on subtle exaggerations and incomplete statements of the various states’ laws. The court can’t ignore without comment the New Jersey brief’s incomplete and misleading statement of the law.
The drivers’ selective quotation and editorial addition of “factor favoring employment status” strongly implies that if any one of the ten Restatement factors supports employee status, then that one factor, by itself, is sufficient proof of employee status in New Jersey. That implication is incorrect. The Tofani court wrote the following words16 before the language the plaintiffs quote: “Of the four factors evidencing right of control, Any single one . . . .” Tofani v. Lo Biondo Bros. Motor Express, Inc., 200 A.2d at 498. Continued reading of this Tofani paragraph reveals the following: “[E]mployment can, if necessary, often be solidly proved on the strength of one of the four items: direct evidence of control, method of payment, furnishing of equipment and right to fire.” Id. at 498-499. Four factors isn’t the same as ten factors, so the drivers should have given further thought to the quoted language. Indeed, the Tofani court stated: “Where some of the above listed factors [from the Restatement] point one way and some the other, a court must follow some mental weighing process according to some principle.” Tofani v. Lo Biondo Bros. Motor Express, 200 A.2d at 498. The Tofani court all but
16 The Tofani court was, all the while, quoting extensively from Professor Larson’s work on employment status.
103

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 104 of 182
expressly said that one factor indicating employee status under the Restatement test doesn’t necessarily prove an employer-employee relationship.
Tofani explained in detail that the four-factor test (under which any one factor proves employee status) is a test for the right to control, and the ten-factor Restatement test is really the right to control test plus nine subordinate factors. Tofani v. Lo Biondo Bros. Motor Express, 200 A.2d at 497-499; see also Wright v. State, 778 A.2d 443, 452 (N.J. 2001) (discussing four factor control test); Lowe v. Zarghami, M.D., 731 A.2d 14, 19-20 (N.J. 1999) (outlining same four factor control test). In New Jersey, only the right to control can be dispositive—the other Restatement factors help the analysis but aren’t themselves dispositive. This court addressed the four factors in New Jersey’s right to control test in the Kansas Decision; each factor was held to favor independent contractor status or to be neutral. The drivers’ misstatement of the law, if followed by this court, wouldn’t have been harmless.
The drivers complain that the court “refused” to look at extrinsic evidence of actual control and they quote Tofani as saying, “Under the control test, the right to control is usually inferred from direct evidence of right of control and exercise of control.” Id. at 498. This court addressed the drivers’ characterization of its analysis in today’s general introduction.17 As the Tofani court observed, “it is constantly said that the right to control the details of the work is the primary
17 The court also chronicled an example of the plaintiffs’ inconsistent arguments on the scope of evidence in today’s Louisiana decision.
104

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 105 of 182
test.” Id. at 498; see also Lowe v. Zarghami, M.D., 731 A.2d 14, 20 (N.J. 1999) (“The control test is satisfied whenever the employer retains the right of control, even if the employer may not exercise actual control over the worker.”). Saying that the exercise of control is evidence from which the right to control can be inferred isn’t the same as requiring a court to look to extrinsic evidence of actual control to infer a right to control. Were a court so required, class certification wouldn’t have been proper in this case.
For purposes of today’s decision, New Jersey law doesn’t materially differ from Kansas law. As the court held in the Kansas Decision, “the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. The other factors relevant in New Jersey also were considered in the Kansas Decision, which is incorporated here. The Tofaute (class) drivers are independent contractors under New Jersey law.
(2) 3:05-cv-535, Capers Jessie Capers and his co-plaintiffs bring claims of race and age discrimination and denials of equal opportunity under state and federal law, breach of contract, violation of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation, retaliation, restraint of trade and commerce, infliction of emotional distress, racketeering, and negligence. FedEx moved for summary judgment. Mr. Capers is a member of the Tofaute class, and he has indicated in his summary judgment
105

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 106 of 182
response that the Tofaute class decision will be binding on his claims. At the same time, Mr. Capers’ complaint alleges multiple times that he and his co-plaintiffs actually are independent contractors and, unlike most other breach of contract claims in these MDL cases, his breach of contract claim is premised on him being an independent contractor rather than on FedEx’s alleged misclassification of the drivers. Thus, the court grants in part FedEx’s motion for summary judgment because the issues briefed don’t appear to dispose of all of Mr. Capers’ claims.
For the reasons stated in Tofaute, Mr. Capers is an independent contractor under New Jersey law. His additional tort claims, breach of contract claim, and claims of discrimination under state and federal law weren’t briefed and aren’t addressed here. Those claims aren’t class claims, so the transferor court will decide what weight to give to today’s procedurally distinct decision in Tofaute. Today’s decision isn’t meant to suggest Mr. Capers’ employment status under the facts and laws that apply to his remaining claims. None of the factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 counsel this case’s retention in this centralized docket, so the court will suggest remand of Mr. Capers’ case to the transferor court.
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-eight days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should
106

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 107 of 182
outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
(3) 3:07-cv-327, Farrell Richard Farrell alleges violations of the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4333, breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with a contract and/or prospective business relationship. Mr. Farrell is a member of the Tofaute class, and today’s decision in Tofaute binds him: he is an independent contractor under New Jersey law. The Tofaute decision doesn’t address Mr. Farrell’s federal law claim or his contractual claims premised on his status as an independent contractor. Those claims aren’t class claims, so the transferor court will decide what weight to give to today’s procedurally distinct decision in Tofaute. The court will suggest remand of Mr. Farrell’s case to its transferor court. The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-eight days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
107

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 108 of 182
(4) 3:09-cv-2, Tofaute Michael Tofaute, a named plaintiff in today’s New Jersey class decision, brings a separate complaint alleging violations of FMLA, breach of implied good faith and fair dealing, and violations of New Jersey’s antidiscrimination laws. Today’s class decision in 3:05-cv-595 (Tofaute) binds Mr. Tofaute, and his relationship with FedEx under the Operating Agreement is one of an independent contractor. Because New Jersey law recognizes broader definitions of who is an employee under circumstances different from those considered in today’s decisions, Mr. Tofaute might or might not be an independent contractor for purposes of his remaining FMLA and discrimination claims. These claims aren’t class claims, so the transferor court will decide what weight to give to today’s procedurally distinct decision in Tofaute. The court declined to certify class FMLA claims because resolution of those claims would require consideration of particularized evidence. See Op. and Ord., Mar. 25, 2008, at 61-66 [Doc. No. 1119]. The court will suggest remand of Mr. Tofaute’s case to the transferor court. The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-eight days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should
108

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 109 of 182
outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
O. New York (1) 3:05-cv-538, Louzau The Louzau drivers allege violations of New York’s wage statutes and fraud; they seek rescission and declaratory judgment. Though the New York drivers didn’t move to certify the fraud claim, they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under New York law. See, e.g., Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (New York), Mar. 12, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 548]. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court grants FedEx’s summary judgment motion and denies the drivers’ summary judgment motion. Because the New York claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered in FedEx’s favor for all claims in the New York case. New York’s wage statute defines “employee” as “any person employed for hire by an employer in any employment.” N.Y. LAB. LAW § 190(2). The statute excludes independent contractors from this definition, so courts turn to New York’s common law test to decide whether someone is an employee or independent contractor. See Bynog v. Cipriani Group, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 1090, 1093 (N.Y. 2003); Akgul v. Prime Time Transp., Inc., 742 N.Y.S.2d 553, 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002).
109

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 110 of 182
“Where the proof on the issue of control presents no conflict in evidence or is undisputed, the matter may properly be determined as a matter of law.” Bhanti v. Brookhaven Mem’l Hosp. Med. Ctr., Inc., 687 N.Y.S.2d 667, 669 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999).
Like most common law tests, New York’s common law test focuses on the right to control.
[T]he critical inquiry in determining whether an employment relationship exists pertains to the degree of control exercised by the purported employer over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results. Factors relevant to assessing control include whether the worker (1) worked at his own convenience, (2) was free to engage in other employment, (3) received fringe benefits, (4) was on the employer’s payroll and (5) was on a fixed schedule. Bynog v. Cipriana Group, 802 N.E.2d at 1092-1093. The drivers argue in their supplemental brief that the Bynog v. Cipriani Group formulation shows that New York common law is unique because of its use of the disjunctive “or”: if FedEx controls the results of their work, the drivers say, then that control establishes an employer-employee relationship under New York law. The court can’t agree with this reading of New York law, though it seems plausible on its face. No New York case has declared employee status merely because of an employer’s control of contracted-for results. Rather, New York courts focus on control of means and methods and not on control of results. See Gfelller v. Russo, 846 N.Y.S.2d 501, 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) (“Control of the method and means by which the work is to be done . . . is the critical factor in determining whether one is an independent contractor or an employee for the
110

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 111 of 182
purposes of tort liability.”); In re Askew, 826 N.Y.S.2d 840, 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) (focusing on “sufficient supervision, direction and control over the manner in which claimant was required to perform his work such that there was an employer-employee relationship”); Matter of Pepsi-Cola Buffalo Bottling Corp., 534 N.Y.S.2d 532, 533-534 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (“[W]hile no single factor is determinative, control over the means used to achieve the desired result is particularly significant.”). Indeed, New York courts aren’t shy about reversing administrative decisions and finding that an independent contractor relationship existed. See, e.g., Matter of Hertz Corp., 811 N.E.2d 5 (N.Y. 2004); In re Ted Is Back Corp., 475 N.E.2d 113 (N.Y. 1984); In re 12 Cornelia St., Inc., 438 N.E.2d 1117 (N.Y. 1982); In re Wilson Sullivan Co., 44 N.E.2d 387 (N.Y. 1942); Irrutia v. Terrero, 642 N.Y.S.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996); Claim of Werner, 619 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994); Claim of Pavan, 570 N.Y.S.2d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). Such reversals would be unlikely if New York law indicated employee status simply because of results-oriented controls in a contractual relationship.
Judge Finch, sitting on the New York Court of Appeals, originated the disjunctive “or” language, and when he did so he didn’t write it in a way suggesting so seismic a shift away from the common law distinction between control of results and control of means and methods. He wrote: “[U[pon the record in this case it cannot be seriously contended that there are any facts sufficient to show that the respondent exercises control over either the results produced by its salesmen or the means employed by them to achieve the results.” In re Wilson
111

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 112 of 182
Sullivan Co., 44 N.E.2d at 388. Two years earlier, Judge Finch stated that “the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor has been said to be the difference between one who undertakes to achieve the agreed result and to accept the directions of his employer as to the manner in which the result shall be accomplished, and one who agrees to achieve a certain result but is not subject to the orders of the employer as to the means which are used.” In re Morton, 30 N.E.2d 369, 371 (N.Y. 1940). The Court of Appeals author who originated the “or” language clearly distinguished between controlling contracted-for results and controlling the means and methods of attaining those results. Control of results didn’t indicate employee status; control of means and methods did indicate employee status.
Although the contemporary Bynog court used the disjunctive “or” in reciting the employment status test, that court’s analysis is in line with the form and substance of the common law test in other states. See Bynog v. Cipriani Group, 802 N.E.2d at 1092-1093 (finding plaintiffs to be independent contractors). The Bynog court didn’t discuss contracted-for results in finding temporary waiters to be independent contractors. Yet surely the contracting company “controlled” the “results” of waiters’ performance by declining to hire or continue to employ temporary waiters who didn’t produce satisfactory results. See generally Bynog v. Cipriani Group, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 1090 (N.Y. 2003).
112

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 113 of 182
Before Bynog v. Cipriani Group, the New York Court of Appeals stated in in Matter of Ted Is Back Corp., 472 N.E.2d 113 (N.Y. 1984), that although the employment determination
may rest upon evidence that the employer exercises either control over the results produced or over the means used to achieve the results, control over the means is the more important factor to be considered. Thus, incidental control over the results produced without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results will not constitute substantial evidence of an employeremployee relationship. 475 N.E.2d at 114. The Ted Is Back court went on to say that “the evidence does not support a finding of control over the means of achieving the results” even where the corporation provided sales leads, retained the right to approve contract price, and supplied form contracts for salespeople’s use. Id. at 115. After Bynog v. Cipriani Group, New York’s highest court reiterated, “Incidental control over the results produced—without further evidence of control over the means employed to achieve the results—will not constitute substantial evidence of an employeremployee relationship.” Matter of Hertz Corp., 811 N.E.2d 5, 6 (N.Y. 2004). Control over results is “incidental” if there is no control over the means used to achieve those results. In Matter of Pavan, 570 N.Y.S.2d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), self-employed limousine drivers subjected themselves to numerous resultsoriented controls to become members of a dispatch pool: a membership committee screened prospective members, and the rules of the membership corporation required the limousine drivers to maintain a neat appearance, keep their cars clean and satisfactory, obtain and use specific radios, acquire vehicles meeting
113

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 114 of 182
specific requirements, work during rush hours, and complete accepted assignments. Id. at 698. The court viewed those membership requirements as evidencing “at most, ‘incidental control over the results produced without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results.’” Id. (quoting Matter of Ted Is Back Corp., 475 N.E.2d at 114). “Absent these insignificant controls, UTOG could not possibly conduct its business.” Matter of Pavan, 570 N.Y.S.2d at 698 (citing Matter of Ted Is Back Corp., 475 N.E.2d at 114-115); see also Matter of Hertz. Corp., 811 N.E.2d at 6 (giving claimant instructions on what to wear, what products to promote, and how to make a presentation didn’t require conclusion that claimant was employee); Irrutia v. Terrero, 642 N.Y.S.2d 328, 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (“Although drivers interested in receiving dispatches from Corona Car agreed to certain basic standards of conduct and rules of operation, these rules and standards related to largely incidental matters and constituted the exercise by Corona Car of only general supervisory powers.”). In short, “[t]he requirement that work be done properly is a condition just as readily required of an independent contractor as of an employee and not conclusive as to either.” Matter of Hertz Corp., 811 N.E.2d at 6.
Because this court has held that FedEx doesn’t have the right to control the drivers’ means and methods of how they go about their work, FedEx’s resultsoriented controls don’t result in employee status even under New York law. If FedEx did control means and methods, then the extensive results-oriented controls would weigh in under New York law.
114

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 115 of 182
Although the Bynog court clarified that the employment test involved five factors, most New York cases seem to take a totality of the circumstances approach to determining whether the right to control exists. See, e.g., Etherington v. Empire Improvements, Inc., 389 N.Y.S.2d 459, 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976) (“The question of whether or not an employment relationship exists is factual and no one fact can be exclusively relied upon to prove or disprove the relationship.”). Some cases highlight Restatement factors without citing to the Restatement. See Gfeller v. Russo, 846 N.Y.S.2d 501, 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007); Fitzpatrick v. Holimont, Inc., 669 N.Y.S.2d 88, 89 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Some courts issue a summary ruling without much discussion at all, other than to note that the right to control exists or doesn’t exist. Other cases have placed weight on a contractor’s ability to hire others to drive his vehicle and to sell his franchise. See In re Jarzabek, 738 N.Y.S.2d 742, 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002).
The court follows the Bynog approach, but notes that whatever the common law approach used—Bynog, Restatement, right to control, totality of the circumstances, or any permutation of these—the reasoning of the Kansas Decision holds, and the drivers are independent contractors chiefly (though not only) because FedEx doesn’t have the right to control the means and methods of the drivers’ work. The court held in the Kansas Decision that FedEx drivers can have complete freedom with their time to the extent they choose to hire assistants or otherwise take advantage of their entrepreneurial opportunities—to this extent the drivers work at their own convenience and don’t work a fixed schedule. The
115

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 116 of 182
drivers are free to engage in other employment, and they receive fringe benefits only to the extent they choose to take advantage of them. The court incorporates the reasoning of the Kansas Decision and concludes that under the Bynog test and other New York permutations of the common law test, the Louzau drivers are independent contractors.
(2) 3:05-cv-537, Johnson Curtis and Margaret Johnson allege breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference with contract, intentional infliction of economic harm, and discrimination based on race. They aren’t members of the New York Louzau class. FedEx filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Because the Johnsons aren’t members of the Louzau class, the procedural posture of their case is distinct, particularly regarding the scope of evidence available to the court, and nothing justifies keeping their case in this centralized docket any longer. The transferor court will decide how much weight to give today’s decision in Louzau to the Johnsons’ claims in light of the differing procedural and evidentiary postures of the two New York cases. The court denies FedEx’s motion for partial summary judgment as premature, and will suggest remand of their case to its transferor court. The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-eight days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket
116

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 117 of 182
numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
P. North Carolina (3:07-cv-326, Whiteside) The Whiteside drivers allege ERISA violations, breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of North Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1.1(a). They seek rescission and declaratory relief. Though the drivers didn’t move to certify the fraud or breach of contract claims, they don’t indicate that these claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under North Carolina law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. for Summ. Judg., Sept. 28, 2009, at 1 [Doc. No. 1799]; Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (North Carolina), Oct. 1, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 869-2]. Because the drivers indicate in their complaint that they haven’t pursued all administrative remedies, the court denies the ERISA claim without prejudice in accord with the decision on the ERISA claims in the Kansas case. The court fully incorporates here its decision denying the Kansas ERISA claims, Op. and Ord., June 28, 2010 [Doc. No. 2078]. The North Carolina drivers filed the only summary judgment motion on the employment status question. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the
117

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 118 of 182
drivers’ motion and grants judgment independent of the motion to FedEx. Because the North Carolina claims (other than the ERISA claims) stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors under North Carolina law, judgment will be entered for FedEx in the North Carolina case on all claims.
As noted, FedEx didn’t file a summary judgment motion addressing the North Carolina class. In its supplemental brief, FedEx asks the court to enter judgment sua sponte (now calleded judgment independent of the motion) in its favor. As set forth in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the court takes this request seriously because summary judgment is appropriate under North Carolina law, the drivers’ employment status can be examined today without prejudice to the drivers and answering now the question of the plaintiff drivers’ employment status under North Carolina law will conserve judicial resources.
Summary judgment in North Carolina is appropriate on the employment status question when the facts are undisputed and only one inference can be drawn from those facts. Johnson v. News and Observer Publ’g Co., 604 S.E.2d 344, 346 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004) (stating that summary judgment is appropriate “[w]here the facts are undisputed or the evidence is susceptible of only a single inference and a single conclusion”); see also McCown v. Hines, 549 S.E.2d 175 (N.C. 2001) (finding claimant was independent contractor as a matter of law and reversing Industrial Commission award of worker’s compensation benefits); Youngblood v. North State Ford Truck Sales, 364 N.E.2d 433 (N.C. 1988) (finding
118

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 119 of 182
claimant was employee as a matter of law and affirming Industrial Commission award of worker’s compensation benefits).
In North Carolina, the “vital” test distinguishing employees from independent contractors is the retained right to control the details of a worker’s means and methods of performing a job. Hayes v. Board of Trs. of Elon College, 29 S.E.2d 137, 140 (N.C. 1944); see also McCown v. Hines, 549 S.E.2d 175, 177178 (describing factors as facilitating determination of whether alleged employer has retained the right to control and direct the details of work). North Carolina courts turn to eight factors to help determine if an alleged employer has retained the right to control: whether the person employed (a) is engaged in an independent business, calling, or occupation; (b) is to have the independent use of his special skill, knowledge, or training in the execution of the work; (c) is doing a specified piece of work at a fixed price, for a lump sum, or upon a quantitative basis; (d) is not subject to discharge because he adopts one method of doing the work rather than another; (e) is not in the regular employ of the other contracting party; (f) is free to use such assistants as he may think proper; (g) has full control over such assistants; and (h) selects his own time. McCown v. Hines, 549 S.E.2d at 177; Hayes v. Board of Trs. of Elon College, 29 S.E.2d at 140. At least one North Carolina case has noted a differently formulated list of four “generally recognized” factors to evaluate the right to control: (a) method of payment; (b) the furnishing of equipment; (c) direct evidence of exercise of control; and (d) the right to fire. Youngblood v. North State Ford Truck Sales, 364 S.E.2d 433, 439 (N.C. 1988). No
119

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 120 of 182
single factor is controlling under either approach, nor must all factors be in agreement; these factors are considered “along with all other circumstances.” McCown v. Hines, 549 S.E.2d at 178; Youngblood v. North State Ford Truck Sales, 364 S.E.2d at 438; Hayes v. Board of Trs. of Elon College, 29 S.E.2d at 140.
The drivers argue in their supplemental brief that in North Carolina, customer-based requirements placed on workers are control of means and methods and not control of results. The court disagrees. Independent contractors don’t become employees just because they are subject to controls “as to the result of the work” to be done. McCown v. Hines, 549 S.E.2d at 177; Youngblood v. North State Ford Truck Sales, 364 S.E.2d at 437; Hayes v. Board of Trs. of Elon College, 29 S.E.2d at 140. North Carolina courts take this division between control of means and control of results seriously. For example, in the seminal Hayes case, the defendant Board issued instructions that it wanted electrical poles cut within certain parameters, including cutting ten feet off each pole. Even though the poles could have been cut in other ways, the court viewed these instructions as being results-oriented and not controls of the means and methods of how the workers actually cut the poles. 29 S.E.2d at 142.
In McCown v. Hines, the defendant home owner instructed a roofer to use some old, mismatched shingles, and directed where the roofer placed them on the roof. 549 S.E.2d at 176. The court found the home owner’s instructions amounted “to nothing more than aesthetic decisions within the control of the owner” and
120

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 121 of 182
didn’t go to the details of how the roofer performed the work. Id. at 178. The distinction between means and results holds true in North Carolina as in Kansas.
The drivers argue that the first factor—engagement in “an independent business, calling, or occupation”—looks at the independent nature of a worker’s trade only by looking at whether the work involved was a regular part of the employer’s business. See Cooper v. Asheville Citizen-Times Publ’g Co., Inc., 129 S.E.2d 107, 114 (N.C. 1963). The court doesn’t agree that North Carolina courts interpret this factor only in this way. See McCown v. Hines, 549 S.E.2d at 178 (discussing roofer’s independent calling where he engaged in roofing for ten years, had a certain degree of skill and experience, and provided his own equipment). If they did, this factor would weigh in favor of employee status because the drivers’ work is integral to FedEx’s business. By its terms, the first factor also asks whether the worker is engaged in an independent business, and FedEx drivers have the contractual right to be engaged in an independent business: they can acquire multiple trucks and routes, and they are free to do other work while operating their delivery business. This first factor encompasses considerations weighing on both sides of the equation.
The drivers say North Carolina courts have adopted a broader view of what constitutes the right to terminate: if a person can be discharged for breach of contract, that person is an employee. The drivers conclude that they are employees in North Carolina because FedEx can terminate them for breach of contract. Such a rule would radically alter the dynamics of independent contractor
121

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 122 of 182
relationships by forbidding a usually permitted method contractees have to ensure contracted-for results. The plaintiffs cite to Johnson v. News and Observer Publ’g Co. 604, S.E.2d 344 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004), where the court noted that a newspaper retained the right to fire a delivery person if he breached any provision of his contract and so could terminate “at will for a broad range of reasons.” Id. at 348. But controlling precedent from North Carolina’s Supreme Court indicates that Johnson didn’t declare the far-sweeping rule of law the drivers suggest; rather, the Johnson decision applies to the facts that were before the Johnson court without declaring broad-sweeping changes to the common law. See McCown v. Hines, 549 S.E.2d at 176, 179 (noting that though injured roofer “did not feel completely free to leave the work site without getting fired,” his duty to perform his contractual obligations didn’t amount to him being subject to discharge for adopting one method of doing the work rather than another); Youngblood v. North State Ford Truck Sales, 364 S.E.2d at 438 (“North State retained the right to discharge plaintiff for any reason. The right to fire is one of the most effective means of control. An independent contractor is subject to discharge only for cause and not because he adopts one method of work over another. An employee, on the other hand, may be discharged without cause at any time.” (citations omitted)). As noted in the Kansas Decision, FedEx can’t discharge a driver at will; a termination must be based on one or more of five limited circumstances, including breach of contract—in other words, a termination must be “for cause”. See Kansas Decision, at 95-97.
122

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 123 of 182
North Carolina law doesn’t materially differ from Kansas law for purposes of today’s decision. All the North Carolina factors and the totality of the circumstances were addressed and fully discussed in the Kansas Decision, which the court incorporates here. For these reasons, the Whiteside drivers are independent contractors under North Carolina common law.
Q. Ohio (1) 3:08-cv-336, Kelly The Kelly drivers allege unjust enrichment, denial of FMLA benefits, and fraud; they seek a constructive trust and declaratory and injunctive relief. All claims were class certified except the FMLA claim,18 which the drivers didn’t seek to certify because of the denial of certification for the California class’ FMLA claim. See Op. and Or., Mar. 25, 2008, at 61-66 [Doc. No. 1119]. Only the drivers moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the drivers’ motion and grants judgment independent of the motion to FedEx on all state law claims. The court will suggest remand of the FMLA-related claims for further disposition. As noted, FedEx didn’t file a summary judgment motion against the Kelly drivers. In its supplemental brief, FedEx asked this court to enter judgment sua sponte (now called judgment independent of the motion) in its favor. As set forth
18 Unlike other states, the Kelly class plaintiffs sought to certify their fraud claim, and that claim was class certified along with the other claims.
123

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 124 of 182
in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the court takes this request seriously because summary judgment is appropriate under Ohio law, the drivers’ employment status can be examined today without prejudice to the drivers, and answering now the question of the plaintiff drivers’ employment status under Ohio law will conserve judicial resources.
In response to the Ohio drivers’ summary judgment motion, FedEx argued that Ohio courts disfavor resolving employment status questions on summary judgment. The parties have adopted each other’s original arguments in the wake of the Kansas Decision. The drivers now argue in their supplemental brief that if any of the factors supports employment status, the employment status question can’t be decided on summary judgment. Ohio law doesn’t support the proposition that the presence of absolutely any indicia of employee status results in a jury trial in Ohio. Ohio follows the right to control test, recognizing that “where the evidence is not in conflict or the facts are admitted, the question of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor is a matter of law to be decided by the court. However, the issue becomes a jury question where the claimant offers some evidence that he was an employee rather than an independent contractor.” Bostic v. Connor, 524 N.E.2d 881, 884 (Ohio 1988). Ohio courts grant summary judgment when the facts are undisputed and allow but one inference on the right to control. See Richardson v. Mehan, 430 N.E.2d 927 (Ohio 1982) (finding employee status); Perron v. Hood Indus., Inc., No. L-06-1396, 2007 WL 2458472 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2007) (finding independent contractor
124

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 125 of 182
status);19 Conway v. Calbert, 695 N.E.2d 271 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (finding independent contractor status); Testement v. National Highway Express, 683 N.E.2d 439 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (finding independent contractor status and affirming lower court’s disagreement with worker’s compensation tribunal’s finding of employee status); Harmon v. Schnurmacher, 616 N.E.2d 591 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (finding employee status); Napier v. Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Emp’t Servs., No. 89AP-741, 1990 WL 31774 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 22, 1990) (finding employee status).
Ohio courts use the common law right to control test to determine employment status. The determination depends on the facts of each case, and multiple factors are considered—who controls the details and quality of the work; who controls the hours worked; who selects the materials, tools and personnel used; who selects the routes traveled; the length of employment; and any pertinent agreements or contracts—though the list is “certainly not limited to such indicia.” Bostic v. Connor, 524 N.E.2d 881, 883-884 (Ohio 1988) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 220).
The drivers’ chief argument is that the Bostic court’s use of the present tense “controls” and “selects” indicates that Ohio courts authorize the use of evidence of actual control as proof of the right of control. Ohio courts—like those
19 Both sides rely in part on unpublished court opinions, but Ohio has abolished the distinction in weight between unpublished and published opinions, and even before that rule was changed unpublished opinions could be considered persuasive as a court deems fit. See Ohio Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions, Rule 4.
125

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 126 of 182
in all the other states—look to evidence of actual control when such evidence is available, but Ohio law doesn’t require examination of actual control when, as here, examination of individualized evidence would violate the rules of class certification concerning common evidence. See generally Perron v. Hood Indus., Inc., No. L-06-1396, 2007 WL 2458472 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2007) (relying heavily on written terms of contract between parties and finding independent contractor status). The court examines the relationship between the Kelly drivers and FedEx under the procedural posture of these MDL cases.
Ohio law under Bostic doesn’t differ materially from Kansas law. The distinction between control of results (which doesn’t indicate employee status) and control of means and methods of achieving those results (which indicates employee status) holds in Ohio as it does in Kansas and elsewhere. See Conway v. Calbert, 695 N.E.2d at 273-274 (finding independent contractor status because “the carrier [was] solely responsible for the satisfactory delivery of the advertising materials in the plastic bags within the contracted area” even though DCS told the carrier what materials to put in bags for delivery, where to make deliveries, and where to place deliveries on site, and subjected the carrier to delivery inspections and other special customer-specific instructions); Perron v. Hood Indus., Inc., 2007 WL 2458472, at *5 (quoting lengthy selection from AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE discussing the distinction between control of results and control of means and methods, and citing Ohio authority supporting this distinction).
126

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 127 of 182
FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the means and methods of the plaintiff drivers’ work on a class-wide basis. Kansas Decision, at 73. The court incorporates here the Kansas Decision, which considered all factors relevant in Ohio and the totality of the circumstances, and concludes that the Kelly drivers are independent contractors under Ohio law.
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-eight days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the FMLArelated claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
(2) 3:06-cv-801, Wallace Walter Wallace alleges breach of contract, labor law violations, unjust enrichment, conversion, FMLA and ERISA violations, race discrimination, and fraud. He seeks an accounting. Mr. Wallace is a member of the Kelly class, so today’s decision that the Kelly class members are independent contractors binds him. Because today’s decision leaves some of his claims unresolved, the court will suggest remand of Mr. Wallace’s case to its transferor court.
127

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 128 of 182
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-eight days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding,20 without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
R. Oregon (3:05-cv-596, Slayman; 3:07-cv-328, Leighter) In Slayman, 3:05-cv-596, the Oregon drivers allege illegal wage deductions in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes § 652.610 et seq. and fraud; they seek rescission and declaratory relief. In Leighter, 3:07-cv-328, the drivers allege illegal wage deductions under Oregon Revised Statutes § 652.610 et seq. and violations of Oregon’s Wage and Hour Laws; they seek rescission, declaratory and injunctive relief, and penalty wages. Though the Slayman plaintiffs didn’t seek to certify their fraud claim, they haven’t indicated that their fraud claim turns on anything other than a determination of their employment status under Oregon common law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Oregon), Mar. 12, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No.
20 For example, the parties should break down Mr. Wallace’s breach of contract claim and ferret out those claims that were premised on him being misclassified as an independent contractor (because he is an independent contractor) from those claims that are premised on him actually being an independent contractor (such as the claim that FedEx breached its contract with him by assigning too many packages to him to deliver in a single day).
128

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 129 of 182
557]. The court denied the Leighter class’ motion to certify its rescission claim and decertified the Slayman class’s rescission claim because the rescission claims require consideration of individualized evidence of actual control and the plaintiffs’ engagement in independently established businesses. See Op. and Ord., July 27, 2009, at 56-67 [Doc. No. 1770]. In both cases, only the drivers moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the drivers’ motion for summary judgment and grants judgment independent of the motion to FedEx on all but the rescission claims. The court will suggest remand of these cases for further disposition on the rescission claims because the evidence considered here won’t resolve those claims, which involve the important question of whether the Operating Agreement in question violates Oregon public policy.
FedEx didn’t move for summary judgment as to the Oregon class. In its supplemental brief, FedEx asks the court to enter judgment sua sponte (now called judgment independent of the motion) in its favor. As set forth in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the court takes this request seriously because summary judgment is appropriate under Oregon law, the drivers’ employment status can be examined today without prejudice to the plaintiffs, and answering now the question of the plaintiff drivers’ employment status under Oregon law will conserve judicial resources.
FedEx argued in response to the Oregon drivers’ motions that summary judgment in these cases would be inappropriate under Oregon law. To the contrary, Oregon courts have stated that when the facts are undisputed,
129

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 130 of 182
“[w]hether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor is a legal conclusion.” Schaff v. Ray’s Land & Sea Food, Inc., 45 P.3d 936, 939 (Or. 2002).
The common law test for employment status in Oregon examines whether the alleged employer “had the right to control the manner in which [the worker] performed services.” Schaff v. Ray’s Land & Sea Food, 45 P.3d at 939. The right to control, not the exercise of control, is determinative. S-W Floor Cover Shop v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 872 P.2d 1, 5 (Or. 1994); HDG Enters. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 856 P.2d 1037, 1040 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). Although the extent of an employer’s control over a worker isn’t always easy to measure, “control over performance remains the principal test.” Schaff v. Ray’s Land & Sea Food, 45 P.3d at 939 (quoting Jenkins v. AAA Heating & Cooling, Inc., 421 P.2d 971, 973 (Or. 1966)). Oregon courts distinguish between control over results and control over “the physical conduct in the performance of the services.” Schaff v. Ray’s Land & Sea Food, 45 P.3d at 942 (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY, § 220(1) (1958)); see also Cy Inv., Inc. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 876 P.2d 805, 807 (Or. Ct. App. 1994) (citing Great Am. Ins. v. General Ins., 475 P.2d 415, 417 (Or. 1970)).
In the worker’s compensation context, the Oregon Court of Appeals has looked to a traditional four-factor test to further tease out standards for the right to control test: (1) direct evidence of the right to, or exercise of, control; (2) the furnishing of tools and equipment; (3) the method of payment; and (4) the right to
130

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 131 of 182
fire. E.g., Stamp v. Department of Consumer and Bus. Servs., 9 P.3d 729, 731 (Or. Ct. App. 2000); HDG Enters. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 856 P.2d at 1039.
The drivers focus their supplemental brief on the right to control factor and say that a single factor in favor of employment status can be enough proof to establish an employer-employee relationship. They do well to focus on the right to control factor because the Oregon Supreme Court has only spoken of the right to control as being determinative in the vicarious liability context. The drivers rely on factual analogies to two worker’s compensation cases21 to argue that Oregon’s right to control test differs materially from Kansas’ right to control test. They say specifications about the nature and quality of the work to be completed doesn’t show control of results, but rather shows control of means and methods.
The court reads Oregon law differently. In Reforestation General Contractors, Inc. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 872 P.2d 423 (Or. Ct. App. 1994), a worker’s compensation case, a logging consultant specified the contract completion time for the loggers he hired, marked land boundaries or the timber to be cut, and supervised the contracts. The Reforestation court disagreed with the hearing officer’s legal conclusion that this supervision and general determination of work assignments amounted to a right to control the loggers’
21 See Stamp v. Department of Consumer and Bus. Servs., 9 P.3d at 733 (approving of hearing officer’s reliance on evidence regarding assignment of work, performance and quality control of that work, and the party held responsible for the work); HDG Enters. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 856 P.2d at 1040 (agreeing with findings of fact that employer was specific about nature and quality of finished product desired, employer regulated quality of work but didn’t supervise the work, and customer turned to employer if there was a problem with the work).
131

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 132 of 182
methods and means of achieving contracted-for results. The Reforestation court stated, “Any independent contractor is subject to the control of the hiring party by virtue of the fact that the contractor is directed to accomplish a desired result.” Id. Thus, an owner may retain as much control as necessary
to ensure that he gets the end result from the contractor that he bargained for. Accordingly, a hiring party’s control over the quality or the description of the work, as opposed to the person performing it, will not automatically convert an independent contractor relationship into one of employment. Here, the petitioner’s specification of a completion date and marking of the physical boundaries for each job are part of the end result for which petitioner contracted and are not necessarily indicative of employee status. Similarly, petitioner’s right to supervise the agreements goes to the right to ensure that the ultimate goal of the contract is accomplished. Id. at 432 (internal citations omitted); see also Oregon Drywall Sys., Inc. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 958 P.2d 195, 198 (Or. Ct. App. 1998) (“The monitoring of progress toward job completion does not amount to the exercise of direction and control over the means and method of doing the work.”); Bob Wilkes Falling, Inc. v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 878 P.2d 1136, 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 1994) (“The direct evidence establishes that Wilkes controlled the result but not the method of performance. Wilkes pointed out the boundaries of the timber to be cut, set a completion date, specified log lengths and required that NWT and LPL perform the job in a ‘good and workmanlike manner.’ These specifications deal with the desired result of the contract, not the manner and means of its performance.”).
132

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 133 of 182
Nothing in Oregon law indicates that Oregon differentiates control of results vs. control of means and methods differently from Kansas or other states. Each case must be examined on its own facts, so factual analogies can enlighten but don’t automatically control, especially when, as here, the context and facts are quite unique and truly applicable factual analogies are elusive.
This court has ruled that “the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. The Kansas Decision, which the court incorporates here, addressed the other Oregon factors. The Oregon plaintiff drivers are independent contractors under Oregon law.
The court instructs the parties to file joint proposed pretrial orders (one each for Slayman and Leighter) with this court within twenty-eight days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of rescission claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
133

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 134 of 182
S. Pennsylvania (1) 3:05-cv-597, Willis; 3:05-cv-598, Hart The Pennsylvania drivers in 3:05-cv-597 (Willis) allege violations of Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 PA. CONS. STAT. § 260.1 et seq.; violations of Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act, 43 PA. CONS. STAT. § 333.101 et seq.; violations of Pennsylvania’s Workman’s Compensation Act, 77 PA. CONS. STAT. § 501(a)(d); and fraud. They seek rescission and injunctive and declaratory relief. Though the Pennsylvania drivers didn’t move to certify the Minimum Wage Act, Workman’s Compensation Act, and fraud claims, they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under Pennsylvania law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Pennsylvania), Apr. 2, 2007, at 1 [ Doc. No. 579]. Only the drivers filed a motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the drivers motion for summary judgment and grants judgment independent of the motion to FedEx. Jeffrey Hart, 3:05-cv-598, brought a class action complaint alleging violations of Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act, 43 PA. CONS. STAT. § 333.104(a); violations of Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 PA. CONS. STAT. § 260.3; and unjust enrichment. Mr. Hart is a member of the Pennsylvania class certified in the Willis case. His case has languished for years without activity. His claims aren’t unique or distinct from the Willis case, and because he is a member of the Pennsylvania class, today’s decision resolves his employment status.
134

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 135 of 182
Because these Pennsylvania claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered for FedEx in these Pennsylvania cases (3:05-cv-597, Willis; 3:05-cv-598, Hart).
As noted, FedEx didn’t file a summary judgment motion against the Willis drivers. In its supplemental brief, FedEx asks the court to enter judgment sua sponte (now called judgment independent of the motion) in its favor. As set forth in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the court takes this request seriously because summary judgment is appropriate under Pennsylvania law, the drivers’ employment status can be examined today without prejudice to the plaintiffs, and answering now the question of the plaintiff drivers’ employment status under Pennsylvania law will conserve judicial resources.
FedEx argued in its summary judgment response brief that a trial on the employment status question is required in Pennsylvania. The court can’t agree. Summary judgment is appropriate in Pennsylvania because when the facts are undisputed, employment status is a question of law. E.g., Lutz v. Cybularz, 607 A.2d 1089, 1091 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992); Johnson v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 631 A.2d 693, 696 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
For all relevant purposes here, Pennsylvania courts use a common law analysis to distinguish between independent contractors and employees. Multiple factors are considered and these factors are not controlling, but rather provide general guidance to courts: (1) the control of the manner in which work is to be
135

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 136 of 182
done; (2) responsibility for result only; (3) terms of agreement between the parties; (4) the nature of the work or occupation; (5) the skill required for performance; (6) whether one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (7) which party supplies the tools; (8) whether payment is by the time or by the job; (9) whether the work is part of the employer’s regular business; and (10) the right to terminate the employment at any time. The most important consideration is the right to control the manner in which the work is to be accomplished. The right to control, and not the actual exercise of control, is determinative. Hammermill Paper Co. v. Rust Eng’g Co., 243 A.2d 389, 392 (Pa. 1968); Morin v. Brassington, 871 A.2d 844, 850 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (Wage Payment and Collections Law); Johnson v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 631 A.2d at 696 (worker’s compensation). In the vicarious liability context, Pennsylvania courts tend to look solely to the right to control and the totality of facts showing a right to control. Green v. Independent Oil Co., 201 A.2d 207, 210 (Pa. 1964); Lutz v. Cybularz, 607 A.2d at 1091; Myszkowski v. Penn Stroud Hotel, Inc., 634 A.2d 622, 625-626 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
The drivers say Juarbe v. City of Philadelphia, 431 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981), compels either a trial or a finding of employee status. They argue that, for purposes of their case, Juarbe shows that Pennsylvania law materially differs from Kansas law because, they say, in Pennsylvania the power to terminate for breach of contract and the exercise of supervision and provision of suggestions necessarily indicate employee status. They also say that Juarbe shows that, in
136

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 137 of 182
Pennsylvania, requiring customer service and performance standards, and inspecting work to ensure compliance with a contract, evidences employee status and not a results-oriented approach.
In Juarbe, the lessee of a gas station from lessor Exxon agreed to keep the station open for certain minimum hours, keep the station clean and sanitary, keep the premises unobstructed, place no signs on the premises without Exxon’s permission, purchase motor fuels exclusively from Exxon in certain amounts and at prices set by Exxon, and render satisfactory customer service through employees he hired. Juarbe v. Philadelphia, 431 A.2d at 1076-1078. The Juarbe court held that a substantial fact issue existed as to whether the lessee was in a master-servant relationship with Exxon. Similar to Juarbe, the station operator in Green v. Independent Oil Co., 201 A.2d 207, 209-210 (Pa. 1964), had to purchase all motor oils and fuels from the petroleum company, could have his contract terminated for breach, and received visits from representatives of the petroleum company. Different from Juarbe, the service station operator in Green was held to be an independent contractor as a matter of law.
The distinction made by Pennsylvania courts between Juarbe and Green illustrates the context that has helped shape this court’s decisions in these MDL cases. The Juarbe court said Green would have been controlling (meaning the Juarbe court would have held the lessee to be an independent contractor as a matter of law) but for a key difference: extensive evidence was present before the Juarbe court that Exxon “frequently threatened not to renew the leases and sales
137

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 138 of 182
agreements of its operators if they failed to adhere not only to the requirements
of those documents, but also to Exxon’s ‘suggested’ business conduct.” Juarbe v.
City of Philadelphia, 431 A.2d at 1079. As this court has noted elsewhere in
today’s decisions, there is nothing exceptional about an employer ensuring that
a contractor produce contracted-for results. The evidence presented to the Juarbe
court, though, went above and beyond the ordinary right to terminate for breach
of contract and to supervise contracted-for results: the testimonial evidence
created an inference of constant strong-arming, leaving open a fact issue for a jury
to decide as to whether Exxon controlled the day-to-day details of the lessee’s
conduct. Juarbe v. City of Philadelphia, 431 A.2d at 1079. But for that additional
evidence, the Juarbe court said, “we would probably feel that the Green decision
was controlling.” Id. Juarbe is unique for the evidence before that court and not
for demonstrating a material difference between Pennsylvania and Kansas law.
The procedural posture of these MDL cases, with the scope of evidence limited to
evidence common across the nation, renders these cases more similar to Green than to Juarbe.22
22 As noted in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the procedural posture of these MDL cases isn’t the only factor driving today’s decisions. This court has found the lack of right to control methods and means of achieving contracted-for results, lack of right to terminate at will, and plaintiffs’ responsibility for acquiring equipment to indicate independent contractor status. But most compellingly, the plaintiffs’ entrepreneurial opportunities indicate independent contractor status. The court can’t say whether a different procedural posture allowing extrinsic evidence to be presented would change this outcome and directs the plaintiffs to the trial court’s decision in Estrada for another court’s take on their claims, showing that even with additional extrinsic evidence a court may likely still find them (at least the MWA drivers and classes including MWA drivers) to be independent contractors. See generally, Estrada v. FedEx Ground, No. BC 210130 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 26, 2004) [Exh. B to Pltfs’ Req. for Judicial Notice, Apr. 24, 2008].
138

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 139 of 182
Highlighting that Juarbe was decided on the basis of its particular facts and circumstances, and not on the basis of a material difference in law, post-Juarbe decisions demonstrate the similarities between Pennsylvania and Kansas law material to today’s decision. For example, in Myszkowski v. Penn Stroud Hotel, Inc., 634 A.2d at 627, Penn Stroud contracted with Best Western to use the Best Western brand in marketing its hotel. Best Western imposed a program of quality control, with corresponding rules and regulations, and conducted workshops to achieve quality service. The Myszkowski court concluded that those controls didn’t create a master-servant relationship. “[T]he fact that Best Western sets certain standards in order to maintain a uniform quality of inn service only addresses the result of the work and not the manner in which it is conducted.” Id. at 627 (emphasis in the original). Best Western could further enforce contracted-for results through biannual inspections and termination of its contract with Penn Stroud for breach. “Such a sanction [termination for breach], however, does not indicate that there is a continuous subjection to the will of the alleged master so as to constitute a master-servant relationship. . . . Best Western cannot compel Penn Stroud to alter its conduct. It merely has the ability to either terminate its relationship with Penn Stroud or threaten to terminate it.” Id. at 627.
The drivers’ argument that the threat of contract termination indicates employee status is without merit. The facts before this court don’t rise to the type of control present before the Juarbe court, which created an issue of material fact in that case. The Kansas Decision addressed all the factors relevant in
139

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 140 of 182
Pennsylvania, together with the totality of the circumstances (Pennsylvania factors aren’t limited to those listed in the cases, as stated by the Pennsylvania courts), and the court incorporates that decision here. The Pennsylvania drivers are independent contractors under Pennsylvania law.
(2) 3:09-cv-3, Mitchell Plaintiff David Mitchell alleges breach of contract, lack of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the federal Family Medical Leave Act. Mr. Mitchell isn’t a member of the Pennsylvania plaintiffs’ class, and today’s decision in Willis isn’t necessarily binding on him because of the different procedural posture of his case. The first two counts of his complaint appear premised on his status as an independent contractor. The FMLA claim requires him to be considered an employee for FMLA purposes and requires individualized and particularized evidence of his relationship with FedEx. See Op. and Ord., Mar. 25, 2008, at 6166 [Doc. No. 1119]. Retaining this case in a centralized docket won’t further any of the interests of 28 U.S.C. § 1407, so the court will suggest remand of Mr. Mitchell’s case to its transferor court. The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within twenty-eight days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims
140

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 141 of 182
that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
T. Rhode Island (3:05-cv-599, Tierney) The Tierney drivers allege fraud; they seek rescission and declaratory relief. Though the drivers didn’t move to certify the fraud claim, they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under Rhode Island law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Rhode Island), Apr. 23, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 596]. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the drivers’ motion for summary judgment and grants FedEx’s motion for summary judgment. Because the Rhode Island claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered in FedEx’s favor in the Rhode Island case. Rhode Island looks to the traditional common law test of right to control to distinguish employees from independent contractors. The right to control, not the exercise of control, is determinative. Croce v. Whiting Milk Co., 228 A.2d 574, 576-577 (R.I. 1967); Pasetti v. Brusa, 98 A.2d 833, 834 (R.I. 1953); see also Absi v. State Dep’t of Admin., 785 A.2d 554, 556 (R.I. 2001). Some Rhode Island courts look to the factors found in the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220. See Estate of Perry v. Green Card, Inc., No. PC/03-4671, 2006 WL 3479056 (R.I. Super. Dec.
141

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 142 of 182
1, 2006) (unpublished). The Rhode Island Supreme Court hasn’t gone beyond saying that the test is simply the right to control, but has said that “it is impossible to determine the relationship of employer and employee by any hard and fast rule” and “the answer to such question depends in each case upon its particular facts taken as a whole.” DiOrio v. R.L. Platter, Inc., 211 A.2d 642, 644 (R.I. 1965).
In their supplemental brief, the drivers rely almost exclusively on the unpublished opinion in Estate of Perry v. Green Card, Inc. to argue that Rhode Island’s interpretation of the ten Restatement factors differs materially from Kansas. Rhode Island Supreme Court Appellate Procedure Rule 16(j) states that unpublished orders “shall have no precedential effect.” This court’s duty is to decide this case as Rhode Island’s Supreme Court would, and that court would give no precedential weight to the Perry case. Additionally, Estate of Perry contains material factual differences from the case to be decided today, including an employer’s ability to terminate a worker at will. See Estate of Perry v. Green Card, Inc., 2006 WL 3479056, at *6. A unique factual context containing a strong indicator of employment status, such as the right to terminate at will, in an unpublished opinion doesn’t indicate that Rhode Island courts interpret the Restatement factors any differently than other state courts do.
Rhode Island law doesn’t materially differ from Kansas law for purposes of today’s decisions. As fully explained in the Kansas Decision, “the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the
142

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 143 of 182
details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. Based on only the consideration of the right to control, the plaintiff drivers are independent contractors under Rhode Island law. To the extent Rhode Island courts look to the Restatement factors and/or to the totality of the circumstances, the court has addressed these tests and factors in its Kansas Decision, which the court incorporates here. The Tierney drivers are independent contractors.
U. South Carolina (3:05-cv-668, Cooke) The Cooke drivers allege fraud and illegal wage deductions in violation South Carolina Code § 41-10-40; they seek rescission and declaratory relief. Though the South Carolina drivers didn’t move to certify the fraud claim, they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under South Carolina law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (South Carolina), Apr. 2, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 578]. Only the drivers moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and grants judgment independent of the motion to FedEx. Because the South Carolina claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered for FedEx in the South Carolina case. As noted, FedEx didn’t file a motion for summary judgment against the South Carolina class. In its supplemental brief, FedEx asks the court to enter
143

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 144 of 182
judgment sua sponte (now called judgment independent of the motion) in its favor. As set forth in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the court takes this request seriously because summary judgment is appropriate under South Carolina law, the drivers’ employment status can be examined today without prejudice to the plaintiffs, and answering now the question of the plaintiff drivers’ employment status under South Carolina will conserve judicial resources.
Citing Young v. Warr, 165 S.E.2d 797, 806 (S.C. 1969), FedEx argued in its summary judgment response that even where the evidence on employment status is undisputed, the issue must go to a jury unless only one inference is available from the undisputed evidence. Young didn’t hold that summary judgment on employment status is always inappropriate in South Carolina; the Young court declared independent contractor status in the very paragraph in which it stated the general jury trial rule. See id. Summary judgment is appropriate if the facts lend themselves to a single inference, as in most other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transp. Co., 676 S.E.2d 700 (S.C. 2009) (finding independent contractor status and reversing lower court’s finding of employee status).
The parties agree that the drivers’ claims are to be decided by South Carolina’s common law test for employee status. In South Carolina, analysis of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor focuses on whether the alleged employer had the right to control the worker in the performance of the work. Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transp. Co., 676 S.E.2d at 702 (citing South
144

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 145 of 182
Carolina Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Ray Covington Realtors, Inc., 459 S.E.2d 302, 303 (S.C. 1995)). South Carolina courts look to four factors to analyze the right to control: (1) direct evidence of the right or exercise of control; (2) furnishing of equipment; (3) method of payment; and (4) right to fire. Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transp. Co., 676 S.E.2d at 702 (citing South Carolina Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Ray Covington Realtors, Inc., 459 S.E.2d at 303). The right to control analysis is “a fact-specific determination reached by applying certain general principles.” South Carolina Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Ray Covington Realtors, Inc., 459 S.E.2d at 303 (citing Young v. Warr, 165 S.E.2d at 802). The South Carolina Supreme Court recently held that the four factors should be evaluated with equal force, overruling an earlier holding that an employer-employee relationship is indicated if any one factor weighed in favor of employee status. Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transp. Co., 676 S.E.2d at 702 (overruling single factor employment rule in Dawkins v. Jordan, 534 S.E.2d 700, 703 (S.C. 2000) (“For the most part, any single factor is not merely indicative of, but, in practice, virtually proof of, the employment relation.”)). The right to control, not the actual exercise of control, is determinative. Dawkins v. Jordan, 534 S.E.2d at 703, overruled on other grounds by Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transp. Co., 676 S.E.2d at 702; Young v. Warr, 165 S.E.2d at 802 (“The general test is that of control by the employer. It is not the actual control then exercised, but whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment.”).
145

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 146 of 182
The drivers argue that although this court held FedEx’s controls to be results-oriented in its Kansas Decision, South Carolina would find those controls to indicate employee status. They cite Crim v. Decorator’s Supply, 352 S.E.2d 520 (S.C. Ct. App. 1987) for the proposition that customer-requested results equate to FedEx’s control of the drivers’ methods and means of performance. The Crim court did note that Lexington Floor Covering gave clients’ addresses to the alleged independent contractor and “sent him to install whatever materials the client ordered.” Id. at 521. But that’s not why the Crim court declared employee status. Various controls were exercised over Crim, and Crim didn’t treat himself as an independent contractor; a key fact was that termination of Crim’s relationship with Lexington Floor Covering was solely within Lexington’s control. Id.; see also South Carolina Indus. Comm’n v. Progressive Life Ins. Co., 131 S.E.2d 694, 695 (S.C. 1963) (“The power to discharge or fire at will rested in the Company. The power to fire is the power to control. The absolute power to terminate the relationship without liability is not consistent with the concept of independent contract, . . .” (quotation omitted)). The Crim court held Crim was an employee under the totality of the circumstances and not merely because he had to fulfill customer expectations communicated through Lexington Floor Covering.
The drivers also rely on Smoky Mountain Secrets, Inc. v. South Carolina Emp’t Sec. Comm’n, 458 S.E.2d 429 (S.C. 1995), because it overturned an appellate court decision that declared independent contractor status. The Smoky Mountain Secrets decision is the very definition of summary: it provides no
146

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 147 of 182
reasoning and in three short paragraphs states that substantial evidence supported the Employment Security Commission’s findings. This court can’t accept the drivers’ implied, though bold, argument that summarily overturning a lower court’s decision indicates a rule that all the indications of independent contractor status found by the lower court actually indicated employee status, so this court should find these drivers to be employees because some of those facts overlap with the drivers’ facts. Without greater indication as to why the Smoky Mountain Secrets court ruled as it did, that case can stand for little more than the proposition that the South Carolina Supreme Court sometimes reverses a lower court.
“[T]he only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. The plaintiff drivers are ultimately responsible for obtaining their own equipment, such as trucks; the drivers are paid according to a complex formula that takes into account the number of packages delivered; and FedEx doesn’t have the right to terminate the plaintiff drivers at will. The court incorporates here the Kansas Decision and holds that the Cooke drivers are independent contractors under South Carolina common law.
V. Tennessee (3:05-cv-600, Smith) The Smith drivers allege violations of Tennessee’s Consumer Protection Act of 1977, TENN. CODE ANN. § 47-18-101 et seq., and fraud. They seek an
147

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 148 of 182
accounting, rescission, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Tennessee drivers didn’t move to certify the fraud claim, but they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under Tennessee law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (Tennessee), Apr. 23, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 599-2]. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the drivers’ summary judgment motion and grants FedEx’s motion for summary judgment. Because the Tennessee claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered in FedEx’s favor on all claims in the Smith case.
The Tennessee drivers rely heavily on worker’s compensation cases, which this court reviews with a wary eye because a statutory employee under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act is a broader concept than a common law employee. Tennessee courts give the Worker’s Compensation Act a liberal construction in favor of employee status, and this construction might have colored a particular court’s view of the facts before it in ways not applicable to today’s case. See Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tenn. 1991); Stratton v. United Inter-Mountain Tel. Co., 695 S.W.2d 947, 951-952 (Tenn. 1985); Wooten Transps., Inc. v. Hunter, 535 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Tenn. 1976).
Tennessee courts look to seven factors to resolve employment status: (1) the right to control the conduct of the work; (2) the right of termination; (3) the method of payment; (4) the freedom to select and hire helpers; (5) the furnishing
148

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 149 of 182
of tools and equipment; (6) self-scheduling of work hours; and (7) freedom to render services to other entities. E.g., Bargery v. Obion Gran Co., 785 S.W.2d 118, 119-120 (Tenn. 1990). The right to control is the most significant factor, with the relevant inquiry being whether the right exists, not whether it is exercised. Id. at 120; Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d at 586; Boruff v. CNA Ins. Co., 795 S.W.2d 125, 127 (Tenn. 1990); Stratton v. United Inter-Mountain Tel. Co., 695 S.W.2d at 950; Wooten Transps. v. Hunter, 535 S.W.2d at 860. The second most significant factor is the right to terminate. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d at 587; Boruff v. CNA Ins., 795 S.W.2d at 127; Wooten Transps. v. Hunter, 535 S.W.2d at 860.
The seven factors aren’t absolutes and don’t “preclude examination of each work relationship as a whole.” Jackson Sawmill, Inc. v. West, 619 S.W.2d 105, 107-108 (Tenn. 1981).
Utilization of these tests depends upon the salient facts of a particular relationship. No one test is infallible or entirely indicative of the legal characterization to be given to a particular relationship. The decisional value of any single test is commensurate with the degree of its applicability to the particular case. Id. at 107-108; see also Boruff v. CNA Ins. Co., 795 S.W.2d at 127. The drivers’ chief argument is that “Tennesse courts find any retained oversight and supervision incompatible with an independent contractor status.” The drivers essentially say any supervision is control indicating employee status,
149

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 150 of 182
but that isn’t the law in Tennessee.23 The Tennessee Supreme Court has repeated
the common refrain that “a party to a contract can exercise direction and control
over the results of the work without destroying the independence of the contract
or creating an employer-employee relationship.” Wright v. Knox Vinyl & Aluminum
Co., Inc., 779 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tenn. 1989) (quoting Masiers v. Arrow Transfer &
Storage Co., 639 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Tenn. 1982)).
The mere fact that the principal contractor reserves a right to supervise or inspect the work during its performance[] does not make the subcontractor an employee or mere servant, where there is no right of control of the method of performance, except to see that the end result conforms to the plans and specifications.
Jackson Sawmill, Inc. v. West, 619 S.W.2d at 108 (internal quotations and
citations omitted). The Jackson Sawmill court held that instructions about which
trees to cut and how long to cut each log were allowable supervision of contracted-
for results and not control of loggers’ means and methods of obtaining those
results. See id. at 109. In Knox Vinyl, the hiring party frequently checked on a
vinyl installer’s progress and suggested changes to conform with house plans, and
that court viewed such supervision as necessary to ensure the contracted-for end
result. Wright v. Knox Vinyl & Aluminum Co., Inc., 779 S.W.2d at 373-374.24 The
23 The plaintiffs rely, in part, on Blake v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. W2005-01545-WC-R3-CV, 2007 WL258314 (Tenn. Jan. 30, 2007). The Tennessee Supreme Court Rules indicate that unpublished cases carry no precedential value, except for certain circumstances not before this court. See Tenn. Supreme Court Rule 4. Even were the court to consider the case, it doesn’t support the plaintiffs’ argument and contains facts dissimilar from the plaintiffs’ case.
24 In cases where Tennessee courts viewed supervisory controls as constituting the right to control, a second key element— the right to terminate at will, which Tennessee courts view as strong evidence of a right to control—was also present. For example, in Stratton v. United InterMountain Telephone Co., 695 S.W.2d 947 (Tenn. 1985), the Telephone Company could request its
150

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 151 of 182
right to supervise contracted-for results is treated no differently in Tennessee than in Kansas and so doesn’t indicate employee status.
The drivers’ second chief argument is that the right to terminate in Tennessee is viewed differently than in Kansas insofar as Tennessee courts may inspect whether termination-limiting contract provisions are a mere smokescreen for termination at will. They analogize Boruff v. CNA Ins. Co., 795 S.W.2d 125 (Tenn. 1990), with their own case because in Boruff an injured truck driver signed a written contract that, on its face, stated he could only be terminated for cause.
See id. at 126. The analogy quickly breaks down because the driver in Boruff
didn’t own the truck he drove and the trucking company could take its truck from him without giving him another truck to drive. Effectively, the company could terminate the driver at will without any liability “merely by demanding the return of its tractor.” Id. Even though the FedEx Operating Agreement contains no similar method of termination, the drivers argue that a jury should evaluate the “practical effects” of the provisions in the Agreement placing limitations on contract terminations. The drivers essentially ask the court to consider extrinsic
contractor to fire anyone who, “in the sole opinion of the Telephone Company,” wasn’t doing a good enough job. Id. at 949 (emphasis added). No right to terminate at will existed in Jackson Sawmill. A right to terminate at will existed in other cases relied on by the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d at 587 (“Second, nothing in the record suggests Memphis Drum’s right to terminate Plaintiff at will was in any way restricted.”); Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Penney, No. E2009-01330-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 2432058, at *5 n.6 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 17, 2010) (slip copy); Blake v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. W2005-01545-WC-R3-CV, 2007 WL 258314, at *2-3 (Tenn. Jan. 30, 2007) (unpublished opinion); CNA v. King, No. M2004-02911-COAR3-CV, 2006 WL 2792159, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2006) (unpublished opinion). Also, these same cases involved worker’s compensation claims, and the court can’t be certain the cases would have come out similarly if the same working relationship was examined within a different context.
151

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 152 of 182
evidence of actual dealings between individual drivers and FedEx, particularly regarding the termination of drivers. But, as explained in today’s general introduction, the procedural posture of these MDL cases doesn’t allow for examination of extrinsic evidence. As explained in the Kansas Decision, FedEx has no right to terminate the plaintiff drivers at will without incurring liability. Kansas Decision, at 95-97. A right to terminate for breach of contract, such as unsatisfactory performance, isn’t a right to terminate at will, nor does it, by itself, indicate employee status. See Wright v. Knox Vinyl & Aluminum Co., 779 S.W.2d at 374 (finding that Knox Vinyl’s power to terminate Wright at any stage of his work because of unsatisfactory performance didn’t establish employer-employee relationship).
For purposes of the employment status question here at issue, Tennessee law isn’t materially different from Kansas law. The court addressed all the Tennessee factors in the Kansas Decision and incorporates that decision here. The Smith drivers are independent contractors under Tennessee law.
W. Texas (1) 3:05-cv-540, Humphreys The Humphreys drivers allege violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Act and fraud; they seek rescission and declaratory relief. Only the rescission and declaratory relief claims were class certified. The named Texas plaintiffs, not as a class but as individuals, also allege violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
152

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 153 of 182
Practices Act and promissory estoppel; they seek damages and punitive damages. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the question of the class’ employment status under Texas law. For the reasons stated below, the court grants FedEx’s summary judgment motion and denies the plaintiffs’ motion. The court’s finding that the Humphreys drivers are independent contractors disposes of their state law claims. The court will suggest remand of this case to the transferor court for disposition of the Federal Motor Carrier Act claims.
To decide whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, Texas courts ask “whether the employer has the right to control the progress, details, and methods of operations of the work. [An] employer controls not merely the end sought to be accomplished, but also the means and details of its accomplishment.” Limestone Prods. Distribution, Inc. v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex. 2002) (citations omitted). Texas courts “measure” the right to control by considering (1) the independent nature of the worker’s business; (2) the worker’s obligation to furnish necessary tools, supplies, and materials to perform the job; (3) the worker’s right to control the progress of the work, other than the final result; (4) the time for which the worker is employed; and (5) the method of payment, whether by unit of time or by the job. Id.; Durbin v. Culberson Cnty., 132 S.W.3d 650, 658-659 (Tex. App. 2004). The most important factor is the right of control. Durbin v. Culberson Cnty., 132 S.W.3d at 659; see also Weidner v. Sanchez, 14 S.W.3d 353, 373 (Tex. App. 2000) (“The right to control the details of
153

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 154 of 182
a person’s work determines whether an employment or independent contractor relationship exists.”).
A written contract “providing that a person shall be an independent contractor and providing for no right of control is controlling in determining the relationship between the parties.” Durbin v. Culberson Cnty., 132 S.W.3d at 659; Weidner v. Sanchez, 14 S.W.3d at 373. A key exception to the rule is “if the evidence shows that the contract is a mere sham, subterfuge, or cloak designed to conceal the parties’ true relationship.” Durbin v. Culberson Cnty., 132 S.W.3d at 659. Texas courts take the written contract rule seriously, holding such contracts dispositive in the absence of extrinsic evidence undermining the contract’s stated terms. See Durbin v. Culberson Cnty., 132 S.W.3d at 659 (finding decedent was independent contractor based on his written contract and the absence of extrinsic evidence showing the contract was a sham). “Otherwise, contract rights and relationships based thereon would be destroyed.” Weidner v. Sanchez, 14 S.W.3d at 374. Occasional assertions of control and sporadic action directing the details of work don’t destroy an independent contractor relationship upon which the parties agreed. Id. The assumption of the exercise of control must be persistent and the acquiescence pronounced to raise an inference that the parties impliedly agreed that the principal might have the right to control the details of the work. Id.
These Humphreys drivers freely signed onto a contractual relationship with FedEx; they agreed to be independent contractors and their contracts disclaim any
154

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 155 of 182
right to control by FedEx. See Kansas Decision, at 4-6. Due to the procedural posture of these MDL cases, the only evidence available to the court beyond the Operating Agreement is FedEx’s generally applicable Policies and Procedures . As the court discussed in the Kansas Decision, nothing in the Operating Agreement or Policies and Procedures evidences that the intent to create an independent contractor relationship here is a mere subterfuge.
The result wouldn’t change if the court were to look beyond the contract to the factors set forth under Texas law. The drivers rely on two cases to argue that Texas law would deem them employees. In Texas Emp’rs’ Ins. Ass’n v. Brown, 309 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. App. 1958), a milk truck driver slipped and fell on his truck, injuring himself. The appellate court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of employee status where the driver received training and literature from the company, the truck he drove bore the company’s name, the company supplied forms for the driver’s use, the driver was paid every two weeks, and the driver wore a company uniform. The Brown court didn’t indicate what facts it thought most compelling, but instead summarily affirmed the jury decision. See id. at 301-302. The Texas drivers, though, don’t discuss key facts in Brown that are dissimilar from the facts in their own case: the employer provided all trucks and supplies, the employer paid the driver’s Social Security and withholding taxes, and the driver had to follow the exact route dictated by the employer. See Texas Emp’rs’ Ins. Ass’n v. Brown, 309 S.W.2d at 298-300.
155

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 156 of 182
In Weidner v. Sanchez, 14 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. App. 2000), a cab driver was involved in an accident while driving a route for a county transportation authority. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of employee status when the authority told the driver who to pick up, where and when to pick up and drop off passengers, dictated the sequence of pickups, required the driver to complete routes within a certain time, required him to dress a certain way, and prohibited him from picking up any other fares while on his route. Id. at 374-375. The Weidner court’s analysis is more detailed than that in Brown but, again, additional key facts distinguish the Weidner case from this one: the cab in question and its radio were owned by Liberty Cab, not the driver, and the driver “was restricted from conducting any of his own business because his time was totally and completely monopolized and controlled by Liberty’s assigned tasks.” Weidner v. Sanchez, 14 S.W.3d at 375.
As the court has stated elsewhere in today’s decisions, forced case analogies are of limited assistance when the employment vs. independent contractor question is highly fact specific. Unlike the plaintiffs in Brown and Weidner, the FedEx drivers are responsible for obtaining their own equipment, are free to choose the specific route they take, can have complete freedom over their time to the extent they take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities, and are responsible for paying their own Social Security and other taxes.
Applying the Texas factors shows that: (1) to the extent FedEx drivers take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities, their businesses are distinct and
156

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 157 of 182
independent of FedEx, though this doesn’t hold for single work area drivers; (2) FedEx drivers ultimately are responsible for obtaining their own equipment, notwithstanding FedEx’s efforts to help drivers meet their obligation to do this; (3) FedEx’s controls are results-oriented and FedEx doesn’t have the right to control the methods and means or “progress” of the drivers’ work; (4) drivers are employed for limited periods of time, though their contracts can be renewed an unlimited number of times; (5) drivers aren’t paid by the hour or by the job, but rather by a complex formula taking into account the amount of work they perform, and drivers are issued 1099s and are responsible for paying their own taxes. These factors, with right to control being most important, weigh decisively in favor of a holding that the drivers are independent contractors. The court incorporates here the Kansas Decision and concludes that the Humphreys drivers are independent contractors under Texas law.
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within thirty-five days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the Federal Motor Carrier Act-related claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
157

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 158 of 182
(2) 3:06-cv-802, Price James Larry Price is a member of the Humphreys class who separately claims breach of contract and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Neither party has moved for summary judgment. Today’s Humphreys decision holds that Mr. Price, as a member of the Texas class, is an independent contractor under Texas law. That decision doesn’t dispose of Mr. Price’s breach of contract claim or his FLSA claim. The court will suggest remand of Mr. Price’s case to the transferor court. The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within thirty-five days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
X. Utah (3:08-cv-53, Fishler) The Fishler drivers allege illegal deductions under Utah’s wage payment statute and related regulations, UTAH CODE ANN. § 34-28-3; UTAH ADMIN. CODE r. 601-3-18(D), 3-18(G), and 3-21. They seek rescission and declaratory and injunctive relief. All claims are class certified, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the court grants FedEx’s
158

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 159 of 182
summary judgment motion and denies the drivers’ motion. Because the Utah claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered for FedEx on all claims in Fishler.
Summary judgment on the issue of employment status is appropriate in Utah when there aren’t any disputed material facts. See e.g., Glover v. Boy Scouts of Am., 923 P.2d 1383 (Utah 1996) (affirming grant of summary judgment finding no employer-employee relationship); Foster v. Steed, 432 P.2d 60 (Utah 1967) (reversing denial of summary judgment and finding no employer-employee relationship).
The parties agree that Utah’s common law test for employment status defines who is an “employee” for purposes of Utah’s wage payment statute. Utah courts examine whether the alleged employer had the right to control the methods and means of the alleged employee’s work. Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning, 985 P.2d 243, 246 (Utah 1999); Glover v. Boy Scouts of Am., 923 P.2d at 1385; Foster v. Steed, 432 P.2d at 62. Four factors help determine whether a right to control exists: (1) whatever covenants or agreements exist concerning the right of direction and control over the employee, whether express or implied; (2) the right to hire and fire; (3) the method of payment; and (4) the furnishing of equipment. Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning, 985 P.2d at 247; Glover v. Boy Scouts of Am., 923 P.2d at 1385-1386. The parties’ intent and the employer’s business sometimes are considered as well. Glover v. Boy Scouts of Am., 923 P.2d at 1386.
159

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 160 of 182
No single factor is dispositive. The right to control, not actual control, is determinative. Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning, 985 P.2d at 246; Glover v. Boy Scouts of Am., 923 P.2d at 1386, 1388.
Utah applies the same four factor test to respondeat superior and worker’s compensation cases, but has a “long-standing policy that the Workers’ Compensation Act should be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.” Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning, 985 P.2d at 249; see also Smith v. Alfred Brown Co., 493 P.2d 994, 995 (Utah 1972) (“The general rule, which has been approved by this court a number of times is that the [Workers’ Compensation Act] should be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose of providing protection to employees.”). The court has considered the worker’s compensation cases cited by the drivers with the caution that those cases’ liberal construction might have resulted in finding employee status when the common law otherwise would find independent contractor status, even though the same four factor test is used. See Pinter Constr. Co. v. Frisby, 678 P.2d 305, 308 (Utah 1984) (discussing with approval the law in various jurisdictions allowing for the same person to be a “statutory” employee for worker’s compensation purposes but an independent contractor under the common law).
The drivers argue that FedEx’s “every package, every day” rule is treated as control of means and methods under Utah law, even though this “control” is a contracted-for result under Kansas law. The drivers cite Harry L. Young & Sons, Inc. v. Ashton, 538 P.2d 316 (Utah 1975), for the proposition that because the
160

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 161 of 182
right to control can be express or implied, the use of disciplinary-like procedures to correct and censure the plaintiff drivers implies a right to control and indicates employee status. In Harry L. Young & Sons v, Ashton, a truck driver was subject to penalties for violating his company’s requirement that drivers drive five miles per hour below the lawful posted speed limit. See id. at 318-319. The drivers leap from this specific and detailed control of a driver’s manner of driving to argue that FedEx’s “every package, every day” rule implies a right to control because the drivers can be terminated if they miss three pickups in a year.
Utah, like many other jurisdictions, maintains the distinction between means and results. For example, the Harry L. Young & Sons court quoted Utah’s Workers’ Compensation Act, which defines the distinction as controlling means and results versus controlling only results. See Harry L. Young & Sons v. Ashton, 538 P.2d at 318; see also Foster v. Steed, 432 P.2d 60, 62 (Utah 1976) (“[I]f the control extends only to the result to be achieved, the actor is regarded as an independent contractor, and the defendant is liable under neither respondeat superior nor the workmen’s compensation statutes.”). The “every package every day” rule is a contracted-for result, not control of means and methods.
Similarly, the drivers argue that dictating “when, where, and how” the drivers do their work suggests that determination of the “when”—i.e., the timeframe in which packages must be delivered—should indicate employee status. See Averett v. Grange, 909 P.2d 246, 250 (Utah 1995) (“[B]oth Grange and his truck were subject to the direction of Geneva Rock as to what, when, how, and
161

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 162 of 182
where the work was to be performed.”). The court doesn’t read the Averett court’s use of the word “when” to mean that any direction at all as to when results are to be achieved turns a contracted-for result into control of the means and methods of a contractor’s work. The Averett court didn’t rely on the use of the word “when,” but rather applied Utah’s four factor test to find that Geneva Rock had, by express contractual provision, the “sole exclusive right to supervise and direct the drivers or operators” of equipment. Id. at 250 (quoting the Grange truck lease). Further, the drivers in Averett were controlled in exactly the same way as similarly situated employee drivers, including being paid every two weeks by the hour and not by the job. See id. Finally, the Averett court gave liberal construction to the facts because it was a worker’s compensation case. See id. at 250-251. The use of “when” in Averett was factually illustrative, not a rule of law, and didn’t eliminate the distinction between results and means.
Finally, the drivers argue that their right to hire assistants doesn’t matter because, they say, Utah law holds that employee status is indicated unless the right to hire assistants is completely unfettered. The drivers rely on Rustler Lodge v. Industrial Commission, 562 P.2d 227 (Utah 1977), which states that “[a]n independent contractor can employ others to do the work and accomplish the contemplated result without the consent of the contractee, while an employee cannot substitute another in his place without the consent of the employer.” Id. at 228 (quoting Ludlow v. Industrial Comm’n, 235 P. 884, 888 (Utah 1925)). In affirming a finding of employment status, the Rustler Lodge court pointed out that
162

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 163 of 182
no facts supported the idea that the injured claimant had any right to hire assistants. Id. at 229.The Rustler Lodge court didn’t examine what “consent” meant because the right to hire assistants wasn’t a key issue there. In affirming a finding of independent contractor status, the Ludlow court examined the right to hire assistants because that right went to the very “crux” of the case. Ludlow v. Indus. Comm’n, 235 P. at 888. The key fact before the Ludlow court was that if drivers hired by the contractor were incompetent or didn’t do their work satisfactorily, the school board or superintendent could only complain to the contractor, but the contractor alone had the right to terminate drivers he hired. See id. at 886. Finally, the Manning court, in affirming a finding of employee status for a subcontractor, addressed the “consent” language in a situation where a general contractor controlled which workmen its subcontractor employed by retaining the right to fire any of its subcontractor’s employees for any reason. See Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning, 985 P.2d at 247.
The court can’t agree that the word “consent” is synonymous with “minimum requirements” such that FedEx’s minimum requirements for drivers’ hired assistants and employees are equivalent to the drivers having to get FedEx’s “consent” to hire assistants. There is a distinction between the type of “consent” exercised in Manning (contractee could fire contractor’s employees) and the type exercised in Ludlow (contractee could complain to contractor). The evidence before the court doesn’t indicate that FedEx takes away the drivers’ ability to choose and hire qualified assistants or that FedEx can fire these assistants.
163

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 164 of 182
Applying the four Utah factors, as in the Kansas Decision, the agreement between FedEx and the drivers is full of express understandings that FedEx can’t control the drivers’ means and methods of achieving their contracted-for results, the drivers aren’t terminable at will, the drivers are paid according to a complex formula that involves the number of packages they deliver, and the drivers ultimately are responsible for obtaining their own equipment. Most importantly, no reasonable inference is available that FedEx has retained the right to control the plaintiff drivers’ means and methods of work on a class-wide basis. See Kansas Decision, at 73. The court incorporates here the Kansas Decision and concludes that the Fishler drivers are independent contractors under Utah law.
Y. Vargas (3:07-cv-325) Genaro Vargas and his co-plaintiffs allege violations of the federal Motor Carrier Act Exemption for failure to pay overtime, and violations of states’ overtime laws for drivers of trucks weighing less than 10,001 pounds. Mr. Vargas’s complaint was a class action complaint, but the court denied his motion for class certification because his proposed class included people from many different states (including states for which this court denied class certification in related MDL cases), whose laws on employment status were sufficiently different to make class certification inappropriate. FedEx moved for summary judgment against Mr. Vargas’s Wisconsin co-plaintiff, Tim Ketterhagen. The parties recently stipulated to Mr. Ketterhagen’s dismissal from the Vargas case, see Ord., Nov. 2, 2010 [Doc.
164

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 165 of 182
No. 2227], so FedEx’s summary judgment motion is denied as moot. Because Mr. Vargas now presents an individual claim unlike any others in this docket, no reason of efficiency or economy warrants its retention in a centralized docket, and the court will suggest remand of Mr. Vargas’s case to the transferor court.
The court instructs the parties to file a joint proposed pretrial order with this court within thirty-five days of entry of this order. In addition to summarizing the history of this case, including significant orders and their docket numbers (including, but not limited to, evidentiary, class certification, and dispositive orders), the parties should provide a detailed description of the claims that remain outstanding, without arguing the merits of those claims, and should outline for the court and the transferor court how they anticipate resolving those claims.
Z. West Virginia (3:06-cv-337, Ashbury) The Ashbury drivers allege violations of West Virginia’s Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. VA. CODE § 46A-6-101 et seq., illegal deductions from wages in violation of West Virginia Code § 21-5-1 et seq., fraud, and unjust enrichment. They seek an accounting, rescission, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Though the West Virginia drivers didn’t move to certify the fraud claim, they don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under West Virginia common law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify Class (West Virginia), Apr. 23, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 595]. Only the drivers filed a summary judgment motion. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the
165

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 166 of 182
plaintiffs’ motion and grants judgment independent of the motion to FedEx. Because the West Virginia claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, the court will enter judgment for FedEx on all claims in the West Virginia case.
As noted, FedEx didn’t file a motion for summary judgment against the West Virginia class. In its supplemental brief, FedEx asks the court to enter judgment sua sponte (now called judgment independent of the motion) in its favor. As set forth in the general introduction to today’s decisions, the court takes this request seriously because summary judgment is appropriate under West Virginia law, the drivers’ employment status can be examined today without prejudice to the plaintiffs, and answering now the question of the plaintiff drivers’ employment status under West Virginia law will conserve judicial resources.
FedEx originally argued that summary judgment on the issue of employment status is inappropriate in West Virginia, even when the facts are undisputed, unless the facts justify only one reasonable inference. Although this standard is no different from other states, FedEx argued that West Virginia absolutely would require a jury trial on the employment status question. The drivers countered that West Virginia law is not “somehow uniquely hostile to summary adjudication of employment status.” Unsurprisingly, after the Kansas Decision the parties’ tunes have changed in their supplemental briefs. Summary judgment is appropriate in West Virginia (as in other states) when the undisputed facts lend themselves to one reasonable inference. See, e.g., Burless v. West
166

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 167 of 182
Virginia Univ. Hosps., 601 S.E.2d 85 (W. Va. 2004) (affirming finding of no actual agency relationship); Robertson v. Morris, 546 S.E.2d 770 (W. Va. 2001) (affirming finding of independent contractor status); Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., 524 S.E.2d 688 (W. Va. 1999) (affirming finding of independent contractor status).
The parties agree that employment status in West Virginia is decided by the right to control, which is evaluated using four factors: (1) selection and engagement of the servant; (2) payment of compensation; (3) power of dismissal; and (4) power of control. The first three factors aren’t essential; the fourth, power of control, is determinative. Each case must be resolved on its own facts, and ordinarily no one feature of the relationship is controlling. To say that the power of control is determinative is to say that it is the “major” factor. The determining factor is the right to control, not the actual exercise of control. Burless v. West Virginia Univ. Hosps., 601 S.E.2d at 91; Mountain Lodge Ass’n v. Crum & Forster Indem. Co., 558 S.E.2d 336, 342 (W. Va. 2001); Robertson v. Morris, 546 S.E.2d at 773; Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., 524 S.E.2d at 695; Sipple v. Starr, 520 S.E.2d 884, 888, 890 (W. Va. 1999) (finding issue of material fact because contractee retained significant control beyond express terms of agreement, as shown by ordering store employee fired because she had bad teeth).
FedEx relied on worker’s compensation cases in its opposition to class certification. Now, at the summary judgment stage, the drivers rely on these same cases. West Virginia courts construe the law liberally in worker’s compensation cases, favoring the finding of employee status. C&H Taxi Co. v. Richardson, 461
167

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 168 of 182
S.E.2d 442, 448 (W. Va. 1995); Myers v. Workmen’s Comp. Comm’n, 148 S.E.2d 664, 668 (W. Va. 1966). “It is ordinarily considered when one person is retained to render a service for another that the relationship of employer and employee exists. To overcome this presumption it is incumbent upon the one who hired the workman to show that the latter is an independent contractor.” Myers v. Workmen’s Comp. Comm’n, 148 S.E.2d at 666. The right to supervise indicates employee status in the worker’s compensation context. Id. at 667.
The liberal construction of worker’s compensation cases doesn’t apply to the case to be decided today. West Virginia courts often cite the Myers case for the four factor right to control test already discussed, but West Virginia courts don’t apply the worker’s compensation interpretive gloss when using that test in the respondeat superior context. This court has reviewed the worker’s compensation cases cited by the drivers with the caution that the cases might have been decided differently in a different context. A general right to supervise the results of contracted-for work doesn’t indicate employee status in the respondeat superior context or in the situation of this case, where the drivers generally seek to be reclassified as employees.
West Virginia courts have, in the past, used the following formulation: “If the right to control or supervise the work in question is retained by the person for whom the work is being done, the person doing the work is an employee and not an independent contractor.” Spencer v. Travelers Ins. Co., 133 S.E.2d 735, 739 (W. Va. 1963). The drivers rely on this formulation to argue that the use of the
168

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 169 of 182
disjunctive “or” means that supervision indicates employee status in West
Virginia. The court can’t agree.
West Virginia courts have used their four factor test for decades. See, e.g.,
Myers v. Workmen’s Comp. Comm’n, 148 S.E.2d 664 (W. Va. 1966). But West
Virginia courts don’t use or rely on the disjunctive “or” language today. For
example, the contemporary West Virginia Supreme Court has referred to the case
of Paxton v. Crabtree, 400 S.E.2d 245 (W. Va. 1990), as the “seminal” case on the
issue of employment status. Shaffer v. Acme Limestone Co., Inc., 524 S.E.2d at
695. Paxton didn’t use the disjunctive “or,” and Shaffer found Paxton “seminal”
even though the independent contractor issue was hardly central to the Paxton
case.
The Shaffer court put the nail in the coffin of any argument that Spencer’s
use of “or” broadened the scope of who is an employee under West Virginia’s
common law test. The Shaffer court held that Spade Trucking was an independent
contractor of Acme Limestone even though, according to the plaintiff:
(1) Spade Trucking employees arrived routinely at 7:00 in the morning at Acme’s facility; (2) Acme directed Spade Trucking employees as to which products to pick-up and deliver; (3) Acme advised Spade Trucking employees when they should load their trucks at the legal weight limit; (4) Acme provided Spade Trucking employees with safety information; (5) Acme required spade Trucking drivers, when first hired, to undergo safety hazard training; (6) trucks owned by Spade Trucking were loaded by Acme employees; (7) compensation levels for work by Spade Trucking [were] established by Acme; (8) Spade Trucking employees were required to provide Acme customers with a copy of invoices and to return invoice copies to Acme; (9) Acme suggested the routes Spade Trucking employees
169

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 170 of 182
should take; and (10) when Acme closed its facility each day, the Spade Trucking employees went home. Shaffer v. Acme Limsetone Co., Inc., 524 S.E.2d at 696. Addressing the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning supervision, the Shaffer court clarified, “The power of control factor refers to control over the means and method of performing the work.” Id. (citation omitted). As the Shaffer court stated, while citing cases from numerous jurisdictions far and wide: [W]e follow the lead of numerous other courts in holding that an owner who engages an independent contractor to perform a job for him or her may retain broad general power of supervision and control as to the results of the work so as to insure satisfactory performance of the contract—including the right to inspect, to stop the work, to make suggestions or recommendations as to the details of the work, or to prescribe alterations or deviations in the work—without changing the relationship from that of owner and independent contractor or changing the duties arising from that relationship. Shaffer v. Acme Limsetone Co., Inc., 524 S.E.2d at 696-697 (quotations and
citations omitted); see also Mountain Lodge Ass’n v. Crum & Forster Indem. Co.,
558 S.E.2d at 342 (same); Robertson v. Morris, 546 S.E.2d at 773 (W. Va. 1999) (same). The drivers’ argument on the use of the disjunctive “or” has no merit.
The West Virginia drivers argue that FedEx can fire them by not renewing their contracts or by terminating their contracts for cause, which, they say, is enough under West Virginia law to constitute a power to fire. The court doesn’t read the cases the same way. Further, the drivers’ reliance on Huntington Publ’g Co. v. Caryl, 377 S.E.2d 479 (W. Va. 1988), is misplaced because that case involved a tax question and that court expressly stated that whether the carriers
170

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 171 of 182
in that case were independent contractors was beside the point. See id. at 490 (“The real issue in this case . . . is whether the appellee is making a retail sale to home delivery subscribers.”). In a more applicable respondeat superior context, the West Virginia Supreme Court qualified Huntington Publishing’s language to say that the “ability to release a carrier [without a stated reason] effectively controls the carrier’s method of operation.” Zirkle v. Winkler, 585 S.E.2d 19, 25 (W. Va. 2003) (alteration in the original). FedEx doesn’t retain the power to fire the drivers at will: FedEx can’t release drivers without notice nor can they release drivers without cause.
Finally, and most importantly, “the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. The court incorporates here the Kansas Decision and concludes that the Ashbury drivers are independent contractors under West Virginia law.
AA. Wisconsin (3:05-cv-601, Larson) The Larson drivers allege illegal wage deductions, WIS. STAT. § 103.455, and fraud; they seek rescission and declaratory relief. Though they didn’t move to certify the fraud claim, the Wisconsin drivers don’t indicate that their claims turn on anything other than a determination of their employment status under Wisconsin law. See Memo. in Support of Mot. to Certify (Wisconsin), Apr. 2, 2007, at 1 [Doc. No. 582]. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the
171

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 172 of 182
reasons stated below, the court grants summary judgment to FedEx and denies the drivers’ motion for summary judgment. Because the Wisconsin claims stand or fall on the common question of whether FedEx Ground misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, judgment will be entered for FedEx on all claims in the Wisconsin case.
Though Wisconsin courts haven’t specifically addressed how to resolve employee status for purposes of Wisconsin Statutes § 103.455, Wisconsin has long used the common law right to control test in all other relevant contexts. The parties agree the right to control test applies in this case, and nothing before the court indicates that Wisconsin courts would use any other test under this statute. See Pamperin v. Trinity Mem’l Hosp., 423 N.W.2d 848, 852 (Wis. 1988) (respondeat superior: “The right to control is the dominant test in determining whether an individual is a servant.”); Snider v. Northern States Power Co., 260 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Wis. 1977) (respondeat superior: “The most important single criterion in determining whether a person is an independent contractor is the degree to which the owner, rather than the independent contractor, retains the right to control the details of the work.”); Scholz v. Industrial Comm’n, 64 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Wis. 1954) (worker’s compensation: “[T]he principal test for determining if a relationship of employer-employee exists is whether the alleged employer has the right to control the details of the work.”); Reuter v. Murphy, 622 N.W.2d 464, 469 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) (respondeat superior: “The dominant factor in determining whether an individual is a servant or an independent contractor is
172

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 173 of 182
whether the alleged master has the ‘right to control the details of the servant’s work.”); Madison Newspapers, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue, 599 N.W.2d 51, 60 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) (tax exemption statute: “The dominant test in determining whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee is who has the right to control the details of the work.”); Goldberg v. Department of Indus., Labor and Human Relations, 484 N.W.2d 568, 570 (Wis. Ct. App.1992) (unemployment compensation). Wisconsin courts also cite other factors, such as the right to terminate without liability and the method of payment, and at least one case has referenced the ten factors listed in Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220. See Pamperin v. Trinity Mem’l Hosp., 423 N.W.2d at 852 & n.4.
The drivers’ chief argument is that the distinction between control of means and control of results—recognized by other states—doesn’t exist in Wisconsin. See Pltfs’ Supp., Sept. 24, 2010, at 4 [Doc. No. 2199] (“Unlike Kansas, there is no distinction drawn under Wisconsin law whether the right to control details of the work is part of the manner, method and means of the work or the result of the work.”). The drivers rely heavily on an unpublished case, Hernandez v. Romero, No. 2006AP2783, 2007 WL 2593558 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2007), in which the appellate court reversed a grant of summary judgment because it found that a material issue of fact existed as to whether the alleged employer had the right to control a worker’s means and methods of work. Certain facts in Hernandez, such as the alleged employer’s control of Satellite TV workers’ work orders and time windows, overlap with this MDL case, but Hernandez is an unpublished opinion
173

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 174 of 182
without precedential value for purposes of today’s decision. See Wisconsin Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 809.23(3). Even if Hernandez were a citable case, it carries little persuasive value for two reasons. First, employment status most often is determined under the common law on the facts and circumstances of individual cases, not on bright-line rules by which a given fact will be dispositive in every circumstance. Second, the Hernandez court offered no explanation as to why it found a disputed issue of material fact, see id. at *4, which might be why the appellate court declined to publish the opinion.
FedEx relies on Carothers v. Bauer, 126 N.W.2d 758 (Wis. 1964), to argue that summary judgment is required in its favor. Carothers cuts against Hernandez because it comes from a higher court, some facts are similar, Carothers explains its reasoning, and Hernandez carries no precedential value. In Carothers, a contracting milk hauler owned a tractor trailer. The defendant dairy company provided the driver with a milk tank, kept all records, required the tank and truck to be used exclusively to haul for the dairy, required pickup and delivery to places listed by the dairy, and required satisfactory and prompt delivery at all times to prevent spoliation of the milk. The dairy’s tank carried the dairy’s trade name and legend, and the dairy had an employee ride with the trucker at least once a month to inspect the equipment and generally observe how the driver discharged his responsibilities. Farmers relied on the dairy—not the trucker—to be responsible for the safe hauling of their milk and the control of the drivers. See Carothers v.
174

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 175 of 182
Bauer, 126 N.W.2d 760-762. The Carothers court held the trucker to be an independent contractor as a matter of law.
As with the drivers’ case citations in these MDL cases, the court doesn’t point to the facts in Carothers and simply call it a day in favor of FedEx. Rather, Carothers is important for the key principle that in Wisconsin—and contrary to the drivers’ argument—there exists the traditional common law distinction between control of results and control of means. The dairy in Carothers controlled contracted-for results by requiring prompt and satisfactory delivery of milk, by having the right to terminate the trucker on thirty days’ notice, and by inspecting his work. But as the Carothers court explained, none of those things controlled how the trucker actually operated the truck on his route: he could hire help as he saw fit, could follow his own route of travel, and was responsible for the maintenance and expenses of his truck. The dairy controlled contracted-for results, and the trucker controlled the means and methods by which he obtained those results. See also Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, Inc., 682 N.W.2d 328, 338 (Wis. 2004) (distinguishing numerous controls exercised by franchisors as going to quality and operational requirements necessary for the benefit of both franchisee and franchisor, from routine, daily supervision, management, and control of a franchisee’s business); Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Brower, 272 N.W. 359, 361 (Wis. 1937) (“[T]he mere procuring or controlling of the end result of work, by one for whom it is performed, without directing the means or details in which it is performed, does not necessarily constitute the person who performs the work
175

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 176 of 182
an employee. As we [have] said, ‘Any employer of an independent contractor has that right.’” (quoting York v. Industrial Comm’n, 269 N.W. 726, 732 (Wis. 1936))).
This court has held that “the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that FedEx hasn’t retained the right to control the details of the contractors’ work methods on a class-wide basis.” Kansas Decision, at 73. The court also addressed all factors relevant in Wisconsin in the Kansas Decision, which the court incorporates here. The Larson drivers are independent contractors under Wisconsin law.
CONCLUSION The only remaining outstanding matter appears to be FedEx’s motion for trial by jury, which the court DENIES as moot [Doc. Nos. 1962, 1987]. Final Suggestions of Remand will be issued after the court reviews the parties’ joint proposed pretrial orders requested in today’s decisions. The court INSTRUCTS the parties to file a joint status report with the court within fourteen days of entry of this order if they are aware of any further matters the court may have overlooked today and that require disposition. The court has staggered the due dates of the joint pretrial orders for the convenience of counsel and so as to stagger the remand orders by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. For ease of reference, the court summarizes today’s rulings in the attached appendix. SO ORDERED.
176

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 177 of 182 ENTERED: December 13, 2010 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court
cc: Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein JPMDL
177

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 178 of 182

APPENDIX Summary of Dispositions

MDL Member Cause No. 3:06-cv-428

State
Alabama (Floyd)

3:07-cv-191 Alabama (Gentle)
3:07-cv-272 Arizona (Gibson)

3:06-cv-209 Arkansas (Harris)

3:05-cv-528 California (Alexander)
3:06-cv-429 California (Pedrazzi)
3:08-cv-52 California (Huerta)

Summary
Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1155]; judgment independent of the motion GRANTED to FedEx. Judgment to be entered in favor of FedEx on all claims. Remand of case to be suggested for resolution of all claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 21 days. Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1792]; judgment independent of the motion GRANTED to FedEx. Judgment to be entered in favor of FedEx on all claims. Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1157]; judgment independent of the motion granted to FedEx on state law claims only. Remand of case to be suggested for resolution of FLSA-related claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 21 days. Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1153]; FedEx’s motion for summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No. 1225]. Remand of case to be suggested for resolution of FMLA-related claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 21 days. FedEx’s motion for summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No. 1356]. Remand of case to be suggested for resolution of Mr. Pedrazzi's state law discrimination-related claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 21 days. FedEx’s motion for summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No. 1658]. Remand of case to be suggested for resolution of claims premised on Mr. Huerta's status as independent contractor. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 21 days.

178

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 179 of 182

3:05-cv-664 3:09-cv-356 3:05-cv-411 3:05-cv-390 3:05-cv-599
3:08-cv-193 3:06-cv-485 3:07-cv-189 3:05-cv-533

Florida

Drivers' motion for summary judgment

(Carlson)

DENIED [Doc. No. 1159]; FedEx’s motion for

summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No.

1235]. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

Florida (Ward) Remand of case to be suggested for resolution

of all claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due

in 21 days.

Georgia (White) Drivers' motion for summary judgment

DENIED [Doc. No. 1794]; FedEx’s motion for

summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No.

1818]. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

Indiana (Riewe) Drivers' motion for summary judgment

DENIED [Doc. No. 1161]; FedEx’s motion for

summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No.

1229]. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

Kentucky

Drivers' motion for summary judgment

(Coleman)

GRANTED IN PART [Doc. No. 1165]; FedEx’s

motion for summary judgment GRANTED IN

PART [Doc. No. 1231]. Remand of case to be

suggested for resolution of claims related to

Kentucky's Wage Payment statute. Joint

proposed pretrial order due in 21 days.

Louisiana

Drivers’ motion for summary judgment

(Boudreaux) DENIED [Doc. No. 1796]; FedEx’s motion for

summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No.

1820]. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

Maryland

Drivers' motion for summary judgment

(Westcott)

DENIED [Doc. No. 1167]; FedEx’s motion for

summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No.

1213]. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

Maryland

FedEx’s motion for summary judgment

(Jones)

GRANTED [Doc. No. 1354]. Judgment to be

entered in favor of FedEx on all claims.

Minnesota

Drivers' motion for summary judgment

(Lee)

DENIED [Doc. No. 1169]; FedEx’s motion for

summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No.

1211]. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

179

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 180 of 182

3:07-cv-120 Nevada (DeCesare)
3:08-cv-234 Nevada (Campbell)
3:05-cv-601 New Hampshire (Gennell)

3:05-cv-595 New Jersey (Tofaute – Class)
3:05-cv-535 New Jersey (Capers)

3:07-cv-327 New Jersey (Farrell)

3:09-cv-2 3:05-cv-538

New Jersey (Tofaute Individual) New York (Louzau)

3:05-cv-537 New York (Johnson)

Drivers' motion for summary judgment GRANTED IN PART [Doc. No. 1800]. Remand to be suggested for further disposition and resolution of all claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 21 days. Remand to be suggested for resolution of all claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 21 days. Drivers' motion for summary judgment GRANTED IN PART [Doc. No. 1171]; judgment independent of the motion GRANTED IN PART, to FedEx. Remand to be suggested for resolution of claims tied to New Hampshire statutes. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 21 days. Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1173]; FedEx’s motion for summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No. 1227]. Judgment to be entered in favor of FedEx on all claims. FedEx’s motion for summary judgment GRANTED IN PART [Doc. No. 1352]. Remand to be suggested for resolution of claims not resolved by Tofaute finding of independent contractor status. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 28 days. Remand to be suggested for resolution of federal law and contractual claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 28 days. Remand to be suggested for resolution of claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 28 days. Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1175]; FedEx’s motion for summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No. 1219]. Judgment to be entered in favor of FedEx on all claims. FedEx’s motion for partial summary judgment DENIED as premature [Doc. No. 1347]. Remand to be suggested for resolution of all claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 28 days.

180

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 181 of 182

3:07-cv-326
3:08-cv-336
3:06-cv-801 3:05-cv-596
3:07-cv-328
3:05-cv-597 3:05-cv-598 3:09-cv-3 3:05-cv-599

North Carolina (Whiteside)
Ohio (Kelly)
Ohio (Wallace) Oregon (Slayman)
Oregon (Leighter)
Pennsylvania (Willis)
Pennsylvania (Hart) Pennsylvania (Mitchell) Rhode Island (Tierney)

Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1798] (ERISA claim is DENIED without prejudice); judgment independent of the motion GRANTED to FedEx. Judgment to be entered in favor of FedEx on all claims. Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1802]; judgment independent of the motion GRANTED to FedEx on all state law claims. Remand to be suggested for resolution of FMLA-related claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 28 days. Remand to be suggested for resolution of claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 28 days. Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1177]; judgment independent of the motion GRANTED to FedEx. Remand to be suggested for resolution of outstanding rescission claim. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 28 days. Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1804]; judgment independent of the motion GRANTED to FedEx. Remand to be suggested for resolution of outstanding rescission claim. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 28 days. Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1179]; judgment independent of the motion GRANTED to FedEx. Judgment to be entered in favor of FedEx on all claims. Judgment independent of the motion GRANTED to FedEx. Judgment to be entered in favor of FedEx on all claims. Remand to be suggested for resolution of claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 28 days. Drivers' motion for summary judgment DENIED [Doc. No. 1181]; FedEx’s motion for summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No. 1233]. Judgment to be entered in favor of FedEx on all claims.
181

case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2239 filed 12/13/10 page 182 of 182

3:05-cv-668 South Carolina Drivers' motion for summary judgment

(Cooke)

DENIED [Doc. No. 1183]; judgment

independent of the motion GRANTED to

FedEx. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

3:05-cv-600 Tennessee

Drivers' motion for summary judgment

(Smith)

DENIED [Doc. No. 1185]; FedEx’s motion for

summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No.

1217]. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

3:05-cv-540 Texas

Drivers' motion for summary judgment

(Humphreys) DENIED [Doc. No. 1187]; FedEx’s motion for

summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No.

1223]. Remand to be suggested for federal

claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 35

days.

3:06-cv-802 Texas (Price) Remand to be suggested for resolution of

claims. Joint proposed pretrial order due in 35

days.

3:08-cv-53 Utah (Fishler) Drivers' motion for summary judgment

DENIED [Doc. No. 1806]; FedEx’s motion for

summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No.

1822]. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

3:07-cv-325 Vargas (MA) FedEx’s motion for summary judgment

DENIED as moot [Doc. No. 1870]. Remand to

be suggested for resolution of all claims. Joint

proposed pretrial order due in 35 days.

3:06-cv-337 West Virginia Drivers' motion for summary judgment

(Ashbury)

DENIED [Doc. No. 1189]; judgment

independent of the motion GRANTED to

FedEx. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

3:05-cv-601 Wisconsin

Drivers' motion for summary judgment

(Larson)

DENIED [Doc. No. 1191]; FedEx’s motion for

summary judgment GRANTED [Doc. No.

1221]. Judgment to be entered in favor of

FedEx on all claims.

FedEx's motions for trial by jury DENIED as moot [Doc. Nos. 1962, 1987].

182

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2480 filed 02/04/11 page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

) CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

3:08-CV-336 (Kelly - Ohio)

)

3:05-CV-540 (Humphreys - Texas

)

_____________________________________ )

ORDER

The parties in the two captioned cases have filed jointly signed stipulations

of dismissal without prejudice, FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), as follows:

•

3:08-CV-336 (Kelly - Ohio): stipulated dismissal of Family and

Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claim without prejudice (which claim is not

class certified) (Count 3, Class Action Complaint) [3:05-md-527, Doc.

no. 2462];

•

3:05-CV-540 (Humphreys - Texas): stipulated dismissal of Federal

Motor Carrier Act (FMCA) claim without prejudice (which claim is not

class certified) (Count 1, Fourth Amended Complaint) [3:05-md-527,

Doc. No. 2464].

Though no court order is required, the court issues this order to clarify that

the court held the class plaintiffs in these cases to be independent contractors

under the relevant state’s laws and these stipulations dispose of the outstanding

federal claims in these cases . See Opinion and Order, Dec. 13, 2010, at 123-127

& 152-157 [Doc. No. 2239]. Accordingly, the court will not suggest remand of

these cases and instead DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment in favor of FedEx

on all claims not dismissed in these two cases.

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2480 filed 02/04/11 page 2 of 2 SO ORDERED. ENTERED: February 4, 2011 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court
2

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2501 filed 02/11/11 page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

) CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

3:06-CV-209 (Harris - Arkansas)

)

3:05-CV-528 (Alexander - California) )

3:08-CV-052 (Huerta - California)

)

3:06-CV-429 (Pedrazzi - California) )

3:05-CV-666 (Coleman - Kentucky) )

3:07-CV-120 (DeCesare - Nevada)

)

3:05-CV-534 (Gennell - New Hampshire))

3:07-CV-328 (Leighter - Oregon)

)

3:05-CV-596 (Slayman - Oregon)

)

3:05-CV-664 (Carlson - Florida)

)

3:07-CV-191 (Gentle - Alabama)

)

3:06-CV-801 (Wallace - Ohio)

)

_____________________________________ )

OPINION and ORDER

FedEx has filed a Rule 54(b) motion for entry of partial judgment in the

captioned cases in light of this court’s Opinion and Order of December 13, 2010.

The plaintiffs oppose the motion. The court denies the motion for the reasons

stated below.

I. BACKGROUND

The court already has decided that the plaintiffs in the captioned cases are

independent contractors as a matter of the relevant states’ common law (the

plaintiffs were determined to be employees as a matter of the relevant states’

statutory laws in a couple instances). Those decisions rely on the same course of

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2501 filed 02/11/11 page 2 of 5
decisionmaking and underlying facts as decisions in cases in which judgment has been entered, which are now on appeal. But those adverse decisions also rely on application of laws uniquely nuanced in each state and, more importantly for today’s ruling, also involve a wide variety of other claims, some of which are similar to those decided in this court and some of which are very different.
FedEx argues that entry of partial judgment on claims decided in this court will make appellate review more efficient by putting similar decisions up for review all at one time. FedEx further argues that this will avoid the potential for inconsistent judgments.
The plaintiffs respond that the decided claims and the remaining claims are not “separate” but rather substantially overlap because they rely on the same complex set of facts about the relationship between themselves and FedEx. The plaintiffs further argue that the judicial efficiency FedEx suggests would be obtained through entry of partial judgment is illusory because multiple courts of appeal would end up reviewing the same cases regardless of their outcomes. Finally, the plaintiffs object to FedEx’s motion because their cases have pended for more than five years and requiring immediate appeal of this court’s decisions in the captioned cases will further delay final resolution of the outstanding claims.
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2501 filed 02/11/11 page 3 of 5
II. ANALYSIS Rule 54(b) allows a court to enter partial judgment “only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” FED R. CIV. P. 54(b). This is a discretionary decision of the court, bounded by the requirement that partial judgment only be entered on truly “separate” claims. No bright-line rules demark separateness, but a separateness analysis involves inquiry into the law and facts behind the claims. See Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v. Marseilles Land and Water Co., 518 F.3d 459, 464 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Lottie v. West Am. Ins. Co., 408 F.3d 935, 938 (7th Cir. 2005) (“We have insisted that Rule 54(b) be employed only when the subjects of the partial judgment do not overlap with those remaining in the district court.”). FedEx provides little guidance on how this court should undertake what would amount to a rather unwieldy inquiry, but because the court denies the motion, it needn’t enter into a sidebar analysis of the similarity or separateness of the dozens of claims filed across the subject cases. The court agrees with the plaintiffs that the claimed judicial efficiency benefits of entering partial judgment in the captioned cases is illusory. The norm is one appeal per case. United States v. Ettrick Wood Prods., Inc., 916 F.2d 1211, 1218 (7th Cir. 1990). There’s no getting around that appellate courts will need to review the complexities of these cases multiple times if the court enters partial judgment. To the extent the court of appeals decides issues currently on appeal that apply across the board, doctrines of claim preclusion will assist courts of appeals in not having to review the same issues again. Because each state’s law
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2501 filed 02/11/11 page 4 of 5
on the distinction between employee and independent contractor is different, much of the appellate review will be driven by the nuances of the different states’ laws, requiring intensive inquiry into each case (and the relevant state’s law) on appeal. There isn’t one ball of wax to review here: there are dozens of balls of wax.
The possibility of resolution of the captioned cases on remand without requiring appellate review isn’t something to be overlooked. Delaying appellate review pending final determination of outstanding claims might eliminate the need for appellate review and will ensure that related claims are reviewed one time only if they still require appellate review down the road. See Hill v. Henderson, 195 F.3d 671, 674-675 (7th Cir. 1999).
Finally, the plaintiffs have waited long enough for resolutions to all their claims. Given the considerations already noted, the court can’t make an express finding that there’s no just reason for delay. Instead, there is just reason for remand and forward progress in these cases.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the court DENIES FedEx’s motion for entry of partial judgment [Doc. No. 2370]. SO ORDERED.
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2501 filed 02/11/11 page 5 of 5 ENTERED: February 11, 2011 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court
5

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2522 filed 03/22/11 page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

) CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

3:05-CV-530 (Craig - Kansas)

)

3:08-CV-193 (Boudreaux - Louisiana) )

3:05-CV-595 (Tofaute - New Jersey) )

3:08-CV-336 (Kelly - Ohio)

)

3:05-CV-540 (Humphreys - Texas)

)

_____________________________________ )

ORDER

The plaintiffs having no objection, the court hereby GRANTS FedEx

Ground's motion to reconsider [Doc. No. 2511] portions of the court's February 18,

2011 Order regarding clerical errors in the judgments [Doc. No. 2507].

I. INDICATIVE RULING IN CRAIG, BOUDREAUX, AND TOFAUTE

In its February 18 Order, this court indicated to the court of appeals that

if certain MDL member cases were remanded because of errors in the judgments

this court would amend the judgments in these MDL member cases to include the

class definitions approved by this court when granting class certifications in these

cases, as listed in the Appendix to the February 18 Order. The Appendix to the

February 18 Order is hereby AMENDED with respect to the following three cases,

to fully reflect the class definitions and sub-class definitions approved by this

court:

A. 3:05-CV-530 (Craig - Kansas)

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2522 filed 03/22/11 page 2 of 5

•

Kansas class definition:

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since February 11, 1998, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and (3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Kansas.

•

ERISA class definition:

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) during the class period to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were eligible for ERISA plan benefits, absent their mischaracterization as independent contractors.

B. 3:08-CV-193 (Boudreaux - Louisiana)

•

Class definition:

All persons who, at any time after February 8, 2002, entered into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES) and drove a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) to provide package pick-up and delivery services in Louisiana pursuant to that Operating Agreement.

•

Non-damages class definition:

All persons who have since February 8, 2002, entered, or will enter, into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as Form OP-149

2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2522 filed 03/22/11 page 3 of 5

and form OP-149 RES) and currently drive, or will drive, a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to that Operating Agreement.

•

Sub-class definition:

All persons who, at any time after February 8, 2002, entered into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES), drove a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) to provide package pick-up and delivery services in Louisiana pursuant to that Operating Agreement, and have been discharged or resigned from FXG.

C. 3:05-CV-595 (Tofaute - New Jersey)

•

Class definition:

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 19, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New Jersey.

•

Sub-class definition:

All persons who: 1) entered into an FedEx Ground or FedEx Home Delivery Form Operating Agreement (now known as OP-149 and Form OP-149-RES) for the first time during the period from May 19, 1999 through October 15, 2007; 2) drove a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) from May 19, 1999 through October 15, 2007 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement;

3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2522 filed 03/22/11 page 4 of 5
and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New Jersey. II. CORRECTED JUDGMENTS IN HUMPHREYS AND KELLY Because FedEx Ground timely moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to correct the judgments in Humphreys and Kelly (see Doc. No. 2487), this court retains jurisdiction over these two cases, despite plaintiffs' notices of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi), 4(a)(4) (B)(i). The court therefore RECONSIDERS the portion of its February 18 Order that construed FedEx Ground's Rule 60(a) motion as a motion for an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1(a). The court hereby GRANTS FedEx Ground's Rule 60(a) motion (Doc. No. 2487) and DIRECTS the Clerk to correct the judgments as follows: A. 3:05-CV-540 (Humphreys - Texas) The Humphreys judgment (Doc. No. 2482) shall be corrected to list only the Humphreys named plaintiffs (John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Niles Pinkham, Charles Campbell, and Tim Mershon) and the Humphreys case number (3:05-CV-540); the judgment shall not list the Kelly named plaintiffs or the Kelly case number. The Humphreys judgment shall also be corrected to list the following class definition approved by the court when granting class certification: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since March 6, 2001, to provide package pickup and delivery services
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2522 filed 03/22/11 page 5 of 5
pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Texas. B. 3:08-CV-336 (Kelly - Ohio) The Kelly judgment [Doc. No. 2481] shall be corrected to list only the Kelly named plaintiffs (Paul Kelly, Dean Johnson, Thomas Wenzlick, Kenneth R. Miner, Adelbert Lawrence, Russell Jackson, and Robert Velo) and the Kelly case number (3:08-CV-336); the judgment shall not list the Humphreys named plaintiffs or the Humphreys case number. The Kelly judgment shall also be corrected to list the following class definition approved by the court when granting class certification: All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149-RES) and/or provide or will provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to an executed Operating Agreement; 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 15, 2002 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of terminal in the state of Ohio. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: March 22, 2011
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court
5

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2529 filed 04/04/11 page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

_____________________________________

)

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE

) CAUSE NO. 3:05-MD-527 RM

SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

)

(MDL-1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

)

----------------------------------------------- )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

3:05-CV-530 (Craig - Kansas)

)

3:06-CV-428 (Floyd - Alabama)

)

3:07-CV-272 (Gibson - Arizona)

)

3:07-CV-411 (White - Georgia)

)

3:05-CV-390 (Riewe - Indiana)

)

3:08-CV-193 (Boudreaux - Louisiana) )

3:06-CV-485 (Westcott - Maryland)

)

3:05-CV-533 (Lee - Minnesota)

)

3:07-CV-326 (Whiteside - N. Carolina) )

3:05-CV-595 (Tofaute - New Jersey) )

3:05-CV-538 (Louzau - New York)

)

3:08-CV-336 (Kelly - Ohio)

)

3:05-CV-597 (Willis - Pennsylvania) )

3:05-CV-599 (Tierney - Rhode Island) )

3:05-CV-668 (Cooke - S. Carolina)

)

3:05-CV-600 (Smith - Tennessee)

)

3:05-CV-540 (Humphreys - Texas)

)

3:05-CV-601 (Larson - Wisconsin)

)

3:06-CV-826 (Asbury - West Virginia) )

3:08-CV-53 (Fishler - Utah)

)

_____________________________________ )

ORDER

Pursuant to the court of appeals’ order of remand [Doc. No. 2528], and

pursuant to this court’s indicative rulings of February 18, 2011 [Doc. No. 2507]

and March 22, 2011 [Doc. No. 2522], the court now ORDERS the clerk of the

court to correct the judgments in the above-referenced cases as follows:

•

This court’s February 18 and March 22 orders are hereby incorporated;

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2529 filed 04/04/11 page 2 of 8

•

Pursuant to this court’s March 22 order, the clerk has already amended the

judgments in Humphreys (3:05-CV-540) [Doc. No. 2523] and Kelly (3:08-CV-

336) [Doc. No. 2524], and no further action is needed in these two cases;

•

Pursuant to the instructions provided in this court March 22 order, the

amended judgments shall list:

•

the case number of the particular FedEx MDL 1700 case in question

only;

•

named plaintiffs for the particular FedEx MDL 1700 case in question

only;

•

And, pursuant to this court’s February 18 order, the amended judgments

shall include the class definitions approved by this court when granting

class certifications in these cases. The clerk shall use the class definitions

provided in the Appendix attached to this order.

SO ORDERED. ENTERED: April 4, 2011

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court

2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2529 filed 04/04/11 page 3 of 8

APPENDIX Class Definitions

3:05-CV-530 (Craig - Kansas)

•

Kansas class definition:

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since February 11, 1998, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and (3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Kansas.

•

ERISA class definition:

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) during the class period to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were eligible for ERISA plan benefits, absent their mischaracterization as independent contractors.

3:06-CV-428 (Floyd - Alabama) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 11, 2000, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Alabama.

3:07-CV-272 (Gibson - Arizona) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES) and/or provided or will provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to an executed Operating Agreement; 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 11, 2004, to provide package

3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2529 filed 04/04/11 page 4 of 8

pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Arizona.

3:07-CV-411 (White - Georgia) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and Form OP 149 RES) and/or provided or will provide package pick -up and delivery services pursuant to an executed Operating Agreement; 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full -time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 26, 200 1, to provide package pick -up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Georgia.

3:05-CV-390 (Riewe - Indiana) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since June 28, 1999, to provide package pick–up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the State of Indiana.

3:08-CV-193 (Boudreaux - Louisiana)

•

Class definition:

All persons who, at any time after February 8, 2002, entered into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES) and drove a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) to provide package pick-up and delivery services in Louisiana pursuant to that Operating Agreement.

•

Non-damages class definition:

All persons who have since February 8, 2002, entered, or will enter, into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as Form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES) and currently drive, or will drive, a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to that Operating Agreement.

4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2529 filed 04/04/11 page 5 of 8

•

Sub-class definition:

All persons who, at any time after February 8, 2002, entered into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES), drove a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) to provide package pick-up and delivery services in Louisiana pursuant to that Operating Agreement, and have been discharged or resigned from FXG.

3:06-CV-485 (Westcott - Maryland) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 5, 2003, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Maryland.

3:05-CV-533 (Lee - Minnesota) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since April 5, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Minnesota.

3:07-CV-326 (Whiteside - North Carolina) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full -time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 2, 2003, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of North Carolina.

3:05-CV-595 (Tofaute - New Jersey)

•

Class definition:

All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG

Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form

OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a

full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused

5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2529 filed 04/04/11 page 6 of 8

employment absences) since May 19, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New Jersey.

•

Sub-class definition:

All persons who: 1) entered into an FedEx Ground or FedEx Home Delivery Form Operating Agreement (now known as OP-149 and Form OP-149-RES) for the first time during the period from May 19, 1999 through October 15, 2007; 2) drove a vehicle on a fulltime basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) from May 19, 1999 through October 15, 2007 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New Jersey.

3:05-CV-538 (Louzau - New York) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since October 27, 1998, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New York.

3:05-CV-597 (Willis - Pennsylvania) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since July 25, 2001, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

3:05-CV-599 (Tierney - Rhode Island) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since May 19, 1999, to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Rhode Island.

6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2529 filed 04/04/11 page 7 of 8
3:05-CV-668 (Cooke - South Carolina) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since September 6, 2002, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of South Carolina.
3:05-CV-600 (Smith - Tennessee) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since June 22, 1999 to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Tennessee.
3:05-CV-601 (Larson - Wisconsin) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into an FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since August 18, 1999, to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Wisconsin.
3:06-CV-826 (Asbury - West Virginia) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since September 25, 2001 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of West Virginia.
3:08-CV-53 (Fishler - Utah) All persons who: 1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form OP-149 and form OP-149 RES); 2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) since November 16, 2003, to provide package
7

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2529 filed 04/04/11 page 8 of 8 pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Utah.
8

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2556 filed 05/19/11 page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II)

MDL No. 1700

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER

The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the action(s) on this conditional remand order have been completed and that remand to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. §1407(a), is appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action(s) on this conditional remand order be remanded to its/their respective transferor court(s).
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for the Northern District of Indiana with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be remanded and all necessary copies of any pleadings or other matter filed so as to enable said Clerk to comply with the order of remand.

FOR THE PANEL:

Jeffery N. Lüthi Clerk of the Panel

Mar 07, 2011

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2556 filed 05/19/11 page 2 of 3

IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II)

MDL No. 1700

SCHEDULE FOR CRO

TRANSFEREE DIST DIV. C.A.NO.
INN 3 07−00191

INN 3 INN 3 INN 3 INN 3 INN 3

06−00209 08−00052 05−00528 06−00429 05−00664

INN 3 09−00356

INN 3 05−00652

INN 3 05−00666

INN 3 INN 3 INN 3

07−00325 05−00534 07−00327

INN 3 INN 3 INN 3

09−00002 05−00535 07−00120

INN 3 08−00520

INN 3 05−00537

INN 3 06−00801

INN 3 05−00596

INN 3 07−00328

INN 3 09−00003 INN 3 06−00802

TRANSFEROR DIST DIV. C.A.NO. ALN 5 07−00392 ARE 4 06−00175 CAC 2 07−08123 CAN 3 05−00038 CAN 5 06−02393 FLM 8 05−01380 FLS 9 09−80729 IAS 4 05−00477 KYW 3 05−00522 MA 1 07−10876 NH 1 05−00145
NJ 1 07−02574 NJ 1 08−03914 NJ 2 02−05352 NV 2 07−00098 NV 3 08−00234 NYE 1 04−04935 OHN 1 06−01632 OR 3 05−01127 OR 3 07−00818 PAE 2 08−05414 TXE 2 06−00263

CASE CAPTION
Bruce Edwin Gentle, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., et al. Opposed 3/7/11
David Harris v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Opposed 3/7/11
Ricardo Huerta v. FedEx Ground, et al. Opposed 3/7/11
Dean Alexander, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., et al. Opposed 3/7/11
Jeremiah Pedrazzi v. FedEx Corp., et al. Opposed 3/7/11
Donald E. Carlson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. Opposed 3/7/11
Scott Ward, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Opposed 3/7/11
Tim Johnson v. FedEx Ground System, Inc., et al.
Charlie Bertram, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., et al. Opposed 3/7/11
Genaro Vargas v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., et al.
Robert Gennell, Jr., et al. v. FedEx Corp., et al. Opposed 3/7/11
Richard Farrell v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Michael Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.
Jessie Capers, et al. v. FedEx Ground, et al.
Michael Decesare, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Rob Campbell v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.
Curtis Johnson, et al. v. FedEx Home Delivery, et al.
Walter Wallace v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., et al. Opposed 3/7/11
Edward Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Opposed 3/7/11
Jon Leighter, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Opposed 3/7/11
David Mitchell v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2556 filed 05/19/11 page 3 of 3 James Larry Price v. FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc., et al.

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2557 filed 02/24/11 page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II)

MDL No. 1700

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER

The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the action(s) on this conditional remand order have been completed and that remand to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. §1407(a), is appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action(s) on this conditional remand order be remanded to its/their respective transferor court(s).
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for the Northern District of Indiana with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be remanded and all necessary copies of any pleadings or other matter filed so as to enable said Clerk to comply with the order of remand.

FOR THE PANEL:

Feb 24, 2011

Jeffery N. Lüthi Clerk of the Panel

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2557 filed 02/24/11 page 2 of 2

IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II)

MDL No. 1700

SCHEDULE FOR CRO

TRANSFEREE DIST DIV. C.A.NO.
INN 3 07−00190
INN 3 08−00087

TRANSFEROR DIST DIV. C.A.NO. MD 1 06−02491
MD 1 07−02173

CASE CAPTION
Terrance E. Ellison v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Theodore Holloway, Jr. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2560 filed 05/27/11 page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II)

MDL No. 1700

REMAND ORDER
Before the Panel:* Pursuant to Panel Rule 10.2, defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx Ground) moves to vacate, in part, our order that conditionally remanded the twelve actions listed on Schedule A to their respective transferor courts. Specifically, FedEx Ground moves the Panel to separate the claims resolved by the transferee court on summary judgment from the remaining claims and remand only the latter claims. Plaintiffs in the actions oppose the motion.
The current dispute has arisen as the transferee judge, Robert L. Miller, Jr., of the Northern District of Indiana, has completed his work on these MDL proceedings. In some of the cases, Judge Miller granted summary judgment to FedEx Ground on all claims. In the twelve cases at issue here, he granted summary judgment on some claims, but not others. Plaintiffs in the former group have already taken their appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In the latter group of twelve cases, Judge Miller denied defendant’s request for entry of partial judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and then entered a suggestion that the Panel remand the remaining twelve cases in their entirety. These two rulings have raised some interesting questions.
FedEx Ground argues that under In re Food Lion, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act “Effective Scheduling Lit.,” 73 F.3d 528 (4th Cir. 1996), these cases should be bifurcated, leaving the claims that the transferee court resolved on summary judgment for appeal to the Seventh Circuit, and remanding only the remaining claims to the respective transferor courts for final resolution. Indeed, the Fourth Circuit did hold that the “overriding purpose of the multidistrict procedure dictates that [the claims decided on summary judgment by the transferee court] be decided in the same appellate forum.” Id. at 532. Plaintiffs argue that it is fairer and more efficient to keep each case intact to allow for combined appeals of all issues at the conclusion of each case. The evident merit in both views highlights an interesting intersection between Rule 54(b) and Section 1407.
No doubt, one can make strong arguments for either a preference for consistent appeals from a transferee court ruling or a preference that related claims in the same case be taken in the same appeal. However, the Panel’s role does not extend to reviewing the legal correctness of Judge Miller’s Rule 54(b) decision. Instead, the Panel’s role is to decide whether Judge Miller’s suggestion of remand is appropriate. In doing so, we consistently have placed great weight on the transferee court’s remand recommendation. See In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Qui Tam Litig. (No.
* Judge Barbara S. Jones and Judge Paul J. Barbadoro took no part in the decision of this matter.

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2560 filed 05/27/11 page 2 of 3
- 2 -
II), 560 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (citing In re Holiday Magic Sec. & Antitrust Litig., 433 F.Supp. 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 1977)).
There are sound reasons why this deference has proven so essential and successful over the many years of our experience; in most instances the transferee judge has an acute sense about the procedural steps necessary to advance the litigation in the fairest and most efficient way. Here, when Judge Miller suggested remand of these actions, he was in the best position to consider the relative efficiencies of bifurcating the claims as well. Certainly, he considered FedEx Ground’s views and all relevant factors in denying its related Rule 54(b) motion.
FedEx Ground has not persuaded us that remand of these cases in their entirety is misplaced. The transferor judges in the various courts are well prepared to resolve the remaining individual issues in these cases and to preside over any eventual trials.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these actions are remanded to their respective transferor courts as set out in Schedule A.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
______________________________________ John G. Heyburn II Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. Frank C. Damrell, Jr.

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2560 filed 05/27/11 page 3 of 3

IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II)

MDL No. 1700

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Indiana
Bruce Edwin Gentle, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-00191 (N.D. Alabama, C.A. No. 5:07-00392)
David Harris v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., C.A. No. 3:06-00209 (E.D. Arkansas, C.A. No. 4:06-00175)
Ricardo Huerta v. FedEx Ground, et al., C.A. No. 3:08-00052 (C.D. California, C.A. No. 2:07-08123)
Dean Alexander, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:05-00528 (N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:05-00038)
Jeremiah Pedrazzi v. FedEx Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:06-00429 (N.D. California, C.A. No. 5:06-02393)
Donald E. Carlson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 3:05-00664 (M.D. Florida, C.A. No. 8:05-01380)
Scott Ward, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., C.A. No. 3:09-00356 (S.D. Florida, C.A. No. 9:09-80729)
Charlie Bertram, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:05-00666 (W.D. Kentucky, C.A. No. 3:05-00522)
Robert Gennell, Jr., et al. v. FedEx Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:05-00534 (D. New Hampshire, C.A. No. 1:05-00145)
Walter Wallace v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:06-00801 (N.D. Ohio, C.A. No. 1:06-01632)
Edward Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., C.A. No. 3:05-00596 (D. Oregon, C.A. No. 3:05-01127)
Jon Leighter, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., C.A. No. 3:07-00328 (D. Oregon, C.A. No. 3: 07-00818)

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2561 filed 06/28/11 page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett M cKinley D irksen United States Courthouse Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk Phone: (312) 435-5850 w w w .ca7.u sco urts.gov

June 28, 2011

ORDER: LIMITED REMAND

Before JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No.: 10-3115

IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION
APPEAL OF: CARLENE M. CRAIG, et al.

Originating Case Information:

District Court Nos: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division District Judge Robert L. Miller

Upon consideration of the THIRD NOTICE OF INDICATIVE RULING, filed on June 16, 2011, by counsel for FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.,
Appellee's request for remand is GRANTED. In light of the district court’s indication of a willingness to grant the motion to enter a corrected judgment,
IT IS ORDERED that appeal no. 10-3115 is REMANDED pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 for proceedings consistent with the district court’s orders of February 18, 2011, March 22, 2011, and April 4, 2011. This court will retain jurisdiction. Appellee is ORDERED to file a status report with this court within five days of the district court's ruling on the motion to clarify the judgments.

form name: c7_Order_Limited_Remand(form ID: 172)

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT

) ) )

Case No. 3:05-MD-00527-RLM-CAN (MDL 1700)

PRACTICES LITIGATION

) )

Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.

)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

)

)

Floyd, Civil No. 3:06-cv-00428 (AL);

)

Gibson, Civil No. 3:07-cv-00272 (AZ);

)

)

White, Civil No. 3:07-cv-00411 (GA);

)

Riewe, Civil No. 3:05-cv-00390 (IN);

)

)

Craig, Civil No. 3:05-cv-00530 (KS);

)

Boudreaux, Civil No. 3:08-cv-00193 (LA); )

Westcott, Civil No. 3:06-cv-00485 (MD);

) )

Lee, Civil No. 3:05-cv-00533 (MN);

)

Tofaute, Civil No. 3:05-cv-00595 (NJ);

)

)

Louzau, Civil No. 3:06-CV-00485 (NY); )

Whiteside, Civil No. 3:07-CV-00326 (NC); )

)

Kelly, Civil No. 3:08-cv-00336 (OH);

)

Willis, Civil No. 3:05-cv-00597 (PA);

)

Tierney, Civil No. 3:05-cv-00599 (RI);

) )

Cooke, Civil No. 3:05-cv-00668 (SC);

)

Smith, Civil No. 3:05-cv-00600 (TN);

)

)

Humphreys, Civil No. 3:05-cv-00540 (TX); )

Fishler, Civil No. 3:08-cv-00053 (UT);

)

)

Asbury, Civil No. 3:06-cv-00736 (WV); and )

Larson, Civil No. 3:05-cv-00601 (WI).

)

)

)

OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS

ACTION SETTLEMENT, TO ISSUE NOTICE TO SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND

TO SCHEDULE A HEARING ON FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 2 of 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY................................................................................................ 3 III. THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ......................................................... 6
A. THE STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT....................................................................................................... 7
B. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS ARE WITHIN THE RANGE OF POSSIBLE APPROVAL AND SHOULD BE PRELIMINARILY APPROVED UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e). ....................................................... 9 1. The Likely Complexity, Length and Expense if the Litigation Continues Weigh Heavily in Favor of Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Settlements ........................................................................ 9 2. The Affected Parties Have Not Voiced Opposition to the Proposed Settlements ................................................................................................ 11 3. The Class Cases Have Been Fully Investigaged and Heavily Litigated; Formal Merits Discovery Was Completed in 2007 and Comprehensive Informal Damages Discovery Was Conducted During the Mediation Process................................................................... 12
C. PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE PROGRAM MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(e)..................................................................... 13
D. CAFA NOTICE OF THE SETTLEMENT IS REQUIRED................................. 15 E. THE PROPOSED SERVICE AWARDS ARE REASONABLE ......................... 15 IV. THE COURT SHOULD SET A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING ................................. 17 V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 18
i

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 3 of 23
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014) (California)........................................................................5, 6, 10
Am. Int’l Grp, Inc. v. ACE INA Holdings, Inc., Nos. 07 C 2898, 09 C 2026, 2011 WL 3290302 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2011) ..............8, 11, 12, 13
Anderson v. Torrington Co., 755 F. Supp. 834 (N.D. Ind. 1991) (Miller, J.) ..........................................................7, 9, 10, 13
Armstrong v. Bd. of School Dist. of City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) .....................................................................................7, 8, 12, 17
In re AT&T Mobility Wireless Data Serv. Sales Litig., 270 F.R.D. 330 (N.D. Ill. 2010)...........................................................................................8, 11
Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 787 F.3d 313 (11th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................5, 10
Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................15
Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 335 P.3d 66 (Kan. 2014) ............................................................................................................5
Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 686 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................4
Donovan v. Estate of Fitzsimmons, 778 F.2d 298 (7th Cir. 1985) .....................................................................................................7
E.E.O.C. v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., 768 F.2d 884 (7th Cir. 1985) .....................................................................................................8
In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Employment Practices Litig., 381 F. Supp.2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2005)........................................................................................3
Gautreaux v. Pierce, 690 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) .....................................................................................................8
Gray v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 799 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2015) (Missouri)..................................................................................10
ii

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 4 of 23
Isby v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1191 (7th Cir. 1996) ...........................................................................................7, 8, 10
Jones v. Nuclear Pharm., Inc., 741 F.2d 322 (10th Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................17
Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Srvs., Co., No. 07-cv-1707, 2016 WL 806546 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2016) ...................................................17
Lace v. Fortis Plastics, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-363, 2015 WL 1383806 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2015) ............................................14
In re NCAA Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litig., No. 13 C 9116, 2016 WL 305380 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2016) ......................................................8
Oaks v. Moss, No. 3:15-cv-00196, 2015 WL 5737595 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2015) ........................................14
Ohayon v. Hertz Corp., No. 5:11-cv-01662 EJD, 2012 WL 4936058 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012) .................................14
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985).................................................................................................................13
Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................17
Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................15
Slayman/Leighter v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (Oregon)....................................................................................5
In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litig., No. 11 C 8176, 2013 WL 4510197 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2013), aff’d as modified, 799 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................................................16
Spicer v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1226 (N.D. Ill. 1993) ..........................................................................................15
Swift v. Direct Buy, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-401, 2013 WL 5770633 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 24, 2013)......................................10, 12
Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 463 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................9
In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig., 264 F.3d at 722 ........................................................................................................................15
iii

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 5 of 23 Williams v. Rohm & Haas Pension Plan, 658 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................7 Wong v. Accretive Health, Inc., 773 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................................9 Zolkos v. Scriptfleet, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 8230, 2014 WL 7011819 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2014) .........................................8, 14 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1407..............................................................................................................................3 28 U.S.C. §1715(b) ........................................................................................................................15 Other Authorities Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, et seq........................................................................................................ passim Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions (“Newberg”), § 11.41 (4th ed. 2002) ..........................................................................................................................................7 Rule 52(b) ........................................................................................................................................5
iv

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 6 of 23

I.

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are motions for preliminary approval of class settlements submitted by

Plaintiffs in twenty statewide class actions litigated in this Court in the MDL docket known as In

re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, 3:05-md-00527-RLM-

CAN. These twenty cases – originally filed in as many different states - were transferred to this

Court starting in August 2005 for consolidated discovery and coordinated adjudication because

they posed similar challenges under their respective state laws to the legality of Defendant’s

classification of its pickup and delivery drivers as independent contractors. These cases were

litigated extensively in this Court between 2005 and 2010, and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit between 2011 and the present.

After six years of hard-fought litigation and five years on appeal—which resulted in

decisions that Plaintiff drivers are employees and not independent contractors under the laws of

Kansas, California, and Oregon—the parties commenced good faith settlement negotiations in an

effort to settle all of the remaining MDL cases, including Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., and the nineteen other cases pending but stayed in the Seventh Circuit. (“Class Cases”).1

1 These include: Floyd v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:06-cv-00428-RLMCAN (AL); Gibson, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:07-cv-00272-RLMCAN (AZ); White, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:07-cv-00411-RLMCAN (GA); Riewe, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN (IN); Craig, et. al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN (KS); Boudreaux, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:08-cv-00193RLM-CAN (LA); Westcott v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:06-cv-00485-RLMCAN (MD); Lee, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-cv-00533-RLMCAN (MN); Tofaute, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-cv-00595-RLMCAN (NJ); Louzau, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:06-CV-00485-RLMCAN (NY); Whiteside, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:07-CV-00326RLM-CAN (NC); Kelly, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:08-cv-00336RLM-CAN (OH); Willis v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-cv-00597-RLMCAN; Tierney, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN (RI); Cooke, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN (SC); Smith, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN
1

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 7 of 23
The parties agreed at the outset of the settlement process that each case would be analyzed, briefed, and negotiated separately, and settled (or not) on its own merits. If the settlements are approved by the Court, the MDL litigation, commenced nearly twelve years ago, will be finally concluded.
The twenty class settlements presented to the Court for preliminary approval are the product of twenty-one days of mediation. Each case was mediated independently, unconditionally, and at arms-length with the assistance of an experienced and skilled mediator. The MDL Co-Lead Counsel prepared for and represented the Class Plaintiffs in negotiating and concluding the twenty class settlements with participation and assistance from the originating counsel and class representatives. Plaintiffs’ counsel believe the class settlements obtained the Class Cases are fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the class based on the applicable law, the claims and defenses asserted, the potential damages, and the significant risks faced by both sides if the litigation were to continue.
This omnibus brief is submitted by Plaintiffs in support of the motions for preliminary approval filed in each of the Class Cases to address the common legal and factual issues relevant to the Court’s analysis. The matters unique to the preliminary approval inquiry in each case, namely the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses specific to each case and the opinion of counsel as to the adequacy of each settlement, are addressed in the concurrently filed case-specific briefs. Based upon all of the supporting memoranda and documents, Plaintiffs request that the Court (1) grant preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as
(TN); Humphreys, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-cv-00540-RLMCAN (TX); Fishler, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:08-cv-00053-RLMCAN (UT); Asbury, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:06-cv-00736-RLMCAN (WV); and Larson, et al., v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Civil No. 3:05-cv-00601RLM-CAN (WI).
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 8 of 23
described in the attached memorandum; (2) approve the form, content, and plan for distribution of the notice filed contemporaneously to enable the parties to send notice of the settlement to all class members; (3) appoint Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator; and (4) to schedule a hearing regarding final approval of the proposed class action settlement, attorneys’ fees and costs and service payments to the Class Representatives. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs in the Class Cases are current and former pickup and delivery drivers for Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FXG”) who filed state-wide class action lawsuits alleging that FXG misclassified them as independent contractors. The cases were transferred to this Court between 2005 and 2008 by the Judicial Panel of Multi-District Litigation (“JPML”) for coordinated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Employment Practices Litig., 381 F. Supp.2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2005).
In its initial case scheduling order entered November 15, 2005, this Court designated Co-Lead Counsel for both sides and bifurcated the proceedings into liability and damages phases with simultaneous class certification and merits discovery. MDL Doc. No. 52. In this order, the Court appointed three firms as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs,2 and authorized them to represent Plaintiffs in all aspects of the pretrial proceedings, including mediation proceedings and settlement negotiations. Id. at 3-4.
Between 2005 and 2007, the parties engaged in extensive written discovery, document production and review, depositions, expert discovery, and non-dispositive motion practice on behalf of all of the constituent MDL cases. The Court required Plaintiffs to file class
2 The court appointed Co-Leads are: Susan Ellingstad of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Lynn Faris of Leonard Carder, LLP, and Robert Harwood of Harwood Feffer LLP. Beth Ross assumed Ms. Faris’ role as Co-Lead Counsel for Leonard Carder after Ms. Faris retired in 2011.
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 9 of 23
certification motions in five waves after the close of class certification and merits discovery; this briefing took place over the course of about nine months. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.—the case originating in Kansas and which became the de facto lead case—in an order entered October 15, 2007. MDL Doc. No. 906. Thereafter, the Court certified classes in 26 additional cases, including the nineteen other Class Cases now before the Court, in orders entered March 25, 2008 and July 27, 2009. MDL Doc. Nos. 1119 and 1770.
During 2008 and 2009, the parties filed cross-motions for summary adjudication on the issue of the employment status of the Plaintiff Classes in each of the certified class cases. These motions were resolved largely in favor of FXG and against Plaintiffs in orders entered on August 11, 2010 (Craig) and December 13, 2010 (remaining cases). See MDL Doc. Nos. 2097 and 2239. Plaintiffs appealed from the adverse summary judgment rulings in each of the Class Cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.3
The Seventh Circuit requested briefing in the lead case, Craig, and stayed briefing in all of the other cases pending a decision in Craig. In an order entered July 12, 2012, the Seventh Circuit certified two questions addressing Plaintiffs’ employment status under Kansas law to the Supreme Court of Kansas, which accepted the certified questions in an order entered January 2013. Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 686 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2012).
In October 2014, following full briefing, the Kansas Supreme Court issued its opinion on the certified questions, holding that “under the undisputed facts presented, the FedEx delivery
3 The 20 cases litigated in the MDL docket that were not fully disposed of by this Court’s summary judgment rulings were remanded back to their home jurisdictions by the JPML at the suggestion of this Court by for further proceedings. The Class Cases at issue here have been litigated exclusively within the MDL since their transfer by the JPML and remain part of the MDL docket.
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 10 of 23
drivers are employees for purposes of the KWPA.” Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 335 P.3d 66, 92 (Kan. 2014). The Kansas Supreme Court further concluded that an FXG driver does not lose employee status “when the driver acquires one or more other routes for which he or she is not a driver.” Id. at 93.
On August 27, 2014, just before the Kansas Supreme Court issued its opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in the California and Oregon cases, which had been remanded from the MDL to their home jurisdictions. See Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014) (California) and Slayman/Leighter v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (Oregon)). In light of the Kansas Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions, in an order entered October 8, 2014, the Seventh Circuit panel requested briefing from the parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 52(b) setting forth their positions as to how the Court should proceed to resolve the pending appeals. Criag, 7th Cir. Doc. No. 77.
On July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued its Opinion and Order in Craig, reversing the summary judgment rulings entered by this Court and remanding the case to this Court with instructions to enter judgment for Plaintiffs that they are employees for purposes of Kansas law, and for further proceedings. Criag, 7th Cir. Doc. No. 88. In a separate order entered July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit ordered briefing in all of the pending cases with a focus on “whether any of the other applicable states’ law differs from the law of California, Florida, Kansas or Oregon.” Criag, 7th Cir. Doc. No. 90.4 Mandate issued in the Craig case on June 30, 2015.
4 After the Seventh Circuit’s request for a Rule 52(b) statement, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in the Florida case, reversing summary judgment in favor of FXG, but concluding that a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the drivers were employees under Florida law. Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 787 F.3d 313 (11th Cir. 2015).
5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 11 of 23
III. THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS In June 2015, a settlement was reached between FXG and the Plaintiff Class in the
remanded California case, Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Case 3:05-cv-00038 (N.D. Cal.) (Doc. No. 126-1). With the California case settled and the Craig appeal resolved, the parties began exploring settlement in the group of cases pending before the Seventh Circuit, as well as three other cases that, like Alexander, had been remanded out of the MDL and were pending in other courts. The Seventh Circuit held a case management conference on July 22, 2015 and issued an order on July 24, 2015 further suspending briefing in all of the pending cases upon the parties’ representation that they would be confidentially exploring settlement over the next several months. Craig, 7th Cir. Doc. No. 53.
The parties selected Michael Dickstein, a highly respected mediator with special expertise in complex employment matters, to mediate the Class Cases. Mr. Dickstein had successfully mediated the Alexander case and was familiar with the factual background, procedural history, nature of the legal claims and defenses, and damages. The Craig mediation was scheduled for and took place on October 29, 2015; the other cases were scheduled for and mediated on consecutive business days between January 11 and 22, 2016 in San Francisco, CA, and February 1 and 12, 2016 in Pittsburgh, PA.
In preparation for mediation, FXG produced to Plaintiffs voluminous class-wide damages data from both live and archived files housed in FXG’s current and legacy electronic record-keeping systems to enable Plaintiffs to value the class damages in each case. The data produced spanned a fifteen-year period and included, inter alia, FXG’s scanner and settlement data showing the class members’ days and hours of service, mileage, settlement payments, settlement deductions and adjustments, route ownership, vehicle records, and dates of services in each state case. Plaintiffs engaged a forensic accounting expert who spent hundreds of
6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 12 of 23
hours analyzing these records and preparing comprehensive damage exposure models and risk analyses for each of the Class Cases. The parties exchanged comprehensive mediation briefs that included their respective analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of all legal claims and defenses, and the other potential litigation risks facing both sides in the absence of settlement.
Each case was mediated separately based upon separate analyses of the legal theories in each state, the damages models derived from FXG’s electronic data, and the length of the class period. The parties successfully resolved all but two of the cases during the four scheduled weeks of mediation; those two cases were resolved shortly afterward through continued negotiation between the parties and facilitated by the mediator. By February 26, 2016, the parties had reached settlements in principle in all twenty cases, now tendered to the Court for preliminary approval.
A. THE STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT
Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires court approval of any settlement of a class action. A district court must scrutinize and evaluate a class action settlement to determine whether it is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Williams v. Rohm & Haas Pension Plan, 658 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)); Anderson v. Torrington Co., 755 F. Supp. 834, 838 (N.D. Ind. 1991) (Miller, J.). “Federal courts naturally favor the settlement of class action litigation.” Isby v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1191, 1196 (7th Cir. 1996); Donovan v. Estate of Fitzsimmons, 778 F.2d 298, 307 (7th Cir. 1985). “In the class action context in particular, there is an overriding public interest in favor of settlement.” Armstrong v. Bd. of School Dist. of City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 313 (7th Cir. 1980) overruled on other grounds by Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998); see also Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions (“Newberg”), § 11.41 (4th ed. 2002) (“The compromise
7

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 13 of 23
of complex litigation is encouraged by the courts and favored by public policy.”). Settlement of class action litigation “also reduces the strain such litigation imposes upon already scarce judicial resources.” Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 313.
District court review of a proposed class action settlement “is a two-step process. The first step is a preliminary, pre-notification hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement is within the range of possible approval. This hearing is not a fairness hearing.” Id. at 314; Gautreaux v. Pierce, 690 F.2d 616, 621 n.3 (7th Cir. 1982); see also In re AT&T Mobility Wireless Data Serv. Sales Litig., 270 F.R.D. 330, 346 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (same); In re NCAA Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litig., No. 13 C 9116, 2016 WL 305380, *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2016) (“This is why some courts at this stage perform a summary version of the exhaustive final fairness inquiry.”) The purpose of the inquiry, instead, “is to ascertain whether there is any reason to notify the class members of the proposed settlement and to proceed with a fairness hearing.” Gautreaux, 690 F.2d at 621 n.3; Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 314. “Ultimately, preliminary approval requires only that the settlement figure is within a reasonable range.” Am. Int’l Grp, Inc. v. ACE INA Holdings, Inc., Nos. 07 C 2898, 09 C 2026, 2011 WL 3290302, *7 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2011); Zolkos v. Scriptfleet, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 8230, 2014 WL 7011819, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2014) (same). If so, the proposed settlement subsequently may be finally approved by the court if it is determined to be lawful, fair, reasonable, and adequate. Isby, 75 F.3d at 1196; E.E.O.C. v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., 768 F.2d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 1985).
Five factors aid courts in analyzing preliminary approval: (1) the strength of plaintiffs’ case compared to the terms of the proposed settlement; (2) the likely complexity, length and expense of continued litigation; (3) the amount of opposition to settlement among [a]ffected parties;
8

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 14 of 23
(4) the opinion of competent counsel; and (5) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed. Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 463 F.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2006); Wong v. Accretive Health, Inc., 773 F.3d 859, 863-64 (7th Cir. 2014); Anderson, 755 F. Supp. at 838. These five factors strongly support preliminary approval of each of the tentative class settlements in each of the twenty Class Cases. B. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS ARE WITHIN THE RANGE OF
POSSIBLE APPROVAL AND SHOULD BE PRELIMINARILY APPROVED UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e). The first and fourth factors -- the strength of Plaintiffs’ case compared to the terms of the proposed settlement, and the opinion of competent counsel regarding the adequacy of the settlement -- will be specifically addressed as to each state’s settlement in the state-specific memoranda filed herewith. The remaining three factors are common between all cases and are addressed below. 1. The Likely Complexity, Length and Expense if the Litigation
Continues Weigh Heavily in Favor of Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Settlements The complexity, length and expense of continued litigation all weigh heavily in favor of the proposed settlements. If the litigation were to continue in any of the Class Cases, a final resolution would be several years away, and would require significant time and expense to resolve the complex liability and damages issues presented. Pending before the Seventh Circuit in all of the Class Cases except Craig are the appeals filed by Plaintiffs from this Court’s adverse summary judgment rulings, and FXG’s cross-appeal from this Court’s class certification orders. Conclusion of the appellate phase of these cases could conceivably be one-to-two years away given the number of cases, and the nature of the issues raised in each.
9

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 15 of 23
Moreover, once the appellate proceedings are concluded, substantial additional work will remain to be done before the trial courts in each case before the litigation is over. While the Seventh Circuit could affirm this Court’s summary judgment orders in one or more cases, it is equally possible (if not likely) that the summary judgments will be reversed and the cases remanded for damages trials, as in Craig, Alexander and Slayman, or trial on all issues, including employment status, as in Gray v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 799 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2015) (Missouri), and Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 787 F.3d 313 (11th Cir. 2015) (Florida). Either way, subsequent trial court proceedings would include substantial rounds of pretrial motion practice regarding class certification, the merits of the Plaintiffs’ substantive law claims, as well extensive fact and expert damages discovery and Daubert motions, followed by lengthy trials, and the possibility of additional appeals. Among other things, trials on the drivers’ employment status would involve a very large body of evidence, with evidence needed to satisfy (or refute) a multi-factor test relating to employment status, and specifically FXG’s right of control. So, too, would damage assessments involve disputed and expensive expert testimony regarding the classwide damages. See Anderson, 755 F. Supp. at 844 (“As a practical matter, therefore, despite the seductive apparent simplicity of a class action based on a single decision by an employer, proof of discriminatory motive would be a complex matter [and] [p]roof of damages would be even more complex.”).
In short, the almost twelve-year length of this litigation is already a factor favoring settlement and, absent settlement, final resolution of all of these cases is still years away. See Isby, 75 F.3d at 1199-1200 (settlement approved where “continuation of the litigation would require the resolutions of many difficult and complex issues, would entail considerable additional expense and would likely involve weeks, perhaps months, of trial time,”); Swift v.
10

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 16 of 23
Direct Buy, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-401, 2013 WL 5770633, at *6 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 24, 2013) (“obtaining any result in this litigation – good or bad – would be years away if the litigation were to continue, which weighs in favor of approving the Settlement Agreement.”); Am. Int’l Grp., 2011 WL 3290302, at *7 (“continuing to litigate this case will require vast expense and a great deal of time, on top of that already expended.”). This factor strongly supports preliminary approval of the proposed settlements.
2. The Affected Parties Have Not Voiced Opposition to the Proposed Settlements
Generally, “because the parties have not yet sent the notice [of proposed settlement], it is premature to fully assess this factor” at the preliminary approval stage. AT&T Mobility, 270 F.R.D. at 349; Am. Int’l Grp., 2011 WL 3290302, at *7 (“insofar as it is proper to consider at preliminary approval the amount of opposition to settlement . . . this third factor weighs in favor of approving the proposed settlement.”). Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs solicited and obtained participation of local counsel at the mediations for each of the cases and Named Plaintiffs participated in the mediation process, some in person and others by phone. All of the Named Plaintiffs who so participated indicated approval and satisfaction with the proposed settlement in their cases. Given the substantial participation and approval of both local counsel and Named Plaintiffs to the proposed settlements, this factor also weighs in favor of preliminary approval. See Am. Int’l Grp., 2011 WL 3290302, at *7 (“at this point, the only way to gauge any additional opposition is to solicit it by sending notice of the settlement to the class and inviting its members to voice their opinions.”).
11

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 17 of 23
3. The Class Cases Have Been Fully Investigated and Heavily Litigated; Formal Merits Discovery Was Completed in 2007 and Comprehensive Informal Damages Discovery Was Conducted During the Mediation Process
This final consideration is “important because it indicates how fully the district court and counsel are able to evaluate the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.” Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 325; Swift, 2013 WL 5770633, at *7 (same); Am. Int’l Grp., 2011 WL 3290302, at *8 (“more than sufficient discovery has been undertaken to provide the parties with information about their respective litigation positions.”). This factor, too, strongly favors preliminary approval of the proposed settlements.
Formal discovery pertaining to the merits of the claims was extensive and is complete. While formal damage discovery was not conducted given the procedural posture of the case, as noted above, FXG produced all of the data that would have been produced in damages discovery and that was needed by Plaintiffs to evaluate and value the class damage claims in each case during the relevant period. Plaintiffs’ damage expert thoroughly analyzed that data and developed comprehensive damage exposure models according to the theories of liability and the available damages under the substantive law in each case (e.g., wage deductions, deceptive trade practices, rescission and unjust enrichment). Similarly, Class Counsel conducted a careful risk analysis in each case in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the various claims and defenses under each state’s law.
The parties’ investigation, discovery, and thorough analyses of the potential recoveries and risks of further litigation are more than sufficient for Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and the Court to make informed decisions about the merits of the case and the proposed settlements. See Am. Int’l Grp., 2011 WL 3290302, at *8 (“Extensive discovery has undisputedly been completed, and the Court has been presented with volumes of argument, declarations and exhibits. Thus, it is
12

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 18 of 23
impossible to say that the court and the parties are unable to evaluate the merits of their case.”);
Anderson, 755 F. Supp. at 847 (“The deadline for completion of discovery has passed . . . little
more remains to be learned about the strengths and weaknesses of the parties’ cases.”). This
factor therefore also supports preliminary approval of the settlements.
C. PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED CLASS NOTICE PROGRAM MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23(e).
Under Rule 23(e), the Court “must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class
members who would be bound by a proposed settlement.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). The notice
provided to members of a class certified under Rule 23(b)(3) must be the “best notice practicable
under the circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Rule 23(c)(2) enumerates mandatory
components of any initial class notice for a Rule 23(b)(3) class:
 The nature of the action;  The definition of the class certified;  The class claims, issues or defenses;  that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the
member so desires;  that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests
exclusion, stating when and how members may elect to be excluded; and  that a class judgment will include all members who do not request
exclusion. Due process also requires a mailed settlement notice to contain a description of class
members’ rights in the litigation, and notice that class members have an opportunity to be heard
and to participate in the litigation, whether in person or through counsel, and an opportunity to
present objections to the settlement. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 811-12
(1985). The Parties’ proposed mailed Class and Settlement Notice meets each of the
requirements enumerated in Rule 23(c)(2) as well as these additional due process requirements.
The proposed Notices and notice plan satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e) and due
process. The proposed Notices, submitted as Exhibits 3 and 4 to each of the Class Action
13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 19 of 23
Settlement Agreements, will be sent to the Class Members in each case on or about September 12, 2016. The proposed Notices explain: (1) the nature of the action and the terms of the Settlement including (a) the total Settlement Amount, (b) the attorneys’ fees to be requested, (c) how class members’ settlement payments will be calculated, (d) the estimated amount of each class members’ settlement share and the procedure for challenging the calculation, (e) that the class claims will be released, and (f) how the Class Member may collect his portion of the Settlement, exclude himself from the Settlement, or object to the Settlement. See Lace v. Fortis Plastics, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-363, 2015 WL 1383806, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2015); Zolkos, 2014 WL 7011819, at *6. The Class Notice Package will also include a “Computation of Estimated Settlement Share” worksheet that explains to each class member how the estimated amount of his/her settlement share was calculated. Ex. 1.
Prior to mailing the Class Notice Packages, the Settlement Administrator will update the class members addressed supplied by Defendant with both the National Change of Address (NCOA) database and by skip-tracing each address. The Claims Administrator will make further appropriate efforts to locate more current address information for any returned Class Notice Packages and will re-mail those for which an updated address has been found. Ex. 8. This is the best notice practicable. See Lace, 2015 WL 1383806, at *4 (“class notice shall be mailed by first class mail by Settlement Administrator.”); Oaks v. Moss, No. 3:15-cv-00196, 2015 WL 5737595, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2015) (“The class administrator will confirm and if necessary update the addresses for class members through standard methodology that the class administrator currently uses to update addresses.”); Ohayon v. Hertz Corp., No. 5:11-cv-01662 EJD, 2012 WL 4936058, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012) (NCOA search and reasonable diligence to obtain
14

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 20 of 23
addresses for returned mailings met the Rule 23 notice standards). The Notice Plan more than satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(e) and should be approved.
D. CAFA NOTICE OF THE SETTLEMENT IS REQUIRED The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) requires that notice be served on “the appropriate Federal official” and the “appropriate State official” within “[n]ot later than 10 days after a proposed settlement of a class action is filed in court.” 28 U.S.C. §1715(b). The Settlement Agreements in each case each provide for CAFA notice to be given by the Settlement Administrator after preliminary approval is granted in the form required by the statute. Ex. 6. E. THE PROPOSED SERVICE AWARDS ARE REASONABLE Class Counsel requests that each of the eighty-eight Named Plaintiffs who were deposed and participated in discovery be awarded $15,000 service awards in recognition of their service to the respective Classes. Service or incentive awards are typical in class-action cases. Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2009). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, “[b]ecause a named plaintiff is an essential ingredient of any class action, an incentive award is appropriate if it is necessary to induce an individual to participate in the suit.” Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th Cir. 1998); see also In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig., 264 F.3d at 722 (“Incentive awards are justified when necessary to induce individuals to become named representatives.”). See Joint Declarations of Co-Lead Counsel, filed herewith. Relevant factors in determining whether an incentive award is warranted include 1) actions the plaintiff has taken to protect the interests of the class; 2) the degree to which the class benefited from those actions; and 3) the amount of time and effort the plaintiff expended in pursuing the litigation. Cook, 142 F.3d at 1016 (citing Spicer v. Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1226, 1267 (N.D. Ill. 1993)).
15

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 21 of 23
Courts in the Seventh Circuit have repeatedly found an incentive fee of $15,000 or more to be reasonable. In In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litig., No. 11 C 8176, 2013 WL 4510197, *11 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2013), aff’d as modified, 799 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2015), for example, the district court awarded $15,000 each to the two named plaintiffs, finding they had been active participants in the litigation, expending significant amounts of their time to benefit the class— including assisting with written discovery, preparing and sitting for depositions, and consulting with class counsel on a regular basis—and that their efforts benefitted the class. Id. at *11. Moreover, the court noted that awards of $15,000 for each plaintiff were “well within the ranges that are typically awarded in comparable cases.” Id.
Likewise here, Plaintiffs’ counsel believe a service award of $15,000 each to the eightyeight Named Plaintiffs who participated in discovery is reasonable in light of the considerable contributions they made to this litigation, which included gathering documents, answering extensive interrogatories, preparing and sitting for depositions, communicating with Counsel and Class Members, staying up-to-date on the progress of the litigation, and not least of all serving as the public face of the Class with the risks inherent in acting as a named plaintiff against a current or former employer. Throughout this multi-year litigation, the Named Plaintiffs stayed abreast of developments in the case and kept other class members informed. The Named Plaintiffs helped Counsel prepare for the mediations and many attended the mediations, providing a valuable perspective to the settlement process. As a result, the Named Plaintiffs have performed a valuable service to the Classes they represent. FXG does not object to the request for these payments. See generally, Minnesota Joint Decl., ¶ 31.
16

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 22 of 23
Given the achievements for the absent class members and the consistency of this request with service payments awarded in other cases in this circuit, the requested service payments are appropriate here. IV. THE COURT SHOULD SET A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
The third requirement for approval of a class action settlement is a fairness hearing “at which [class members] and all interested parties have an opportunity to be heard.” Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 314; Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Srvs., Co., No. 07-cv-1707, 2016 WL 806546, *6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2016) (courts may approve settlement that binds class members only “after proper notice and a public hearing.”). The parties have requested, and the Court has scheduled, a multi-day fairness hearing with time slots for each of the Class Cases, so that class members in each case will have a full and fair opportunity to express their views as to whether the settlement reached should be approved by the Court. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will consider, among other things, whether to grant final approval of the terms of the Agreement, whether to grant Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs and for service payments to Plaintiffs, as well as any objections to the settlement, Class Counsel’s fee request, or the service payments. These provisions of the proposed settlement and Preliminary Approval Order satisfy “[t]he essence of procedural due process . . . that the parties be given notice and opportunity for a hearing.” Jones v. Nuclear Pharm., Inc., 741 F.2d 322, 325 (10th Cir. 1984); Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 314; Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622, 637-38 (7th Cir. 2014) (requiring notice of requested attorney’s fees so that informed objections may be made at fairness hearing.)
Plaintiffs request that the Court conduct Final Approval Hearings on January 23 and 24, 2017 as previously scheduled by the Court.
17

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN document 2692 filed 06/15/16 page 23 of 23

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (1) grant

preliminary approval of the proposed Settlements in the twenty Settled Case; (2) approve the

form, content, and method of distribution of the Class Notices and order notice to be issued to

the members of each Class; (3) direct that CAFA notice be issued to appropriate state and federal

officials; (4) appoint Rust Consulting as Settlement Administrator; and (5) conduct a fairness

hearing for final approval of the proposed Settlements.

Dated: June 15, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.

Beth A. Ross LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 272-0169 Fax: (510) 272-0174 bross@leonardcarder.com

s/ Susan E. Ellingstad Susan E. Ellingstad 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 seellingstad@locklaw.com
Robert I. Harwood Matthew M. Houston HARWOOD FEFFER LLP 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 935-7400 Fax: (212) 753-3630 rharwood@hfesq.com mhouston@hfesq.com
Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel

18

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE )

SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION (MDL 1700) )

)

CAUSE NOS. 3:05-MD-527 RLM

OPINION AND ORDER All seven New Jersey class representatives object to the proposed settlement between the class and FedEx resolving claims related to the alleged misclassification of employees as independent contractors. The class representatives are now campaigning for other class members to object to the settlement, and both co-lead counsel and FedEx want them to stop. Co-lead counsel learned of the class representatives’ campaign when they received a phone call from a class member who was confused by a communication sent to her that originated with a class representative. The communication included the following information:  The original notice sent to the class members alerting them to the settlement, the upcoming fairness hearing, and their right to object inaccurately stated the average amount of recovery as $71,000, when the average amount is actually $19,000.  The class representatives believe the case to be worth more than the settlement, particularly because the settlement assigned no value to claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

 The total settlement is for $25.5 million, which, after deducting $7.65 million in attorneys’ fees, leaves $17.9 million for the class.
 The class representatives “believe the case is being settled out from under [them] by Class Counsel,” and the representatives’ objections help the class members “to hopefully get a higher value from the case.”
Attached to the letter is a form that the class member can fill out and send to the court and co-lead counsel to register their objection. The form mentions the change in the noticed average recovery and that the signing member objects to the lower amount. It then says that no class representatives agree with the settlement, and that if they don’t agree, the signing class member won’t agree either.
Co-lead counsel requested that the court issue a corrective notice to class members who might have received the communication, order the class representatives to cease and desist from circulating the objection form or any similar form, prohibit the class representatives and their counsel from other unilateral communications with class members until after the court has decided on approval of the settlement, and order the class representatives to show cause why they shouldn’t pay for the corrective notice and attorneys’ fees in connection with this request. FedEx then joined their motion.
The court has the power to “issue orders that: . . . (C) impose conditions on the representative parties or on intervenors; . . . or (E) deal with similar procedural matters.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1). “Because of the potential for abuse, a district court has both the duty and the broad authority to exercise control
2

over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of counsel and parties.” Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 100 (1981).
This duty encompasses protecting class members from communications that intimate that a settlement is different from what it is. See In re VMS Ltd. P’ship Sec. Litig., 138 F.R.D. 102 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (holding that communications incorrectly intimating that agreement would “pool” investors’ interests with financially-distressed entities merited limitation); In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig., 197 F.R.D. 607 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (holding that communications understating amount of settlement and suggesting that a third party’s entitled to a portion of the award required corrective communication); Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.33 (2004) (“Objectors to a class settlement or their attorneys may not communicate misleading or inaccurate statements to class members about the terms of a settlement to induce them to file objections or to opt out.”).
The communications by the class representatives don’t misinform or intimate misinformation. The original notice inaccurately stated the average amount of recovery. Co-lead counsel re-noticed the class in response. The class representatives correctly state the total settlement, as well as the amount anticipated to go to class members and to attorneys. They summarize the reasons behind their objections and encourage class members to support those objections with their own.
Co-lead counsel doesn’t point to any authority suggesting that an objection campaign, so long as it doesn’t misinform, is “abuse” of the class action. Rather, the class representatives seem to have a legitimate role in letting the class know
3

that they’re dissatisfied with the settlement and why. If co-lead counsel wishes to make sure that class members are aware of potential risks in objecting,1 they can communicate with the class members, their clients, on their own. See Manual for Complex Litigation, supra, § 21.33.
“[A]n order limiting communications between parties and potential class members should be based on a clear record and specific findings that reflect a weighing of the need for a limitation and the potential interference with the rights of the parties.” Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 101 (1981). The lack of misinformation weighs against limiting communications. A restriction would hinder class representatives’ ability to express dissatisfaction with the settlement. There’s no need for the court to intervene at this point.
At the fairness hearing, the court will consider the number of objectors and the adequacy of the information on which those objections was based. The court thus DENIES the motion for an emergency injunction, corrective notice, and order to show cause [Doc. No. 2994].
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: February 9, 2017
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court
1 In particular, co-lead counsel wants the court to notify class members “that if the objections succeed, they will receive no settlement compensation now, and that continued litigation could result in no recovery.”
4

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE )

SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION (MDL 1700) )

)

This Document Relates to:

)

TOFAUTE ET AL. V. FEDEX GROUND

)

PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC.

)

)

CAUSE NOS. 3:05-MD-527 RLM CAUSE NO. 3:05-CV-595 RLM

OPINION AND ORDER All seven New Jersey class representatives argue that the settlement agreement into which co-lead counsel and FedEx entered is invalid, such that the court ought to dispose of the settlement before conducting a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2).1 The class representatives also seek discovery.

I. BACKGROUND To mitigate risk of releasing privileged or confidential information, the court only outlines the facts generally. Co-lead counsel, FedEx, and two of the seven class representatives, Michael Tofaute and David McMahon, participated in a mediation in February 2016 to resolve the various claims in the New Jersey class action. Messrs. Tofaute and McMahon allege that they never agreed to the proposed settlement that arose from the mediation. They claim co-lead counsel didn’t communicate an offer to them that would have shifted attorneys’ fees onto
1 The class representatives exceeded the 25-page limit on briefing. The court allows excess pages only “for extraordinary and compelling reasons,” which the class representatives didn’t try to demonstrate. N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(e). The court thus examined only the first 25 pages of the class representatives’ brief.

FedEx instead of the common fund, instead rejecting it out of hand. Mr. McMahon says he didn’t’ want to agree to a settlement under $30 million and thought that co-lead counsel undervalued the case by not considering claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-1 et seq. FedEx and co-lead counsel agreed to a $25.5 million settlement.
Messrs. Tofaute and McMahon claim that New Jersey counsel Anthony Marchetti met with all of the class representatives three months later and encouraged them to agree to the proposed settlement. All declined. They claim that co-lead counsel Matt Houston2 met with six of the seven class representatives in June 2016, and said that if they didn’t sign the settlement, they’d lose their incentive pay while the court would approve the settlement anyway. They claim that Mr. Houston handed out the agreement and Dennis Lynch, one of the class representatives, tore it up.
Frank Cucinotti, the class representative who didn’t attend this meeting, claims that Mr. Marchetti called him afterward and said he had the agreement for Mr. Cucinotti to sign and that the others would “come around” to signing it too. Mr. Cucinotti says he signed the document without realizing that none of the other representatives had done so. He claims he didn’t have a choice and thought he could still fight the settlement even if he signed. He says that once he learned “the settlement figure was so low because of Co-Lead Counsel’s conduct, [he] withdrew [his] signature.”
2 Mr. Houston isn’t listed as an attorney of record.
2

Co-lead counsel and FedEx thus signed onto a settlement agreement purportedly resolving all claims in the New Jersey class action, but only one of the six class representatives signed the agreement.
Co-lead counsel submitted a motion for preliminary approval of the New Jersey class action settlement, which the court granted. None of today’s disputes about the agreement was made known to the court at that time. The court held that “the terms of the Settlement Agreement are preliminarily approved as (a) fair, reasonable, adequate in light of the relevant factual, legal, practical and procedural considerations of the action; (b) free of collusion to the detriment of the class members; and (c) within the range of possible final judicial approval, subject to further consideration thereof at the Fairness Hearing.” The order also approved the form of notice to be sent to class members explaining the settlement and their right to object before final approval. Less than a week later, all seven class representatives objected to final approval of the settlement.
At a scheduling conference to prepare for the upcoming fairness hearings, the class representatives indicated that they weren’t just contesting the fairness of the settlement, but whether co-lead counsel and FedEx ever formed a valid settlement at all. For other reasons, the court postponed the fairness hearings, ordered re-notice to the class members, and extended the objection deadlines. In the meantime, the court invited expedited briefing on the threshold question of whether a valid settlement exists for the court to assess.
3

II. DISCUSSION The class representatives attempt a frontal attack on the settlement – not arguing as to its fairness but as to whether co-lead counsel can ever bind the class to an agreement that all class representatives oppose, that allegedly undervalues the claims, and that was allegedly signed without discussing a proposed fee-shifting arrangement with the class representatives. A court has a “continuing duty to undertake a stringent examination of the adequacy of representation by the named class representatives and their counsel at all stages of the litigation.” In re Gen. Motors Corp. Engine Interchange Litig., 549 F.2d 1106, 1124 (7th Cir. 1979). But this duty manifests itself in this stage of the litigation in its “review [of] the fairness of any compromise of the class action.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The class representatives raise red flags for the court to consider at the fairness hearing. See Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718, 721 (7th Cir. 2014); Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Co., 356 F.3d 781, 785 (7th Cir. 2004). First is that “major claims or types of relief sought in the complaint have been omitted from the settlement.” Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.62 (2004). The settlement provided no relief for claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-1 et seq. Second, “[c]lass counsel must discuss with the class representatives the terms of any settlement offered to the class.” Manual for Complex Litigation, supra, § 21.641. The class representatives claim that co-lead counsel rejected an offer for a fee-shifting arrangement without discussing it with them first. Third, the court considers “the extent of
4

participation in the settlement negotiations by class representatives” and will “examine closely any opposition by class representatives to a proposed settlement.” Id. § 21.62, .642. All seven class representatives oppose the settlement.
But none of these red flags is sufficient to invalidate the settlement before reaching the issue of fairness. It’s possible that the likelihood of success on the Consumer Fraud Act claim is minimal. See Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of the City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 314 (7th Cir. 1980), overruled on other grounds by Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998). “The Manual [for Compex Litigation] condemns settlement agreements which provide that the fees and sometimes expenses of plaintiffs’ counsel are to be paid separately by the defendant(s) over and above the settlement.” In re Gen. Motors Corp. Engine Interchange Litig., 549 F.2d 1106, 1130 (7th Cir. 1979). Last, the class representatives don’t have to agree to a settlement for it to be fair and binding on the class. See id. at 1128 n.34 (“[T]he unanimous approval of all named plaintiffs is not a prerequisite to judicial approval of a settlement approved by some of the named plaintiffs.”); McDonald v. Chi. Milwaukee Corp., 565 F.2d 416, 426 (7th Cir. 1977) (discussing Saylor v. Lindsay¸ 456 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1972) for the proposition that the assent of the plaintiffs who brought a derivative action is not essential to a settlement); Charron v. Wiener, 731 F.3d 241, 253 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[T]he assent of class representatives is not essential to the settlement, as long as the Rule 23 requirements are met.”); Manual for Complex Litigation, supra, § 21.642 (“A class representative cannot alone veto a settlement
5

. . . .”); 6 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 19:25 (5th ed. 2016) (“[T]he class representatives cannot command class counsel to accept or reject a settlement proposal. To the contrary, class counsel must determine whether seeking the court’s approval of a settlement would be in the best interests of the class as a whole.”). The class representatives don’t show that unanimous disapproval invalidates a settlement.
The class representatives thus raise bases for the court to assess “whether the compromise agreement, taken as a whole, is in the best interest of the parties seeking relief,” McDonald v. Chi. Milwaukee, 565 F.2d at 427, but they don’t undercut the agreement before even getting to that issue.
“The goal of the fairness hearing is to adduce all information necessary to enable the judge intelligently to rule on whether the proposed settlement is ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate.’” Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 616 F.2d at 314. To prepare for the fairness hearing, the class representatives might be entitled to discovery on these red flags. See In re Gen. Motors Corp. Engine Interchange Litig., 549 F.2d 1106, 1124 (7th Cir. 1979) (“[T]he conduct of the negotiations was relevant to the fairness of the settlement and [ ] the trial court’s refusal to permit discovery or examination of the negotiations constituted an abuse of discretion.”). Objectors operate “in an adversary relationship with both plaintiffs and defendants and [are] entitled to at least a reasonable opportunity to discovery against both.” Id. at 1125 n.28.
But to get discovery, the class representatives must first “lay[ ] a foundation by adducing from other sources evidence indicating that the
6

settlement may be collusive.” Mars Steel Corp. v. Cont’l Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi., 834 F.2d 677, 684 (7th Cir. 1987); Vollmer v. Publishers Clearing House, 248 F.3d 698, 707-708 (7th Cir. 2001) (applying Mars Steel to class members); Manual for Complex Litigation, supra, § 21.643.3 Besides their own allegations that co-lead counsel was self-dealing, class representatives don’t point to anything that actually shows it. As mentioned, a knee-jerk rejection against fee-shifting arrangements might only inhibit collusion. In re Gen. Motors Corp. Engine Interchange Litig., 549 F.2d at 1130. Without foundation to support a finding of collusion, discovery won’t proceed.
III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the court holds that the settlement agreement is valid, DENIES the class representatives’ motion to compel [3:05-cv-595, Doc. No. 227] [3:05-md-527, Doc. No. 2984], and declines to direct any discovery as to whether the agreement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). SO ORDERED. ENTERED: February 14, 2017
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court
3 The class representatives don’t point to any law that a client’s right to her attorney’s file extends to a class representative’s right to the documents co-lead counsel used in negotiating a settlement agreement on behalf of the class. Cf. 4 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 13:32 (5th ed. 2016) (“One of the reasons that settlement negotiations are subjected to a particularly heightened discovery request is that these negotiations are typically confidential in nature, undertaken pursuant to a confidentiality agreement among the settling parties, and plausibly protected by various privileges.”).
7

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE )

SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION (MDL 1700) )

)

This Document Relates to:

)

TOFAUTE ET AL. V. FEDEX GROUND

)

PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC.

)

)

CAUSE NOS. 3:05-MD-527 RLM CAUSE NO. 3:05-CV-595 RLM

OPINION AND ORDER I recently approved the final settlement agreements in this class action and eighteen others, all consolidated in an MDL that’s now twelve years old, all resolving claims related to whether FedEx Ground truck drivers were employees or independent contractors. I also granted in part the class counsel’s fee requests in each.1 Counsel for the objecting class representatives in Tofaute, the New Jersey class action, now ask for fees and costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). If the named plaintiffs in a typical class action are mere “pawns” or “paws” of the class lawyers, Mars Steel Corp. v. Cont’l Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 834 F.2d 677, 681 (7th Cir. 1987); In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., 629 F.3d 741, 744 (7th Cir. 2011), then this class action is far from typical. After I granted preliminary approval of the New Jersey action’s settlement agreement, the seven class representatives retained counsel to fight against final approval and class counsel’s fee petition.

1 The motions for final approval of the settlement agreement and attorney fees in the Kansas class action, Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., 3:05-cv-530, are still pending.

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 2 of 14
I. BACKGROUND This opinion starts with an overview of the class representatives’ litigation leading up to my order approving the settlement agreement and granting in part the class counsel’s fee request. An overview of the history of the class action and this MDL can be found in that order. [Doc. No. 257]; Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 3:05-cv-595, 2017 WL 1716276, at *1-4 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 28, 2017). After preliminary approval of the settlement agreement between class counsel and FedEx Ground, all seven class representatives retained Nagel Rice LLP and DiSabato & Bouckenooghe LLC to object to the fairness of the agreement. The grounds for their objections were that class counsel undervalued the drivers’ claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1 et seq., when it settled those claims for nothing, and under the remaining claims when class counsel settled them for about 55 percent of class counsel’s estimate of their potential value. Fairness hearings on the settlement agreements resolving all twenty cases in the MDL were scheduled for January 23 and 24, 2017. The court was to hold a meeting on January 17 to discuss the format for the upcoming fairness hearings. Before the January 17 meeting, the class representatives found an error in the notice to class members as to the average amount of recovery under the settlement agreement2 and as to whether the class representatives approved
2 The notice stated that the average recovery for the New Jersey class was $71,194 when, in fact, it was $19,301. This was a clerical error. $71,194 was actually the maximum amount a class member would recover. The notice correctly stated the recipient’s estimated settlement payment.
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 3 of 14
the settlement. They asked that new notice be issued showing the corrected average recovery amount and explaining that the class representatives don’t approve of the settlement. They also asked that the fairness hearings be adjourned.
The class representatives then asked to be allowed to appear at the upcoming organizational meeting, which I granted. They reiterated the problems with notice and also indicated that they intend to challenge the underlying validity of a settlement agreement that isn’t approved by any of the class representatives. For reasons unrelated to the notice issue, I decided that the fairness hearings would need to be postponed. At the request of class counsel and FedEx Ground, I rescheduled the hearings for March 13 and 14, 2017. Given the additional time before the fairness hearings, the class representatives sent another request to the court to order a revised notice.
Before ruling on the class representatives’ re-notice requests, class counsel and FedEx Ground stipulated that they would re-notice the class. Their proposed notice said that this notice was amended to correct certain errors, which would appear in boldface throughout the notice. It updated the fairness hearing date, the average settlement figure, and sentences about who supported the agreement to say that the class representatives didn’t support it. It also included an extended objection deadline.
Class counsel and FedEx Ground said they didn’t believe the errors in the first notice were material, but that they were willing to re-notice the class out of “an abundance of caution,” and “to eliminate any possible doubt as to whether
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 4 of 14
the Class had sufficient information.” The class representatives asked for the new notice to mention several more times that the class representatives don’t agree with the settlement and that they’ve hired their own counsel to pursue their objections. I found the stipulated re-notice to be sufficient and the class representatives’ proposed additions to be overkill that could confuse more than educate. I ordered the re-notice according to the stipulation, extended the objection deadline, and gave the class representatives time to argue about the validity of a settlement agreement that all class representatives oppose. [MDL Doc. No. 2979]. About a week later, the class representatives filed a letter saying that the class action website still contained the old and inaccurate information from the initial notice. Class counsel promptly updated the website.
Next, the class representatives submitted a brief explaining that they had asked class counsel for documents relating to the mediation and for the opportunity to depose class counsel, but that class counsel never responded. They argued that class counsel, as the class representatives’ lawyers until the class representatives obtained outside counsel, must give the class representatives access to their file. They also sought discovery. They then sent another letter to the court requesting discovery to aid their argument that the parties never reached a valid settlement.
By this time, it became known to class counsel that the class representatives were organizing an objection campaign amongst the class members. The class representatives sent out letters to class members explaining the error in the initial notice and that they believe the case to be worth more
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 5 of 14
than the amount for which it was settled. Attached to the letters were forms the recipients could fill out and send back to the court to register their objections. The forms said that the signatory objects to an average settlement amount that’s lower than originally noticed, and that if the class representatives don’t agree with the settlement, the signatory won’t agree either.
Class counsel asked me to issue a corrective notice to class members who might have received the communication, to enjoin the class representatives from circulating the form, and to order the class representatives to show cause why they shouldn’t have to pay for the corrective notice. I held that the class representatives have the right to drum up objections from their peers as long as they don’t misinform them, and so I denied class counsel’s request. [MDL Doc. No. 3001].
While awaiting my opinion on the emergency injunction, the class representatives filed their brief addressing the facial validity of the settlement agreement. They argued that during settlement negotiations, class counsel didn’t discuss a proposed settlement with the class representatives that involved feeshifting. They argued that this failure, combined with the class representatives’ unanimous opposition and class counsel’s alleged undervaluing of the claims, makes the settlement invalid on its face. I rejected these arguments. Even though the class representatives’ opposition and class counsel’s settling one of the claims for nothing raise red flags for fairness review, see Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718, 721 (7th Cir. 2014), none of these is sufficient to knock out a settlement agreement before fairness review. I also denied the class
5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 6 of 14
representatives’ request for discovery because they didn’t lay a foundation of collusion or self-dealing that justified prying open the settlement process. [MDL Doc. No. 3004]. And so we marched on toward the fairness hearings.
On the last day of the newly-extended objection period, the class representatives filed a brief opposing class counsel’s request for fees of thirty percent of the class’s $25.5 million recovery. First, they argued that all twenty of the cases in the MDL should be treated as a single “megafund” that, because of its enormity and the overlap in work across state class actions, merits a reduced percentage recovery for class counsel. In the alternative, they recommended a “sliding scale” for recovery. They also sought a lodestar cross-check to make sure the fees are reasonable and to prevent class counsel from recovering multiple times for work performed in other class actions in the MDL.
In the meantime, the court received objections from 43 other class members who filled out the objection form that the class representatives circulated.3
The class representatives’ counsel appeared at the fairness hearing on the New Jersey class action on March 14, 2017. I gave all sides opportunity to argue over whether class counsel and FedEx Ground reached a fair compromise of the New Jersey class’s claims, and whether class counsel sought a reasonable fee
3 Months earlier, the court also received an unrelated objection from George Ponzoni, who wasn’t represented, and whose objection I addressed and overruled in the order approving the final settlement agreement. [Doc. No. 257]; Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 3:05-cv595, 2017 WL 1716276, at *8 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 28, 2017).
6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 7 of 14
award. About six weeks later, I approved the final settlement agreement and awarded almost all of class counsel’s requested fee.4
The class representatives’ counsel now asks for $388,006 in attorney fees and $7,836.13 in costs for their work on this litigation, to be paid from fees otherwise designated for class counsel.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “[O]bjectors play an essential role in judicial review of proposed [class action] settlements” because they guard against collusive deals between class counsel and defendants. Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778, 787 (7th Cir. 2014). Class counsel “may be willing to settle for less for the class if the defendants will help them obtain a generous fee award, and the defendants will be happy to help them if the sum of the fee award and the relief granted to the class is smaller than it would be if the class lawyers pressed for more generous relief for the class.” In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., 629 F.3d 741, 743 (7th Cir. 2011) (italics omitted). “It is desirable to have as broad a range of participants in the fairness hearings as possible because of the risk of collusion over attorneys’ fees and the terms of settlement generally.” Reynolds v. Beneficial Nat’l Bank, 288 F.3d 277, 288 (7th Cir. 2002). Rule 23(h) allows for objectors’ counsel “who contribute materially to the proceeding to obtain a fee.” Id. at 288; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). To contribute
4 I reduced the fee slightly only because I deducted administrative costs before deriving the final fee amount. See Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622, 630 (7th Cir. 2014). This wasn’t done at the request of the class representatives or any other party.
7

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 8 of 14
materially, “the objectors [must] produce an improvement in the settlement worth more than the fee they are seeking; otherwise they have rendered no benefit to the class.” Id. at 286. While settling class counsel has incentive to undervalue a claim, objectors can be “motivated to exaggerate the value of the claim . . . so that they could get a generous award of attorneys’ fees.” Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp., 551 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2008).
Just as class counsel acts on a contingency basis, so too do the objectors. If their work doesn’t benefit the class enough to justify paying them, they lose the gamble and don’t get paid. “A proper attorneys’ fee award is based on success obtained and expense (including opportunity cost of time) incurred.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION The benefit the objecting class representatives produced for the class was a modest one. They caught the errors in the notice, which understated the class members’ average recovery and indicated that the class representatives supported the deal. Through their litigation of this issue, the class (or at least those members who read the notice) became better informed as to how their fellow drivers would be compensated and the strength of opposition to the deal. Class counsel argues that the class representatives shouldn’t be credited for the re-notice. They say that they stipulated to re-noticing the class without a court order and that they weren’t obligated to re-notice because the estimated recovery for each class member was correct in the original notice. Regardless of whether the updated notice was required or only done out of “an abundance of
8

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 9 of 14
caution,” the new notice helped provide class members with information that could assist them in deciding whether or how to object. The settlements in this class action, averaging $19,301 per member, were large enough that this information could have swayed members to retain counsel to handle their objections. Class counsel also caught similar errors on the class action website.
But there’s no other area where the class representatives’ litigation could be considered a “success” in that it actually resulted in an improvement for the class. The class representatives’ argument that the settlement agreement was facially invalid because all class representatives opposed it and because it settled one of the claims for no value had little basis in law and just reiterated arguments that came out in assessing the settlement’s fairness. Their requests for discovery didn’t provide a foundation for collusion that the law required. I refused to prohibit the class representatives from circulating fliers to other class members to encourage them to object, but the objections the class representatives elicited didn’t bring out any new issues or reasons for disapproval.5
As to the fairness of the settlement agreement, after I evaluated the class’s claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, I concluded that class counsel was perfectly reasonable in treating the likelihood of success on those claims as negligible and settling them for nothing. A settlement on the remaining claims at fifty-five percent of their maximum expected return, given the likelihood
5 It was also never explained how involved the class representatives’ attorneys were in the objection campaign. Because the attorneys never took credit for the campaign, even if the campaign resulted in stronger arguments for disapproval, the attorneys wouldn’t have deserved compensation for it.
9

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 10 of 14
of further deductions as well as the added time and expense of continuing to litigate, also seemed perfectly reasonable. In evaluating class counsel’s fee request, I determined that a thirty percent award seemed a good approximation of what class counsel could have negotiated with the plaintiffs ex ante, and so I approved that too.
The class representatives argue that the settlement doesn’t have to be improved to qualify for fees if “[t]he objections to the settlement caused th[e] Court to spend even more hours in analyzing and assessing the complex settlement agreement, and cast in sharp focus the question of the fairness and adequacy of the settlement to all the members of the class.” Frankenstein v. McCrory Corp., 425 F. Supp. 762, 767 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). They argue that even if objections don’t improve the terms of the settlement, objectors should be paid if “their efforts have been of assistance to the court.” Howes v. Atkins, 668 F. Supp. 1021, 1027 (E.D. Ky. 1987); In re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 148 F.R.D. 297, 358 (N.D. Ga. 1993) (“If objectors’ appearance sharpens the issues and debate on the fairness of the settlement, their performance of the role of devil’s advocate warrants a fee award.”).
Regardless of whether the objectors assisted the court through added debate alone, this isn’t the law in our circuit. To get paid, the objectors must “produce an improvement in the settlement worth more than the fee they are seeking; otherwise they have rendered no benefit to the class.” Reynolds v. Beneficial Nat’l Bank, 288 F.3d 277, 288 (7th Cir. 2002). “A proper attorneys’ fee award is based on success obtained and expense (including opportunity cost of
10

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 11 of 14
time) incurred.” Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp., 551 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2008). Without tangible benefit to the class, there’s no basis for a fee award.
The class representatives rely on a case from a sister district, Great Neck Capital Appreciation Investment Partnership, L.P. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P. for the proposition that “enhanc[ing] the adversarial process by generating debate about issues relating to the proposed settlement” merits fees. 212 F.R.D. 400, 412 (E.D. Wis. 2002). The critical distinction in Great Neck Capital is that the objector there did much more than just get the court to write a more elaborate opinion. The objector’s litigation resulted in a renegotiated settlement agreement that preserved the class’s ERISA claims, which the original agreement would have released. The objector merited fees because she “contributed materially to the proceeding both by benefitting a given group of litigants and the class a whole, and also by assisting the court and enhancing the adversarial process.” Id. at 413. In contrast, these class representatives certainly made the fairness hearings more adversarial, but their arguments ultimately held no water, which provided no benefit to the class.
Not only did the settlement agreement and the attorney fee award remain unchanged as a result of the class representatives’ litigation, but some of the objectors’ tactics were vexatious. First, the class representatives’ arguments often ran counter to binding precedent. Rather than discard those arguments or at least acknowledge the inconsistency, they selectively quoted, conveniently ignoring the language that outright contradicted them.
11

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 12 of 14
The most glaring example of this was in the class representatives’ brief opposing the class counsel’s fee request. Their primary argument was that all cases in the MDL should be treated as a single “megafund.” Because of the sheer size of the total MDL settlements, they argued, the attorneys should receive a lower percentage award than they would for smaller recoveries. The class representatives cited a portion of binding case-law that could arguably allow for this proposition. See In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig., 264 F.3d 712, 718 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[W]hen deciding on appropriate fee levels in common-fund cases, court must do their best to award counsel the market price for legal services . . . .”). But they omitted the sentence from that same paragraph explicitly rejecting what they asked the court to do. Id. (“We have never suggested that a ‘megafund rule’ trumps these market rates . . . .”), quoted in Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 3:05-cv-595, 2017 WL 1716276, at *11 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 28, 2017). This didn’t “enhance the adversarial process.” Rather, it only “compelled [the court] to expend time and energy addressing an argument that [the objectors] should not have made and that did not benefit the class.” Gehrich v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 12 C 5510, 2016 WL 3027831, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2016).
Second, I was disappointed with the objectors’ accusations that class counsel and FedEx Ground colluded in this case on a total payout for the entire MDL, regardless of the strength of the individual state-law claims. [Doc. No. 257]; Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 3:05-cv-595, 2017 WL 1716276, at *13-14 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 28, 2017). Their language of “sleight of hand” and “efforts to misdirect this Court” wasn’t grounded in evidence, and “it doesn’t
12

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 13 of 14
persuade, it doesn’t add credibility to the rest of the argument, and it serves to reduce even further the esteem with which [the] public sees the legal profession.” Id.
The law abounds with examples of class counsel, in exchange for fast or fat attorney fees, selling out a class whose claims are worth more, and whose interests are too diffuse to monitor their attorneys’ performance. See, e.g., Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014); Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 463 F.3d 646, 652-654 (7th Cir. 2006); Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp., 356 F.3d 781, 785 (7th Cir. 2004). But I had no reason to think this was such a case. The objectors offered no foundation for collusion when they sought discovery into the settlement process. [MDL Doc. No. 3004]; Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 3:05-cv-595, 2017 WL 632119, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 14, 2017) (quoting Mars Steel Corp. v. Cont’l Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi., 834 F.2d 677, 684 (7th Cir. 1987)). Class and co-lead counsel worked on these cases for more than a decade, litigating them past my grants of summary judgment on to our court of appeals, to the Kansas Supreme Court, and then to intensive negotiations based on calculated assessments of the strengths of the various state-law claims. The payoff for the lawyers was undoubtedly large. But that doesn’t indicate collusion, and that doesn’t indicate a fee different from what an ex ante bargain likely would have produced.
Where objectors’ benefits to the class are meager and their litigation tactics are misleading or needlessly accusatory, I find little basis for a fee award. See Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp., 551 F.3d 682, 688 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The
13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3075 filed 06/12/17 page 14 of 14
improvement that the objectors produced in this case, minus the detriment caused by their courtroom antics, barely justified the modest fee that the judge awarded them.”). The class representatives improved the notice to the class about the average fee award and the class representatives’ opposition to the settlement. But this benefit was modest at best. The new notice resulted in more objections, but no better bases for objection. It resulted in no change to the settlement agreement or to class counsel’s fee award. The modest benefit to the class was far outweighed by the resources spent litigating points of law that were contrary to precedent, and accusations that undermined faith in the proceedings. I don’t find a fee to be warranted here.
IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the class representatives’ motion for attorney fees and costs [Doc. No. 259] is DENIED. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: June 12, 2017
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge United States District Court
14

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE )

SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT

)

PRACTICES LITIGATION (MDL 1700) )

)

This Document Relates to:

)

)

CARLENE M. CRAIG, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

vs.

)

)

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYS., INC. )

)

Defendant

)

Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM Cause No. 3:05-CV-530 RLM

OPINION AND ORDER For the following reasons, the court grants the plaintiffs’ motion1 for preliminary approval of the proposed ERISA class action settlement [Doc. No. 3152].
I. Procedural History The plaintiffs filed this suit, the Kansas ERISA class action, in 2004, and amended their complaint in January 2006 to include an ERISA national class action. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a nationwide ERISA class in October 2007. The class included:

1 Not all of the plaintiffs named in the Fifth Amended Complaint joined in the motion for preliminary approval. Carlene Craig withdrew as a named plaintiff on November 29, 2006 [Doc. No. 409], and Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco have filed objections to the motion [Doc. No.3166].

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 2 of 13
All persons who: 1) entered into a FXG Ground or FXG Home Delivery Form Operating Agreement (now known as a Form OP-149 and Form OP-149 RES); 2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employmet absences) during the class period to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were eligible for ERISA Plan benefits, absent their mischaracterization as independent contractors. [Doc. No. 906].2
On June 28, 2010, the court granted FedEx Ground’s motion for partial
summary judgment, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ ERISA claims without prejudice
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. [Doc. No. 2078]. Pursuant to the
order, only the named plaintiffs in the Craig case were required to exhaust their
administrative remedies. Id. at p. 32 (citing In re Household Int’l Tax Reduction
Plan, 441 F.3d 500, 501-02 (7th Cir. 2006)).
Administrative review was completed in February 2011, while the Craig case
was on appeal. When the court of appeals remanded the case in July 2015, the
parties moved for an immediate stay, so they could engage in settlement
negotiations.
2 Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint and Section I(B) of the proposed Settlement Agreement modify the class to exclude class members in the Arkansas, Florida, and Indiana cases, Harris v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 4:06CV-175 (E.D. Ark.), Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 8:05-CV-1380 (M.D. Fla.), and Riewe v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 3:05-CV-390 (N.D. Ind.), because they released their ERISA claims under the terms of prior settlements [Doc. No. 3076-1 at ¶ 41][Doc. No. 3154-1], but the parties have not sought leave to amend the certification.
Page 2 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 3 of 13
Michael Dickstein was selected to serve as mediator, and successfully negotiated the settlement of the non-ERISA claims. Mediation on the ERISA claims was set for June 6, 2016. In preparation, the plaintiffs retained a forensic accounting expert, David Breshears, to calculate their potential damages and to prepare a damage exposure model, the parties exchanged their damages models, and plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel consulted with local counsel for the named plaintiffs and coordinated their attendance at the mediation. The parties didn’t reach an agreement on June 6, 2016, but they continued to work with Mr. Dickstein toward resolution of the ERISA claims, and on June 7, 2017 executed a “Deal Point Memorandum” setting forth the terms of a tentative settlement.
On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended Complaint reasserting the ERISA claims and related state law claims,3 and in late August/early September 2017 they executed the Settlement Agreement [Doc. No. 3154-1] for which the plaintiffs now seek preliminary approval.
II. The Proposed Settlement Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, FedEx Ground would pay $13,325,000 (the “Total Settlement Fund”) to resolve all ERISA class claims (and
3 The Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint asserts claims for violations of ERISA and the Kansas Wage Payment Act, rescission of the Operating Agreement, fraud, and declaratory judgment [Doc. No. 3076-1]. The plaintiffs report that the state law claims contained in the original and amended complaints were settled on October 29, 2015, after the case was remanded with instructions to find that the plaintiffs were employees. [Doc. No. 3153 at p. 10] [Doc. No. 3154 at ¶¶ 14].
Page 3 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 4 of 13
similar state laws) that were brought, or could have been brought, against FedEx
Ground during the release period, which runs from the beginning of “the class
period” (February 11, 1998 for Kansas class members and January 9, 2001 for all
other class members) through September 8, 2017, “the date of filing [the] motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement”. [Doc. No. 3154-1(Sec. I(W))]. In
exchange, the named plaintiffs and all class members who don’t opt out would be
required to execute a general release of any claim they had or may have had
during that 15-year period.
The plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel propose to distribute the $13,325,000
settlement this way:
(1) Administration and notice costs – approximately $125,000;
(2) Service awards to the 13 named plaintiffs – totaling $67,500;
(3) Attorneys’ fees – a “maximum of” $4,377,062 (33.33% of the Total Settlement Fund after deductions for administrative costs and service awards);
(4) Life Insurance Fund – 52.5% of the “net common fund” (an estimated $4,527,659.20) will be allocated “to resolve claims for life insurance benefits presented by the legal heirs or estates of deceased class members who died while their [FedEx Ground] contracts were active,” with any remaining balance reverting to FedEx Ground;
(5) General Settlement Fund – 47.5% of the “net common fund” (an estimated $4,104,251.97) will be allocated “to resolve the ERISA benefit claims under the other employee benefit plans that were in effect during the release period, which include the [FedEx Ground] medical, dental, vision, long term disability, short term disability, and 401(k) plans,” with no reversion; and
Page 4 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 5 of 13
(6) Reserve Fund – $131,325 (1% of the Total Settlement Fund after deductions for administrative costs and service awards).4 [Doc. No. 3153 at p. 12][Doc. No. 3154 at ¶¶ 17-18]. Counsel estimated that the average recovery per class member will be around $197.01 (ranging between $10.07 to $764.93), and asserted that the $13,325,000 settlement “represents approximately 127% of net expected settlement value and approximately 25% of Plaintiffs’ maximum damages (including interest under ERISA – well within the range of reasonable settlement value.” [Doc. No. 3153 at pp. 13 and 23-24][Doc. No. 3154 at ¶ 28]. Two of the named plaintiffs, Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco, filed an objection to the motion for preliminary approval, contending that: “[t]he proposed settlement is premised on the assumption that there is no possibility of plaintiffs prevailing on any ERISA claims after 2001 and 2002" – when FedEx Ground amended its medical and 401(k) benefit plans to exclude from coverage persons who were “independent contractors later adjudged by a court to be an employee” [Doc. No. 3154-13] – but requires class members to release FedEx from liability for any ERISA claims that may have arisen in the fifteen years since the plans
4 By the court’s calculation, the net Settlement Fund available for distribution to the General Settlement and Life Insurance Funds would be $8,624,113 ($13,325,000-$125,000 (administrative and notice costs)-$67,500 (service awards)$4,377,062 (attorneys’ fees)- $131,325 (Reserve Fund)). Of that amount, $4,527,659.20 would be allocated to the Life Insurance Fund (52.5% of the net Settlement Fund), as plaintiffs contend, leaving $4,096,453.68 (not $4,104,251.87) for the General Settlement Fund (47.5% of the net Settlement Fund) – a difference of approximately $7,798.
Page 5 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 6 of 13
were amended, without providing any compensation for the extended release. Counsel for Mr. Perry and Mr. Pacheco believes the fifteen-year release required under the settlement’s terms is unreasonable because class members might still have a viable ERISA claim after 2001 based on an alleged violation of the antidiscrimination provisions in § 401(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the value of that claim, even if minimal, wasn’t included in the plaintiffs’ damages model or considered by Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel in determining what a reasonable settlement would be.5 But that argument is speculative at best, and unsupported by the evidence.
The objecting plaintiffs’ counsel makes conclusory statements about what the projected value of any post-2001 claims might be, and surmises that the total maximum damages might reach $810 million – a far cry from the $53,712,484 maximum damages estimate used by Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead and Class Counsel as the starting point in determining what a reasonable settlement might be. But she provides no evidentiary basis for her calculations and only a cursory statement
5 Plaintiffs’ counsel opines that: (1) the amendments to the benefit plans may violate IRS anti-discrimination provisions [Internal Revenue Code § 401(m)], which “would not allow FedEx to exclude its drivers from coverage because, if the drivers are employees (regardless of how they are classified), the plans would be overly ‘top heavy’, meaning that they would provide benefits disproportionately to higher paid employees (i.e. FedEx managers)”; and (2) “ERISA may provide a private right of action to enforce these provisions.” Citing i.e., Crouch v. Mo-Kan Iron Workers Welfare Fund, 740 F.2d 805, 808-09 (10th Cir. 1984); Renda v. Adam Meldrum & Anderson Co., 806 F.Supp. 1071, 1082 (W.D. N.Y. 1992). [Doc. No. 3166 at p. 2-3, n. 5].
Page 6 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 7 of 13
regarding her IRC theory of liability; she hasn’t shown that the proposed
settlement is unreasonable.
Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead and Class Counsel attest in their affidavits that:
• Their valuation of the ERISA claims was based upon the report of a forensic accountant, David Breshears, taking into consideration the multiple risks associated with this litigation, the likelihood of success of the § 501(a)(1) claims raised in the Fifth Amended Complaint, and the viability of claims that might exist after FedEx Ground amended the medical and 401(k) plans, including the IRC claim.
• “After researching the legal issues and considering such a claim in the context of the facts presented, counsel for the [class representatives] determined the likelihood of success on any such claim to be extremely low and assigned a very low probability of succeeding on claims other than under Section 502(a)(1) for benefits.”
• Applying the same discounts used to value the other ERISA claims and assuming the IRC claim had a likelihood of success between .05% and 5%, the settlement range for that claim would add between $77,200 and $7,720,000 to the estimated net value of the other ERISA claims ($10,436,200) for an aggregate settlement range of between $10,513,400 and $18,156,200.
• The $13,325,000 proposed settlement is “just below midpoint of th[at] range” and is “within the range of a reasonable settlement.”
[Doc. No. 3154 at ¶¶ 26-30][Doc. No. 3168 at ¶¶ 3-8].
Based upon the limited record before it, the court agrees. Neither Mr. Perry,
nor Mr. Pacheco, has presented any evidence to the contrary.
III. Findings and Conclusions
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the court FINDS that the terms of the
Settlement Agreement are: (a) fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the
Page 7 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 8 of 13
relevant factual, legal, practical and procedural considerations of the action; (b) free of collusion to the detriment of the class members; and (c) within the range of possible final judicial approval, subject to further consideration thereof at the Fairness Hearing described in this Order and GRANTS the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement [Doc. No. 3152].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are preliminarily approved, as set forth below, subject to further consideration at a Fairness Hearing, which shall be held before this court on March 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (E.D.T.). The Settlement Agreement [Doc. No. 3154-1] is incorporated by reference in this Order. 2. The Settlement is sufficient to warrant notice thereof, as set forth below, and a full hearing. 3. The court has received and reviewed the proposed form of Notice of Settlement to Class Members (“Notice”) attached as Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6 to the Settlement Agreement. The proposed Notices in the forms submitted to the court are hereby approved. The court further finds that notice by mail is the most effective form of notice under the circumstances of this case, where the class members have been identified by Defendant’s records. As provided in the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator shall mail (or cause to be mailed) the Notice to the class members. Notice shall be mailed on or before November 5, 2018. If any Notice is returned as undeliverable, the Settlement
Page 8 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 9 of 13
Administrator shall re-mail the Notice to the forwarding address, if any, provided on the face of the returned mail. If the returned mail does not reflect a forwarding address, then neither class counsel nor any other party shall have any further obligation to re-mail the Notice.
4. Any newly-identified class member who wishes to be excluded from and not be bound by the Settlement Agreement must complete and mail a request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator postmarked no later than 30 days after transmittal of the Notice with certain exceptions identified in the parties’ Settlement Agreement. For a class member’s opt-out to be valid, it must be timely (as judged by the postmarked deadline set forth above) and (a) state the Class Member’s full name, address, and telephone number; (b) state unequivocally that the Class Member wishes to opt out from the settlement; and (c) include the Class Member’s signature (an attorney’s signature is not sufficient). Any class member who does not submit a timely opt-out, and otherwise comply with all requirements for requesting exclusion from the classes as set forth above and in the Notice, shall be bound by the Settlement Agreement, including the Release provisions therein, and any Final Approval and Final Approval Order entered in the action. Further, any class member who is a successful opt-out will be deemed to have waived any rights or benefits under the settlement, and will have no standing to object to the settlement or to seek to intervene in the Action. On or before the date
Page 9 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 10 of 13
of the Fairness Hearing, class counsel and defendant’s counsel shall create and jointly file with the court a comprehensive list of opt-outs.
5. Any class member who does not opt out and who wishes to object to the settlement, in whole or in part, must file a written objection with the court by January 4, 2019 (60 days after mailing of the Settlement Notices) (see Sec VI(A)(2) of the Settlement Agreement), and send copies to Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and FedEx Ground. To be considered valid, each objection must be timely (as judged by the filing deadline set forth above) and (a) provide the Class Member’s full name, address, signature, and telephone number; (b) explain the basis of the objection; and (c) state whether the objector intends to appear at the Fairness Hearing. Any class member who does not submit a timely and valid objection in complete accordance with this Order, the Notice of Settlement, and the Settlement Agreement shall not be treated as having filed a valid objection to the settlement. Objections that are untimely and/or otherwise invalid will not be considered by this Court. In the event any objections are filed, Plaintiffs and/or Defendant may file any response to any objections no later than 7 days prior to the Fairness Hearing.
6. A Fairness Hearing shall be held before the undersigned on March 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (E.D.T.), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, 204 S. Main Street, South Bend, Indiana, to determine, among other things; (a) whether the proposed settlement should be approved as fair,
Page 10 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 11 of 13
reasonable, and adequate; (b) whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (c) whether class members should be bound by the release set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement; (d) the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs to be awarded to class counsel; and (e) the amount to be awarded to Plaintiffs for their services as class representatives, if any. This hearing may be postponed, adjourned, or continued by order of the court without further written notice to the class. Class Members who have filed timely objections to the Settlement and timely notice to the Court of their intent to appear at the Fairness Hearing may appear either in person or telephonically (see Section VI(A)3) of the Settlement Agreement).
7. Rust Consulting, Inc. is designated and approved as the Settlement Administrator to perform the functions identified in Sections II and V of the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code and Treas. Reg. § 1.468B-1, 26 CFR § 1.468B-1, et seq., and this Order.
8. Applications for awards of attorneys’ fees, costs, settlement administration expenses, and any service awards, shall be filed with the court on or before October 20, 2018. Objections shall be filed on or before January 4, 2019. The plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval and Memoranda in support of the settlement shall be filed on or before April 4, 2019.
Page 11 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 12 of 13
9. All other events contemplated by the Settlement Agreement to occur after this Order and before Final Approval shall be governed by the Settlement Agreement, to the extent not inconsistent with this order.
10. The parties are authorized to establish the means necessary to administer the Settlement.
11. All proceedings in the action, other than those that may be necessary to carry out the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement or related and/or incidental responsibilities are stayed and suspended until further order of this Court.
12. If Final Approval of the settlement is not granted, or if the settlement is terminated for any reason, the settlement and all proceedings had in connection shall be without prejudice to the status quo ante rights of the parties to the action, and all orders issued pursuant to the settlement shall be vacated. In such an event, the settlement and all negotiations concerning it shall not be used or referred to in this action for any purpose whatsoever. This Order shall be of no force or effect if Final Approval does not occur for any reason, and nothing in this Order shall be construed or used as an admission, concession, or declaration by or against defendant, of any fault, wrongdoing, breach, or liability. Nor shall this Order be construed by or against Plaintiffs or the Class Members that their claims lack merit or that the relief requested in this action is inappropriate, improper, or unavailable, or as a waiver by any party of any defenses it may have.
Page 12 of 13

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3241 filed 09/05/18 page 13 of 13 13. Neither the settlement nor the Settlement Agreement constitutes an
admission, concession, or indication by the parties of the validity of any claims or defenses in the action; or of any wrongdoing, liability, or violation of law by the defendant, who vigorously deny all of the claims and allegations raised in the action.
14. The court reserves the right to approve the settlement with such modifications, if any, as may be agreed to by class counsel and defendant’s counsel without future notice to the class members.
15. Between the date of the entry of this Order and the date of the Fairness Hearing, the classes and each class member shall be enjoined from initiating any claim, suit or proceeding against the defendant with respect to any claim that is the subject of the settlement.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: September 5, 2018
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge, United States District Court
Page 13 of 13

 
 USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 1 of 354

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Carlene Craig, et. al. v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.,

) ) )

Case No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM (MDL 1700)

)

)

)

)

) )

Case No. 3:05-cv-530 RLM

)

)

PROPOSED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER This matter came before the Court for hearing on March 11, 2019, to consider final approval of the proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement reached by and between Plaintiffs Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O’Brien, Neal Bergkamp, and Dominic Lupo1 (collectively, “the Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Certified Class, and Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FXG”) (collectively, “the Parties”), the terms of which Settlement are set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in support of Preliminary Approval of the Kansas Class Action

1 Carlene Craig withdrew as a Named Plaintiff on November 29, 2006. See MDL Doc. No. 409. Named Plaintiffs Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco are not movants for final approval and filed an objection [MDL Doc. Nos. 3251/3261].

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 2 of 354
Settlement [MDL Doc. No. 3154-1]. Also before the Court is ERISA Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and for Payment of Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, filed with the Court on October 19, 2018 [MDL Doc. No. 3243].
On September 5, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement. [MDL Doc. No. 3241]. This Court has reviewed and considered all documents and evidence submitted in support of preliminary and final approval, and the arguments presented in support of or against the Settlement and attorney’s fees at the Fairness Hearing held before the Court on March 11, 2019.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 1. Unless otherwise stated herein, all capitalized terms contained in this order shall have the same meaning and effect as stated in the ERISA Settlement Agreement (in addition to any capitalized terms defined herein). 2. Pursuant to Section I(B) of the Settlement, the ERISA Class certified on October 15, 2007 [MDL Doc. No. 906] is AMENDED, and the following classes are certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for settlement purposes only: (a) The “Kansas ERISA Class” includes: “All persons who: 1)
entered into a FedEx Ground or FedEx Home Delivery Form Operating Agreement (now known as OP-149 and Form OP-149-RES); 2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) between February 11, 1998 and October 15, 2007 to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; 3) were
2

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 3 of 354
dispatched out of a terminal in the state of Kansas, and 4) were eligible for ERISA plan benefits, absent their characterization as independent contractors.”
(b) The ”Nationwide ERISA Class” means: “All persons, except class members in Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Case No. 8:05-cv-1380 (Middle District of Florida), Harris v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-175 (Eastern District of Arkansas), and Riewe v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-390 (Northern District of Indiana), who: 1) entered into a FedEx Ground or FedEx Home Delivery Form Operating Agreement (now known as OP-149 and Form OP-149-RES); 2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) between January 9, 2001 and October 15, 2007 to provide package pickup and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were eligible for ERISA plan benefits, absent their characterization as independent contractors.”
3. The Court finds that the administration of the Settlement
process was performed in accordance with the ruling granting preliminary
approval entered by this Court on September 5, 2018 [MDL Doc. No. 3241]
and that the Settlement Notice was reasonable, constituted the most
practicable notice under the circumstances, and complied with the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.
4. The Court finds that the administration of the notice required
by the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, was
performed in accordance with the ruling granting preliminary approval
entered by this Court on September 5, 2018 and with the requirements of
CAFA.
3

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 4 of 354
5. For the reasons stated at the Fairness Hearing, the Court overrules all objections made to the Settlement, finds that the Settlement is in all respects fair, reasonable, and adequate, and GRANTS the ERISA Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of the Proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement [MDL Doc. No. 3262]. The Parties are directed to perform, or cause to be performed, the remaining terms of the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court authorizes the payment by the Settlement Administrator of Valid Claims that have been approved by the Settlement Administrator, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The court further approves the Parties’ agreed upon procedure for disbursement of the reserve fund that is provided for by the Settlement Agreement, with such claims to be paid approximately 180 days after checks are issued to pay the claims of persons who fit the class definition but who were not previously identified as members of the Class according to the settlement formula described in the Settlement Agreement.
6. Upon the entry of this Final Approval Order, all ERISA Class Members (attached hereto as Exhibit A) shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims against all Releasees. As set forth in the Settlement Agreement, which is incorporated by reference herein, the “Released Claims,” as to ERISA Plaintiffs and all ERISA Class Members, means all claims, actions, causes of action, administrative claims, demands, debts, damages, penalties, costs, interest, attorney’s fees, obligations, judgments,
4

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 5 of 354
expenses, or liabilities, in law or in equity, whether now or unknown, contingent or absolute, which: (i) are owned or held by Plaintiffs, and Class Members and/or by their affiliated business entities (if any), or any of them, as against Releasees, or any of them; (ii) arise under or relate to the allegations in the Operative Complaint pertaining to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., or claims under any law which seek recovery of employee benefits which were or could have been sought as damages in the Operative Complaint; and (iii) pertain to any time in the Release Period. The Released Claims include any known or unknown claims for damages and injunctive relief. The Released Claims include but are not limited to claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.
7. Upon the entry of this Final Approval Order and judgment, Plaintiffs and all ERISA Class Members are barred and enjoined from asserting, filing, maintaining, or prosecuting, or in any way participating in the assertion, filing, maintenance or prosecution, of any action asserting any Released Claim against any of the Releasees, as set forth in and in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Nothing herein shall in any way impair or restrict the right of the Parties to enforce the terms of the Settlement.
8. The parties’ request for appointment of Kansas Legal Services, 712 S. Kansas Ave, Suite 200, Topeka, KS 66603 to be the cy pres beneficiary is APPROVED.
5

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 6 of 354
9. Without objection, the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and service awards is fair and reasonable, and GRANTS the ERISA Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs [MDL Doc. No. 3243].
10. The Court APPROVES the Service Awards of $5,000 to Named Plaintiffs Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O’Brien, Neal Bergkamp, Dominic Lupo, Alan Pacheco and Ronald Perry, and payment of $7,500 to Kent Whistler. The Court directs payment of that amount from the Class Settlement Fund to each of them, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
11. Neither the Settlement, nor any act performed or document executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the Settlement, is or may be deemed to be or may be used as: (a) an admission of, or evidence of, the validity of any Released Claim or any wrongdoing or liability of any Releasee; (b) an admission or concession by Plaintiffs or any Class member of any infirmity in the claims asserted in the Operative Complaint filed in this action; (c) an admission of, or evidence of, any fault or omission of any of the Releasees in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal.
12. The Court hereby DISMISSES this action with prejudice, specifically including the Released Claims, with each party to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees, except as provided in Paragraph 9 above.
6

USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 7 of 354 13. Without affecting the finality of this order and the judgment
in any way, the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a) the implementation of the Settlement; and (b) the Parties and their counsel, and the Settlement Administrator, for the sole purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering the Settlement and this order and judgment.
14. There being no reason for delay, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: March 22, 2019
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. Judge, United States District Court
7

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527Cr-aRig,LetMal.,-vM. FeGdEEGxRGISrAouCndldaosPsaccukamge Seynstetm3, In2c.79 filed 03/22/19 page 8 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name

1

17 MIKE VILLANUEVA

2

24 JOHN DAVID LAMBROSE

3

31 ARIEL FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ

4

48 CARLOS COSTA

5

55 ERIC ASUAKO

6

62 STEPHEN FOX

7

79 FRANCISCO DIAZ

8

86 SVETISLAV JOVANOVICH

9

93 ANTHONY ROHRLE

10 109 FREDDY GEOVANNY PARRA

11 116 FRANCISCO CENA

12 123 HUGH WILSON

13 130 FREDI RAMIREZ

14 147 FRANCISCO ANTONIO DELROSARIO

15 154 PAVEL LEVTER

16 161 JAMES SACCO

17 178 CHARLES LIGGIO

18 185 DOROTHEA R MOONEY

19 192 DENNIS HARDY

20 208 BRIAN D MARVIN

21 215 FELIX R RIVERA

22 222 DOUGLAS PETER PRESLER

23 239 DANIEL MCDEVITT

24 246 MICHAEL RUCK

25 253 PETER BIONDO

26 260 IAN JOSEPH GELINGER

27 277 JOSEPH CAPONE

28 284 JOSEPH BARRUSO

29 291 KENNETH P EVANCHO

30 307 JORGE MEDINA

31 314 DANIEL CUDMORE

32 321 MARV CLIFFORD BRICE

33 338 KENNETH THURSTON

34 345 KEVIN HARTMAN

35 352 TODD N VEDDER

36 369 RAFAEL A DIFO

37 376 ROOPNARINE MOORLEEDHAR

38 383 EMILIO CARDOZA

39 390 RAJA ASIM

40 406 DENZELL Z TILLMAN

41 413 LYNDON GONZALEZ

42 420 GARFIELD TULLY

43 437 LUDIVIA VICTORIA

44 444 RAMON A ABREU

45 451 DARVIN DIAZ-TAYLOR

46 468 AZHAR BHATTY 47 475 DARIUSZ BRODOWSKI 48 482 KAROL BOLINSKI 49 499 PEDRO ORTIZ 50 505 MIKHAIL RASHCHUPKIN 51 512 ERNEL A WHYTE 52 529 GENE B GABEL 53 536 ANTHONY CROCIATA 54 543 WALTER H EDSALL 55 550 EDWARD JASIEL 56 567 JOSEPH M BEGG 57 574 STANLEY MILLER 58 581 ALEXANDER R CRUMITY 59 598 CANDACE MITTEN 60 604 GABRIEL SURIEL 61 611 DANIEL CABRERA

62 628 DEOCHAND HANSRAJ

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

HOME RUN DISTRIBUTIONS OF LONG ISLAND INC

COSTA & ASSOCIATES INC ASUAKO ENTERPRISES LLC

AUTOPREVOZ TRUCKING CORP DALE DELIVERY SERVICE INC

LEVTER EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GAMAJ EXPRESS INC

Q-BALL EXPRESS INC
MKN INC BIONDO INC
JO CAP-1 INC

TK DELIVERY INC K HARTMAN ENTERPRISES INC
DIFO DELIVERIES LLC

DIFO DELIVERIES INC

I T K O INC

RAYE KASO INC DDIAZ FIRST-IN COURIER SERVICE INC

RAYE KASO INC

M&D DELIVERY SERVICE WHYTE TRUCKING, INC GBG TRUCKING INCORPORATED
WE43, INC
JOE'S TRUCKING ENTERPRISE, INC S & K DELIVERY INC
G A A DELIVERY CORP WEST VILLAGE DELIVERY SERVICES, INC V&S SERVICES

Page 1 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527Cr-aRig,LetMal.,-vM. FeGdEEGxRGISrAouCndldaosPsaccukamge Seynstetm3, In2c.79 filed 03/22/19 page 9 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 63 635 JOHANN CASTRILLON 64 642 EWLIN E CUETO 65 659 DALE D PIERRE 66 666 ALVIN INGRAM WILSON 67 673 JOSE F SANCHEZ JR 68 680 TARRIK BURGESS 69 697 BRIAN KHAMIDOV 70 703 PALDEN NORBU 71 710 DAVID ALLEN STARING 72 727 JESUS JIMENEZ 73 734 JAMES LOUGHLIN 74 741 DAVID M JUNG 75 758 PAUL S CASAROTTO 76 765 DEAN ALLEN SUMMERS SR 77 772 DESMOND S BLAIZE 78 789 TYRONE COLTER 79 796 NYGIL FITZ-HERBERT FRASER 80 802 JOHNNY PLATEO 81 819 RODNEY LAWSON 82 826 NICHOLAS CIARDIELLO
83 833 RORY L ALTMAN
84 840 GLENN EDWARD DENNIS 85 857 PETER EMMETT RYAN 86 864 KAM TING FUNG 87 871 JOSEPH BURNS 88 888 JEFFREY ROSA 89 895 CHRISTOPHER D CASEY 90 901 ALFONSO CIRCELLI JR 91 918 DIOKIS ROSARIO 92 925 DAVE RAMAI 93 932 MICHEAL BAIN 94 949 RICHARD THOMAS HAMILTON 95 956 BRUCE MARTEL
96 963 JAMES JOSEPH MCKEEVER 97 970 MARK D FISCHER 98 987 JOHN W ROBINSON 99 994 GERALD A MONTANO 100 1007 LAWRENCE JONES 101 1014 CHRISTOPHER REEVES 102 1021 PATRICK DOWNEY
103 1038 ROBERT JAMES BARTUNEK 104 1045 STEPHEN ALLEYNE 105 1052 ROBERT J BAUMANN 106 1069 JOHN FLOOD 107 1076 STEVE A KINCH 108 1083 EUGENE DAVELLA 109 1090 TYRONE P COLEMAN 110 1106 BRIAN THOMAS MATUSZEWSKI JR 111 1113 KEVIN LITTLEJOHN 112 1120 YURIY PECHENYY 113 1137 YOLDYS TEJADA 114 1144 EDWIN ANTONIO PENA 115 1151 PAUL G MACHADO
116 1168 JAMES GILROY 117 1175 MYLES J LAMBERT JR 118 1182 EDWARD CHAN 119 1199 GERALD SPELLER 120 1205 FRANK ANDREW LAROSA 121 1212 STEVEN ALAN DURYEA 122 1229 GEORGE WHELAN

Company Name 1
E C SHIPPING COMPANY INC GBJ DELIVERY INC
SANCHEZ JS INC
ALANIA TRUCKING INC
ZAKJAK INC ROSIE EXPRESS, INC JJML TRUCKING INC GROUND DELIVERY CORP

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

NLJF LLC

N C TRUCKING INC R & A ALTMAN TRUCKING LLC
GAZELLE TRUCKING CORP FUNG & CO INC

NC ENTERPRISES INC

RAN TRUCKING INC

ALTMAN BROTHERS TRUCKING COMPANY INC

BAL SERVICES INC D L V R TRUCKING INC C A L SERVICES INC

CASEY SHIPPING LLC GOSHEN TRANSPORTS LLC

CASEY SHIPPING INC GOSHEN EXPRESS, INC

BAIN EXPRESS INC

HAMILTON CONTRACT MANAGEMENT HCM SERVICES, INC

B A MARTEL CORP; MARTEL

B A MARTEL CORP

TRANSPORT CO, LLC

ERMIJA LLC

JAMIER CORPORATION

MARK D FISCHER ENTERPRISES, INC

MONTANO TRUCKING INC

SKYLAR INCORPORATED DOWNEY-HOLTZ EXPRESS INC; PDX INC R & A BARTUNEK INC

DOWNEY-HOLTZ EXPRESS INC

JJF DELIVERY INC GOOD DOG PACKAGE DELIVERY INC PORK CHOP EXPRESS INC

YT ENTERPRISES LLC MACHADO EXPRESS SERVICES CORP

GS ENTERPRISES DELIVERY BOY INC DOUBLE D'S SERVICE INC

BLM DELIVERY INC

Page 2 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 10 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 123 1236 JOSEPH DUDEK 124 1243 GEORGE THOMAS BUTLER 125 1250 STEPHEN MEYER 126 1267 BEVERLY STEPHENSON 127 1274 RUBAPENEZ PENA 128 1281 STEPHEN GEORGE NEKOLEK 129 1298 JOSE RIVERA 130 1304 SHANE BROWN 131 1311 ERIC MICHAEL ROBERTS
132 1328 GARY MICHAEL MOLINARO 133 1335 JOSE BARTALINI 134 1342 IGOR MENDELEYEV 135 1359 JAVIER URREGO 136 1366 TROY MILLNER 137 1373 FREDRICKA HASHAGEN 138 1380 DAVID S JONES 139 1397 KRISTINE TELEGLOW 140 1403 MICHAEL OHARA 141 1410 RODOLFO RAMOS 142 1427 BRENDAN JOHN-MICHALE CROKE
143 1434 YURI ESAULENKO 144 1441 JOSE VALDEZ
145 1458 DEVON GEORGE NUGENT 146 1465 OSAMA HANNA 147 1472 DIOMEDES MARTINEZ 148 1489 VERNON E YATES SR 149 1496 VICTOR A CEPEDA 150 1502 ANTHONY BADALAMENTI 151 1519 IRA COTLER 152 1526 ROBERT BUTTERFASS 153 1533 BILLY NOEL SANFORD 154 1540 JAMES HARRIS 155 1557 DESMOND ARTHUR HENRY 156 1564 KERRY J LAVERE
157 1571 STEVEN BROWN 158 1588 WAYNE ORNDORFF 159 1595 STEPHEN CREUTZ 160 1601 CARL COURTNEY CONSTABLE
161 1618 SCOTT CASSESE 162 1625 PAUL ROGER PRZELSKI JR 163 1632 FRANCISCO A ROMANO 164 1649 EDWIN F TAVERAS 165 1656 RONALD B HARES II 166 1663 FRANK BORGESE 167 1670 BARBARA FARREN 168 1687 JAMES C LEE 169 1694 JEFFREY CLARK 170 1700 BRIAN CARD 171 1717 HOWARD DAVIS 172 1724 JOSE L DURAN 173 1731 NATHAN JON PERREA 174 1748 FERNANDO C DOS SANTOS 175 1755 JEROME PENNYCOOKE 176 1762 WANDY ANTONIO CASTRO 177 1779 DMITRIY DVEYRIN 178 1786 VLADIMIR ARABADZHI 179 1793 STEPHEN GALLAGHER 180 1809 ALEXANDER RINALDI 181 1816 MICHAEL WILLIS CROSS

Company Name 1 GTB P&D SERVICE LLC

Company Name 2 GTB SERVICES, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FREE STATE TRUCKING CO, INC

CHIP AND JILLS HOME SERVICES, LLC; U S DELIVERY LOGISTICS,

U S DELIVERY LOGISTICS, INC

INC

GLM EXPRESS DELIVERIES INC

URREGO INC B D RIGNEY LLC

J U, INC

KT GLOW INC
RAMOS PACKAGE DELIVERY INC BRENDAN PARCEL SERVICE LLC
YAGLOVAL TRUCKING; YAGLOVAL TRUCKING INC DEETECH ENTERPRISES INC, GROUND TRUCKING INC M B DELIVERY SERVICES INC

BRENDAN 'S PARCEL SERVICE INC; BRENDAN'S PARCEL SERVICE LLC
GROUND TRUCKING LLC SAM EXPRESS INC

AJB DELIVERY, INC DILS TRANSPORT INC RNB TRANSPORTATION LLC

LAVERE CONTRACTING; LAVERE CONTRACTING INC

CC EXPRESS LLC; CCC EXPRESS SERVICES INC PRZELSKI INC ROMANO EXPRESS INC ANGEMILY EXPRESS INC HALFBREED CORP
J & A CLARK LLC
JLD DELIVERY SERVICE INC PERREA INC
GDWA ENTERPRISES INC

CCC EXPRESS SERVICES INC

CROSS DELIVERY SERVICES INC

Page 3 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 11 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 182 1823 TERRANCE KERNAN 183 1830 WILLIAM J ELLIOTT 184 1847 CARMEN JAMES LAMARCA 185 1854 KEITH V BURL 186 1861 CHARLES MALKIN 187 1878 PAUL GENDRON 188 1885 THEODORE R COORDS 189 1892 MICHAEL OLBETER 190 1908 GLENN F WILLIAMS
191 1915 GRISETA JOSEPH 192 1922 ROBERT FARRELL 193 1939 STEVE MICHAEL MAKOWSKI 194 1946 LARRY M HASTINGS 195 1953 DENNIS JOHN COOK 196 1960 DAVID PRIME 197 1977 EDILBERTO RODRIGUEZ 198 1984 JAMES EDWARD CROMWELL JR 199 1991 SANTIAGO HERNANDEZ 200 2004 KEITH COFRAN 201 2011 EVENS CALIXTE 202 2028 STEPHEN RANDAZZO 203 2035 BRIAN FROST 204 2042 ROBERT ESPOSITO 205 2059 DANIEL V HARVEY 206 2066 RONALD HENDRICKSON 207 2073 ROBERT SANTINI 208 2080 JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ 209 2097 PAUL JOSEPH MURATORE 210 2103 KWAME GYAMFI 211 2110 FOUAD RAJABI 212 2127 ZAILIN ABDULAZIZ 213 2134 DENNIS LEANDRES 214 2141 THOMAS GHIAZZA 215 2158 LARRY LOUZAU 216 2165 LORENZO MOTITO 217 2172 DONALD HILL 218 2189 THOMAS M RIZZO 219 2196 DAVID MELTZER 220 2202 WILLIAM MEYER 221 2219 JEROME REED 222 2226 MELVIN CLAUDIO 223 2233 STEVEN T JONES 224 2240 NELSON CARRILLO
225 2257 MAURICIO SOLORZANO 226 2264 CLIIFFORD D JACKSON 227 2271 DAVE CURTIS 228 2288 FRANK SUGLIA 229 2295 DAVID HEMROTH 230 2301 CARLOS ALMANZAR 231 2318 KEN HOLTZ
232 2325 CHRISTOPHER CASTILLO 233 2332 STAMATIS MARKOU 234 2349 LASZIO SZENASI 235 2356 YUCELL BAS 236 2363 ANGEL PUJOLS 237 2370 JAVIER A MEDRANO 238 2387 DIALLO ADAMA 239 2394 SCOTT HENDRIX 240 2400 PHILIP REILLY 241 2417 NAUM KATS 242 2424 SEAN HARRIS

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

ELLIOTT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

OLBS ENTERPRISES INC TG & L LLC; TG&L LLC

TG & L LLC

SUPPLY SIDER TRUCKING LLC

FRANCELI, INC

FROST DELIVERY INC RYDE TRUCKING INC

ESPO TRUCKING INC

FIRST FRUIT DELIVERIES INC J RAMIREZ TRUCKING CORP
K&G COURIER SERVICES INC FOUAD'S TRANSPORT CORP
D L DELIVERY INC GIZZY INC
RISE & SHINE NEWS DELIVERY INC

FAST & FURIOUS FORWARDING INC

69 CAMILLE LANE CORP TRANS TERKO
SOLORZANO SERVICES, INC CDJ SOLUTIONS, INC DAVID CURTIS TRANSPORT INC FRANK A SUGLIA LLC
FATHER AND SON COURIER INC K C H ENTERPRISES INC
STILLO OF NY INC MARKSPAN INC
LITTLE THREE TRUCKING INC
SHELLY INC

CONTINENTAL TRANSFERS INC
F A SUGLIA INC
DOWNEY - HOLTZ EXPRESS INC; K C H ENTERPRISES INC

ROUTE 14 , INC

Page 4 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 12 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 243 2431 ERIC VITALE 244 2448 RAYMOND HENNING 245 2455 ZINSE AMEZIAN 246 2462 BRIAN J TUCKER 247 2479 PAUL BURNS 248 2486 DAVE FONDA 249 2493 RICHARD ZIMMERMAN 250 2509 EDWARD MUENKEL 251 2516 HAYDEN LINDSAY SHURLAND 252 2523 ELBERT BEDELL 253 2530 ARMANDO DIEPPA 254 2547 CHRISTOPHER CORDERO 255 2554 DARRIN GERST 256 2561 FRANK VALENTINO 257 2578 THOMAS JOSEPH MCKEE
258 2585 WAYNE BENNETT 259 2592 CHUCKIE GARY WOODS 260 2608 MARTIN JAMES DARBY 261 2615 ROYCE ADAMS JR 262 2622 YONG KIM 263 2639 TROY DEAN 264 2646 BRIAN J MEYER
265 2653 JASON BRENT DAVIS 266 2660 TORE JOHN LINDLAND 267 2677 CESAR RIVAS
268 2684 DAVIAN DERMANE MYERS 269 2691 MARK J CONSTANTINO 270 2707 ANTHONY JASON STEVENS 271 2714 ANDREY RABINOVICH 272 2738 SEMI O OBAZUAYE
273 2745 ELMER BATRES 274 2752 PAULO SERGIO NASCIMENTO 275 2769 CHARLES R RIEDINGER 276 2776 FRANK RAPISARDI 277 2783 PATRICK ORTIZ 278 2790 SYLVIA SEALS 279 2806 MICHAEL J MURPHY 280 2813 EDWARD TROISE 281 2820 JAMES WATERMAN 282 2837 LANCE ANTHONY LOSAPIO 283 2844 KEVIN KEACH 284 2851 JACQUELINE RIVERA 285 2868 JOHN LUGO
286 2875 BENITO YONG
287 2882 ROBERTO JOSE BOU 288 2899 ROBERT FERGUSON 289 2905 SOTIRIS TRIPOLITIS 290 2912 JOHN DANGELO 291 2929 RICHARD FRANCIS DECKER JR 292 2936 ERIC BROWN 293 2943 JULIO CHRISTIAN ALANA 294 2950 MIKE STREETER 295 2967 KWASI ASANTE 296 2974 ANTHONY RUOCCO 297 2981 ERIC WILLIAM BIRKENSTOCK 298 2998 ANTHONY GUIDO 299 3001 DAVID M AMIRI 300 3018 NIGEL ALFRED TYRRELL 301 3025 THOMAS FRASCA

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FAIRPORT TRANSPORTATION INC
REBOS TRANSPORT INC ED MUENKEL TRUCKING INC SHURLAND INC
A DIEPPA, INC

FJV ASSOCIATES INC THOMAS J MCKEE AND ASSOCIATES, , INC

TE &TI TRANSPORT INC

RA TRANSPORTATION, INC YKIM INC

MEYER PICKUP & DELIVERY LLC

MEYER PICKUP & DELIVERY LLC

CANILA EXPRESS, INC; DYNAMITE EXPRESS LLC

CANILA EXPRESS, INC

BIKITZUR EXPRESS INC SEMOLA SYSTEM INC
ALPHA DISTRIBUTION LLC RHD FLJ CROSS ISLE DIST INC

COVENANT DELIVERY EXPRESS INC
ALPHA DISTRIBUTION INC

LOSAPIO ENTERPRISES LLC

ENCHANTED ISLANDS ENTERPRISES LLC NONAH DELIVERY INC
BRAGA LOGISTICS

VELOCITY TRANSPORTATION INC MBY EXPRESS INC; NJEM INC

MBY EXPRESS INC

D'ANGELO TRANSPORT 3 REDS, INC FYT INCORPORATED

JOHNS TRUCKING CORP ADK DELIVERY, INC

M A N TRUCKING INC KRAMMIT TRUCKING INC DIOPADRE INC M & N DELIVERY SERVICES CORP CLARKIETYRRELL TRUCKING

AMIRI'S INC

Page 5 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 13 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 302 3032 HARRY SCHADEI 303 3049 RANDY HUNTER 304 3056 BILL VANBLARCOM 305 3063 DARREN A FISCHER 306 3070 RICHARD M DEGENNARO 307 3087 SEBASTIANO VULTAGGIO 308 3094 HOLLY JOHNROE 309 3100 DESHAWN CHESSON 310 3117 OSWALD HAYE 311 3124 PETER NUNEZ 312 3131 MICHAEL P WHELAN 313 3148 JOSEPH JAMES ODIERNO 314 3155 COREY J BOSHART 315 3162 ROBERT LASANE 316 3179 FRANKLIN FLETCHER 317 3186 ROGER OHENEYEBOAH 318 3193 RICARDO P HERNANDEZ 319 3209 HOLGER FARIAS 320 3216 KAIOUTCHKINE IGOR 321 3223 XIAOHANG ZHOU 322 3230 DAEKRAM PERSUAD 323 3247 ANAR RAGIMOV 324 3254 SCHUYLER LARSON 325 3261 PAUL MOSSOTTI 326 3278 WILLIAM BRAND 327 3285 BRUCE ANDERSON 328 3292 GARY FALITZ 329 3308 PAUL WINKELMAN 330 3315 KEVIN JOHN SODEUR 331 3322 SALVATORE LIGGIERI 332 3339 PATRICK MICALE 333 3346 JEFFREY C DULOG 334 3353 ANTHONY SCALERA 335 3360 ROBERT ROCKELEIN 336 3377 BERNARD ROOF 337 3384 HASSAN MAHMOUD HASSAN 338 3391 PATRICK HANNIGAN 339 3407 KENSWORTH SHECKLEFORD
340 3414 RANDY COCHRANE 341 3421 DILLON LITTLE 342 3438 CHRISTOPHER EDWARD TOZZI 343 3445 DAVID A DOBROVOLC 344 3452 ROBERT S CHANDLER 345 3469 LINDEN WILLAIM HARRIS 346 3476 JOHN CIAVOLELLA 347 3483 STEVEN MOERLER 348 3490 KENNETH LECLAIRE 349 3506 RICHARD MOHR 350 3513 ERNEST JARAMILLO 351 3520 STEPHEN A SANTAMARIA 352 3537 KENNETH DUBOIS 353 3544 ROGER M BRITZ 354 3551 JOHN SWEENEY 355 3568 JAMES L PERKINS 356 3575 MARCUS LEWIS MILTON 357 3582 STEPHEN EDWARD PROSSER 358 3599 DINU DERMARGOSIAN 359 3605 LAWRENCE BECKER 360 3612 ANDREW J DELANEY 361 3629 JOHN FISCAL 362 3636 CHRIS PITKIN 363 3643 NELSON J MEJIA 364 3650 ROBERT LARSEN 365 3667 DANIEL E RACIOPPI

Company Name 1 PRESCOTT HILL CONSULTING C&R TRUCKING OF PORT JERVIS INC B&C DELIVERY LLC

Company Name 2

RDEGE, INC VOLTAGE-EX, INC

RMDEGE, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

TRANSCOR INC RELL SERVICES INC
ROY ANNEX INC R&L TRUCKING OF BROOKLYN INC TWO FAR GLOBAL INC PACAR2003 INC
STEFON TRUCKING INC

COMASH TRUCKING INC PJSJW CORP KEVEX, INC
MICALE TRUCKING INC BJ & G INC
WINFIELD TRANSFER CORP

K SHECKLE LLC
NEW YORK ISLANDER INC
L H SPECIALIZED DELIVERY, INC NESAMO CORPORATION
THE ERNEST BRIDGE CO S & S EXPRESS BOX MONKEY ENTERPRISES INC DOUBLE J DELIVERY, INC

SHECKLEFORD INCORPORATED

DERMDX LTD CO THE AMAZING LARRY INC AJD WORKHORSE LLC
N & M DELIVERY INC LARSEN LLC DRAC INC

DHC INC LARSEN LOGISTICS INC

Page 6 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 14 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 366 3674 WILLIAM BOBBITT JR 367 3681 MICHAEL RAU 368 3698 DRAGAN STEFANOVIC 369 3704 KOSSI ADJAMAH 370 3711 ORLANDO SHEFFER 371 3728 SEGUNDO JARA 372 3735 ERIC SANDERS 373 3742 HARLAN KNIGHT 374 3759 JOSE CERVANTES 375 3766 PETER JOHN BOEGEL 376 3773 MICHAEL THOMAS 377 3780 JOSELITO S CRUZ 378 3797 PHILIP EDOUARD BRISCHOUX 379 3803 RONALD ROGERS 380 3810 CHRISTOPHER CLEMENTS 381 3827 KARL MAK 382 3834 VINCENT PAUL WENGER 383 3841 DANIEL PERGOLIZZI 384 3858 CHAITAWAT CHUNTON 385 3865 AGOSTINO NOTO 386 3872 MOHAMED YOSIF AHMED
387 3889 CHAD LEE HARRELL 388 3896 DANIEL M KELLOGG 389 3902 DAVID JOSEPH KANKIEWICZ 390 3919 MICHAEL KEYS 391 3926 T TZIMAS 392 3933 JASON HUGO THOMAS 393 3940 GREGORY J BARTNICKI 394 3957 LESZEK ROTH 395 3964 SENECA UPTON NELSON
396 3971 JANGHYUN JOH 397 3988 FRANCIS ODURO 398 3995 HERNANDO VALLEJO 399 4008 MIROSLAV BLAGOJEVIC 400 4015 VLADIMIRS MIHNONOKS 401 4022 RICHARD F KELTNER 402 4039 RICHARD SCHMIDT 403 4046 GARY K POLLARD 404 4053 DAVID A SHEARER 405 4060 THOMAS DUNN 406 4077 MICHAEL BURNS 407 4084 RYAN KEAN 408 4091 ROBERT STRAUB 409 4107 JASON STRAUB 410 4114 CHRIS OLSEN
411 4121 MICHAEL CASALE 412 4138 TIMOTHY W GARROW 413 4145 RONALD PERRY 414 4152 THOMAS J RILEY IV
415 4169 FREMIO SANCHEZ 416 4176 MELVIN ROJAS 417 4183 ELIAS INOAGARCIA 418 4190 DAVID SEYMOUR 419 4206 PATRICK ALPHONSO MCLEAN 420 4213 HAKAN AVCI
421 4220 HENRY EDWARD HART 422 4237 GERALD KALLNER 423 4244 JOHN JOSEPH PROBST 424 4251 RONALD DALLAS 425 4268 LEONARD C TRICARICO

Company Name 1 3 Y SERVICES, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

J J HOME DELIVERY SERVICES INC PJB DELIVERIES INC M & G NOVA INC Y
PEMS INC
CLEMENTS LOGISTICS INC J AND D TRUCKING LLC MARATHON DELIVERY INC

SAM-NIC ENTERPRISES LLC MJ DELIVERY CORP; MJ DELIVERY CORPORATION
DM KELLOGG INC

FREIGHT DELIVERY, INC

TZIMAS ENTERPRISES INC KJS DELIVERY LLC SNELCO LLC JH SHIPPING CORP FESSIAW INC MOAM TRUCKING INC

TZIMAS TRUCKING INC
SNELCO GROUP INCORPORATED

GKP MOSS INC

MIKE BURNS TRUCKING INC

JRK MEDICAL SUPPLIES INC

OLSEN & CLARK INC; OLSEN & CLARK, TMO TRANSPORT, INC INC

T GARROW ENTERPRISE INC

TMR ENTERPRISES INC
SASHA CARRIER SERVICE AMARONEX CORPORATION D R K TRUCKING CORP

NINELIVES BUSINESS GROUP INC

METRIC TRUCKING, INC HORIZON TOURISM AND ENTERTAINMENT INC HARTFIELD INC

HUNTINGTON MILK CO INC

Page 7 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 15 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 426 4275 BRUCE VAN HOUTEN 427 4282 HARRY N DEVALK 428 4299 DENNIS C BLUMBERG 429 4305 RAWLE DAISLEY 430 4312 JAMES FURNARO 431 4329 TOM SCOTT 432 4336 ROBERT MAXEY 433 4343 PATRICK BRIAN COLLINS 434 4350 MICHAEL RICHARDS 435 4367 HENRY DAVID MYERS 436 4374 FREDERICK CRIMI 437 4381 MIKE NICHOLS 438 4398 JOHN BARBIANI 439 4404 ZOLTAN KOSZEGI 440 4411 WF BECKER 441 4428 MICHAEL YONCE 442 4435 LEON W MALLOCH 443 4442 DION DASHNAW 444 4459 JOSEPH WRATTEN 445 4466 DARIN MATTHEW HOLMES 446 4473 THELMO DELAROSA 447 4480 LLOYD MCKENZIE 448 4497 DANGER FERNANDEZ 449 4503 JOSEPH KNIGHT 450 4510 ROGER J BOUCHARD 451 4527 ROBERT PSZENICZNY 452 4534 GREGORY JAMBORA 453 4541 ALEXIS A COLLADO 454 4558 RAFAEL ZAMBRANO 455 4565 WILLIAM M LAUGHREA JR 456 4572 FERNANDO BATISTA 457 4589 CHARLES REDFIELD 458 4596 ROBERT LOWELL KERR 459 4602 RICKIE HOLLAND 460 4619 JOHN MALAFIS 461 4626 JAMES PHILIP 462 4633 CHRISTOPHER GRIFFITH 463 4640 KEITH JAMES 464 4657 EMMET E SCOTT 465 4664 RAUL ALBERTO SOTO 466 4671 CHRISTINE LENEHAN 467 4688 ROBERT NORRIS 468 4695 NEIL WARREN CORY JR 469 4701 GREGORY R OLSZEWSKI 470 4718 ALBERTO GUZMAN 471 4725 RAYMOND WILLIAM RICHNER JR 472 4732 KENNETH CHUE HEASLEY 473 4749 JASON PIKE 474 4756 ROBERT E GENNELL 475 4763 WILLIAM C DINGMAN 476 4770 RAY BETTO 477 4787 RONALD BLANCHARD 478 4794 SHAFIQ KHANYOUSAFZAI 479 4800 CARLOS TAMAYO 480 4817 JOSE PENA 481 4824 MICHAEL ROWLAND 482 4831 VITALIY VETSPER
483 4848 MAHENDRANAUTH BASDEO 484 4855 ADAM RYAN LEVESQUE 485 4862 STEVEN MCFADRIES 486 4879 DELANO HILAIRE 487 4886 ADAM WILLIAMS 488 4893 GARY LEWIS 489 4909 BENJAMIN WILLIAM BELIVEAU

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RDM & ASSOCIATES LTD PCOLLINS INC
J & K MYERS INC FJC DELIVERY, INC NICHOL'S PACKAGE DELIVERY INC
XFX, INC

HOLMES TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC DELA ROSA COURIER SERVICE
ROBELIX INC ABM TRUCKING, INC

H&H PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC MALAFIS TRUCKING INC HOME JAMES DELIVERY INC
K JAMES ENTERPRISE INC

KARR GLOBAL LOGISTICS LLC

L M KARR INCORPORATED

STREBOR PACKAGE SYSTEM WE DELIVERY INC

G&V MECHANICAL ENTERPRISES, INC
AL FREIGHTING; AL FREIGHTING INC GLOBAL CLICK ACCESS CORP MMPG ENTERPRISES INC

Page 8 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 16 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 490 4916 STEPHEN T PRATT 491 4923 GARY JONES 492 4930 DANIEL TRAVIS 493 4947 MICHAEL A NUNNERY 494 4954 DAVID MEYERS 495 4961 CHARLES K MANCUSO JR 496 4978 ISMAEL ORTIZ 497 4985 COLEMAN MCMILLAN 498 4992 JAIME NOE ARGUERA 499 5005 JACK COLE 500 5012 SHAWN DURHAM
501 5029 NEIL DEWEY 502 5036 SAMUEL JAMIESON 503 5043 ALBERTO BARNETT 504 5050 ROBERT JENNINGS 505 5067 JAMES SAVAGE 506 5074 ROHAN ROMAIN 507 5081 JEANNETTE DENISE FORDE 508 5098 EDWARD NKETIAH 509 5104 JOHN J HARTNETT 510 5111 NICK PANTINAKIS 511 5128 PHILIP THOMAS MEANY 512 5135 JOHN RAMIREZ 513 5142 DAN TARSIA 514 5159 DERRICK GRIFFIN 515 5166 EDGAR ASENCIO 516 5173 CHE TERRENCE ALEXANDER 517 5180 RONALD ANTHONY SALERNO JR 518 5197 RYAN JOSEPH MAESTRE 519 5203 ROY VARUGHESE
520 5210 LEROY THOMAS 521 5227 AMAD BADRIA 522 5234 WHAZEL KHAN 523 5241 ROBERTO CARLOS RAMOS 524 5258 OSCAR ARISTIDEZ GOMEZ 525 5265 GRZEGORZ SIEROTA 526 5272 JOHN RICHARD NEELY 527 5289 MICHAEL LAURITO 528 5296 JAMES R CUSACK 529 5302 NICHOLAS ZICHETTELLA 530 5319 ANGEL CARTAGENA 531 5326 DONALD WAYNE GARDNER 532 5333 MICHAEL B REID 533 5340 WILLIAM ADELSON 534 5357 DREW MARKS 535 5364 EDGAR M KIDDER 536 5371 JUAN R BENAVIDES 537 5388 SHARON RICHARDS DOBSON 538 5395 MARTIN NOBLES 539 5401 KASSEEM WAYNE HARVEY 540 5418 STEVE COURTRIER 541 5425 VICTOR M ORTIZ 542 5432 PETER J BRADT 543 5449 GEORGE STEPHEN 544 5456 BRIAN FERNAAYS 545 5463 RAYMOND ROSARIO 546 5470 JOHNNY COFIELD 547 5487 MICHAEL MCKENZIE 548 5494 JOSEPH MALONE 549 5500 JORGE BLACKSHAW 550 5517 SADEL NIKOCEVIC 551 5524 ANGELO BOSCO 552 5531 ALFREDO TAVERAS

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

DMZ TRANSPORT INC MANCUSO'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC
EVICON INC ARLASAL INC
BULL DURHAM CONTRACTING OF NORTHERN NY, INC
NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION INC
JNT TRANSPORTATION RSK DELIVERIES INC
CGMEH, INC LET LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

R&F SALERNO CORP MAEST, INC ROY'S TRUCKING SERVICE COMPANY INC
SAMANTHA NICOLE CORP G-TEAM DELIVERY SERVICES CORP
JARC INC Z'IMELE TRINITY
PARK STREET FULFILLMENT CO INC MARKS GROUND TRANSPORT INC KIDDER CARTAGE INC CASTAN LLC M G NOBLES INC
RIDGE RUNNER DELIVERIES, LLC
BLACK INC EMPIRE TRUCKING OF BROOKLYN BOSCO DELIVERY SERVICE INC

Page 9 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 17 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 553 5548 LUCAS JAMES STERIA 554 5555 ERIC VANAVERY 555 5562 COWDREY A MULLINGS 556 5579 ELHADJ M NDOYE 557 5586 RAYMENORTEGA ORTEGA 558 5593 OKERO ORLANDO HYLTON 559 5609 JAMES JOHN KRAUSE 560 5616 VINCENT PIZZO 561 5623 KENNETH SIMPSON 562 5630 ROBERT MANGANARO 563 5647 JON KARL MICHAELS 564 5654 WILLIAM THOMPSON 565 5661 BRUCE DESIMINI 566 5678 WILLIAM BRISSON 567 5685 LAWRENCE THOMAS 568 5692 JOHN M DAVOLIO 569 5708 MARK SLADE 570 5715 CHRISTOPHER NAYLOR 571 5722 NEFTALY RAMOS JR 572 5739 MIGUEL ROMERO 573 5746 RAMON FERNANDEZ
574 5753 JASON SCOTT DESATNICK 575 5760 TROY WRIGHT 576 5777 MARCO QUINTANA 577 5784 KEVIN JOHNSON 578 5791 ROBERT C ANDREWS 579 5807 ERIC LEE MACLAURY 580 5814 JEFFREY REED 581 5821 MICHAEL LABRA 582 5838 TERRANCE POLLARD 583 5845 ANTHONY ALOYSIUS STERLING 584 5852 BUDDIE SWAIN 585 5869 BARRY C SMITH 586 5876 STEPHEN ROBERT GASCOYNE 587 5883 RONALD GILMAN 588 5890 KEVIN A LONG 589 5906 RICHARD UDOVICH 590 5913 CHRISTOPHER JOHN FROESCHI 591 5920 PATRICK J ALLETTO 592 5937 MICHAEL A DAVIS 593 5944 DAVID A DIBBLE JR 594 5951 AMIR KHAN 595 5968 RANDY LANCE BERNSTEIN 596 5975 JOHN CARBONE 597 5982 BENJAMIN ALVAREZ 598 5999 VINCENT GIULIANO 599 6002 MILTON A MCNEIL 600 6019 YEUGENIY LESNIKOU 601 6026 ROHAN JOHNSON 602 6033 RICHARD J LABRIE 603 6040 WAYNE SALMON 604 6057 SEAN KELLY 605 6064 MARK W BISHOP 606 6071 JAMES HUDSON 607 6088 JAMES PROFANATO 608 6095 JAMES TOSTO 609 6101 KELLY PAUL STRASSBURGER 610 6118 JOHN UNKRICH 611 6125 HUNTLEY JAMESON 612 6132 SOLOMON RACHMIN 613 6149 MICHAEL DEEVY 614 6156 BRIAN ELSASSER 615 6163 MAGNUS BRISBANE 616 6170 MANUEL PUJOLS

Company Name 1 STERIA TRANSPORTATION INC VAN AVERY ENTERPRISES INC CAM DELIVERY SERVICE INC
RAYMEN INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BRISSON, INC COPPER DELIVERY CORP
NAYLOR TRUCKING INC NDYR INC DAVRIC DELIVERY INC NY GROUND, INC; STARLINE TRUCKING LLC
MARCO ANTONIO QUINTANA INC

NY GROUND, INC

SANDO CORPORATION
SRG ENTERPRISES KMMR BUSINESS GROUP INC PISCES EXPRESS INC ALLETTO ENTERPRISES INC KHAN INC
GIULIANO TRANSPORT CORP OVEN TOURS WAYNE SALMON INC KEL-COG ENTERPRISES INC PROFANATO TRANSPORT INC JKP INC
L I DELIVERY SERVICES INC

Page 10 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 18 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 617 6187 MARLON E SARAVIA 618 6194 LEE MICHAEL GRANGER SR 619 6200 EDDIE ISAIAH BAKER 620 6217 NANDLALL PERSHAD 621 6224 DUKE WALTERS 622 6231 RONALD BALES 623 6248 CHARLES PASSANTINO 624 6255 WILLIAM E BETZ 625 6262 DOREEN COONEY 626 6279 WILLIAM HN ACKNER JR 627 6286 JOHN PAUL WEIDNER 628 6293 JAMES SKAPETIS 629 6309 JEFF KINGSLEY 630 6316 ENEAS DASILVA 631 6323 DAVID MULLEN 632 6330 CARL JORDAN MCDONALD
633 6347 ERROLL CUNNINGHAM 634 6354 JAMES DENNIS COATES 635 6361 DAVID WARD 636 6378 PAUL THAM 637 6385 JEROME BARNES 638 6392 HERIBERTO GONZALEZ 639 6408 JAMES RICHARD GOEDERT 640 6415 STEVE J WIRSCHING 641 6422 EDWARD EHRHARDT III 642 6439 CLAUDETTE S AZOURI 643 6446 JESUS TLATENCHI
644 6453 JOHN V DERUSCIO 645 6460 SCOTT FLEISCHMAN 646 6477 HORACIO HERNANDEZ 647 6484 JEREMY DANIEL 648 6491 ADRIEN L WARJABEDIAN 649 6507 OMAR URENA 650 6514 VERGHESE THOMSON 651 6521 MAX MIKHAILOV 652 6538 RICHARD OPOKU AMANKWAH 653 6545 PATRICK J GIGLIO
654 6552 JOHN BLAKE 655 6569 DAVID JORDAN 656 6576 STEPHEN M WALKER 657 6583 RANDALL HARRIS 658 6590 MARK CHAIT 659 6606 JAIRO BUITRAGO 660 6613 ANTHONY CASCARINO 661 6620 RAYMOND BETTO 662 6637 RICHARD J CELENTANO 663 6644 JOHN WARD 664 6651 BRIAN SMITH 665 6668 DAVID PARMEGIANI 666 6675 JAIME OLIVO 667 6682 LARRY KOERNER 668 6699 JOSE J PANIAGUA 669 6705 SASHYA HEWAUITHARANA 670 6712 ERIC SCHMUCK 671 6729 ROBERT J EUSEBIO 672 6736 GERARD FEIST 673 6743 WAYNE LAWSON SCAFE 674 6750 YEVGENIY ZHELEZNYAKOV 675 6767 ORVILLE ANTHONY BULGIN 676 6774 ANDRAE MIGUEL EWEN 677 6781 CARLOS MARTINEZ 678 6798 STUART R DWIGHT

Company Name 1 MARLON ELIAZAR CORPORATION

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BETZ 2000 HOME DELIVERY INC
JPW DELV INC BAGGERS EXPRESS INC ENEAS LOPES DA SILVA INC C & C DELIVERY SERVICE
JC DELIVERY INC

IRIE DELIVERY SERVICES INC

JG DELIVERY INC SJW TRUCKING INC
JESUS & BESSY TRANSPORTATION CORP JOHNNY BOXVILLE DELIVERY, INC
QUALITY ROUTES URENA TRUCKING CORP S&S DELIVERY SERVICES LLC ASEDA LLC AFFORDABLE DELIVERY SERVICE; AFFORDABLE DELIVERY SVC KATHY AND JOHN DELIVERY INC
M C R K ENTERPRISES LTD
RLB ENTERPRISES INC J K WARD ENTERPRISE INC
CDSS TRUCKING INC J&A EXPRESS INC

EWEN ENTERPRISE CJM TRANSPORT

TERN COURIERS INC

Page 11 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 19 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 679 6804 PAUL K MCHUGH 680 6811 STANLEY WEST 681 6828 DAVID H JOCKERS 682 6835 STEPHEN MOSER 683 6842 JEFF WINSLOW 684 6859 THOMAS A PAGE 685 6866 EDWARD BROOKS WARNER 686 6873 THOMAS KOSTULIAS 687 6880 JAMES KOSTULIAS 688 6897 WILLIAM LEO BARBERA 689 6903 PETER ANTHONY SHELL 690 6910 JOSEPH PHILLIP RAGUSA JR 691 6927 THOMAS LAINO
692 6934 DONALD K SPICER 693 6941 MIKE MOSTELLER 694 6958 STEVEN POPEN 695 6965 JOSEPH LOSGAR 696 6972 NICHOLAS ALEXANDER CUTRONE 697 6989 GERALDO ORTIZ 698 6996 ANTHONY O WISE 699 7009 MARK G DROSSOS 700 7016 KRAIG WESLEY DAFOE 701 7023 ROBERT BURNETT 702 7030 CHARLES PYBAS 703 7047 CRAIG DYBDAL
704 7054 CARLOS GOMEZ 705 7061 MICHAEL GATELY 706 7078 ROBERT KLEYA 707 7085 JERMAINE GIBSON 708 7092 BYUNG WOO YI
709 7108 DOUGLAS P MALONEY 710 7115 JASON J BARGER 711 7122 BENLLYS D GOMEZ 712 7139 MICHAEL YOUNG 713 7146 MOHAMMED AOUAS 714 7153 MICHAEL LETO 715 7160 LUIS ROCHA 716 7177 FREDERICK LEATHERS 717 7184 KENNETH KHAN 718 7191 FRANCIS ANING BODDOM 719 7207 EDUARDO OLIVEIRA 720 7214 STEVE HAYES 721 7221 TIMOTHY H GALLANT 722 7238 WILLIAM JAMES SHEARER 723 7245 PHILIP TOSTI
724 7252 EUGENE F BROWN 725 7269 WAYNE JOSEPH ZILINSKI 726 7276 THOMAS LUTTMAN 727 7283 JOSE ESPINOZA 728 7290 DEAN DIPACE 729 7306 PETER S MORGAN 730 7313 BRIAN MCDONALD 731 7320 STEPHEN RIGGINS 732 7337 CARLON SCHAFFER 733 7344 GARY A ARMENTI 734 7351 JOSEPH S ISON 735 7368 CHARLES F DINGERDISSEN 736 7375 CRAIG MCKOY 737 7382 LOUISIII PEDALINO 738 7399 ROBERT W HANSEN 739 7405 DOUGLAS DOW

Company Name 1
THE PACKAGE BOUTIQUE INC MOSER N MELCHIZEDEK INC

Company Name 2

KOSTOM INC
BARBERA AND MUSGROVE INC
T & D CREATIVE ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED DKS DELIVERY LLC

DKS ENTITIES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MGD INC

BURNETT TRUCKING INC

CDAL TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS CDAL TRANSPORTATION

INC; DYBDAL ENTERPRISES INC

SOLUTIONS INC

GUILLE TRUCKING INC

J GIBSON TRUCKING CORP MONEYI TRUCKING CO; MONEYI TRUCKING, INC

7E7 CORP

YOUNGCREW LLC
DAP COURIER SERVICE CORPORATION

PETER MORGAN INC
CARPAT TRANSPORTATION INC
CD LOGISTICS INC LP3 SERVICES LLC DOUGLAS DOW, LLC

DDOW INC

Page 12 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 20 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 740 7412 THAMPY MATHEW 741 7429 CHRISTIAN JUSTIN MIRANDA 742 7436 JAMES DENNIS OCONNOR 743 7443 CARLOS F SANCHEZ 744 7450 AMIR TURKMANI 745 7467 JOSE LUIS LEZCANO 746 7474 KENNETH ASPIN 747 7481 IMRICH MARTICEK 748 7498 KEVIN PAUL COTE JR 749 7504 VLADIMIR MELTSER 750 7511 KAN CHO CHENG 751 7528 CHRISTOPHER BOWMAN 752 7535 GREGORY HINDS 753 7542 PAUL MICHAEL COSTELLO 754 7559 GEORGE HUFF 755 7566 RONALD DESTEFANO 756 7573 ED DIXON 757 7580 MIGUELITO ROSARIO
758 7597 DOUGLAS KENT TAYLOR 759 7603 WILLIAM DELLO 760 7610 MARIO ZEPEDA 761 7627 JACK DAURIA 762 7634 JOSEPH CICALESE 763 7641 JEFFREY CIASTON 764 7658 DAVID ROMANO 765 7665 MARK DECKER 766 7672 RICHARD FARRELL 767 7689 GREGG ROPERTO 768 7696 MICHAEL FORD
769 7702 JOSE M VELAZQUEZ 770 7719 KEVIN HARRIS 771 7726 LEROY JAMES PERKINS JR
772 7733 KEVIN HUSSEY 773 7740 SALVATORE VINCELLI 774 7757 OLIN W COLVIN 775 7764 JOHN MASON 776 7771 EDWARD T CAULFIELD JR 777 7788 SCOTT PIVARNICK 778 7795 DELMAR DENSON 779 7801 CARL K VIRGIL 780 7818 JOHN MATTHEW PROSS 781 7825 MIGUEL LOPEZ 782 7832 ROBERT GRASSBERGER 783 7849 MICHAEL MESSINA 784 7856 LUIS F ACEVEDO 785 7863 JOSE A VALLE 786 7870 EVAN LOUKAS 787 7887 CHRISTOPHER SANDS 788 7894 ENRIQUE F CORTEZ 789 7900 HAKAN TUNCEL 790 7917 MATTHEW J JACOB 791 7924 ALVIN BURGOS 792 7931 ROBERT JACOB NORBERG 793 7948 MARK SCHUMANN 794 7955 JANG WHAN KIM 795 7962 MICHAEL JOHN HODGSON JR 796 7979 MATTHEW R DEMAIO 797 7986 TAMER M MADBOULY 798 7993 RITESH PATEL 799 8006 CARLOS F NAULAGUARI 800 8013 MYROSLAV TERESCHUK

Company Name 1
KAD CORPORATION
WHITE ISLAND INC AHSZN INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

AJS TRANSPORTATION INC; ZARIO INC ZARIO INC DELLO DELIVERY INC

FIRST CHOICE CARRIERS

KNS TRUCKING LLC

FORDS TRUCKING COMPANY

AT YOUR CONVENIENCE DELIVERY
KELYNN INC OLIN LOGISTICS INC EDEX INCORPORATED

AT YOUR CONVENIENCE INC

CASSR INC WHITE FLOWERS INC

FERNANDO EXPRESS BINO CORP EVALEX INC
JOCELYN CORTEZ INC

AB INC

JK SHIPPING INC JADE ENTERPRISE LLC

MAK FREE INC

CFNV CORP MAXX TRUCKING LLC

MSD TRUCKING CORPORATION

Page 13 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 21 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 801 8020 TOMASZ MAKOWSKI 802 8037 STEPHEN TARASIAK 803 8044 ROBERT LOVENBURY 804 8051 WON PYO CHONG 805 8068 WILLIAM GEORGE HILL 806 8075 GARY J MILLER 807 8082 STEWART WILKINS 808 8099 JAMES L LIOTARD JR 809 8105 JOSEPH NORMAN SMASHEY SR 810 8112 JAROSLAW MASLOWSKI 811 8129 JOHN F GREY 812 8136 OLIVER SOBRECAREY 813 8143 BRIAN KEEGAN 814 8150 JACKSON TYLER BARBEE 815 8167 DAVID CORSAKY 816 8174 FREDERICK W FREI 817 8181 GREG LUKOMSKI 818 8198 JEIMMY ARCINIEGAS 819 8204 JERRY SULZER 820 8211 SULTAN OZGEN 821 8228 MUHAMET H OZGEN 822 8235 CHARLES SANTOS 823 8242 DANNY TRAJANOSKI
824 8259 AHMAD OMAR ASSAF 825 8266 JOSHUA DELANO MONDEROY 826 8273 JAVIER PAUCAR 827 8280 DANIEL A CORALES 828 8297 BRIGHT ASANTE 829 8303 RICARDO BONILLA
830 8310 MARCIN DOLEGA 831 8327 ALPHONSE KATTAH 832 8334 WILLIAM F AGNEW 833 8341 GARY CORDI 834 8358 JOHN SCOTT JARVIE
835 8365 LINDA KOZARSKI 836 8372 FRANK SONSIADEK 837 8389 THOMAS M MCDEVITT 838 8396 EVERAL LLOYD 839 8402 ALAN VANYO 840 8419 NABIL G SROUJI 841 8426 JOSEPH F COLLINS
842 8433 MIKE CAPRERA 843 8440 ADAM BLAIR 844 8457 JESUS B MARTINEZ 845 8464 ANDRES L MARAGOTO 846 8471 RICHARD DECKER 847 8488 THOMAS REYNOSO 848 8495 SEAN HOFFMAN 849 8501 PATRICK ESCHER 850 8518 MARK SOJKA 851 8525 ALI SHIRAZI 852 8532 BRUNO LIMA FIGUEIREDO IV 853 8549 ANUSH PHILIP THOMAS
854 8556 ERIC J SZABO 855 8563 GUS NORIEGA 856 8570 MANUEL H VELASQUEZ 857 8587 HENRY MORERA 858 8594 LUIS A VILLAFUERTE 859 8600 JOSE MISAEL GARCIA 860 8617 JOSEPH ABAM

Company Name 1 MAK ENTERPRISE INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

WILKINS CONTRACTING INC
SMASH N DASH DELIVERIES SKIDOG EXPRESS INC LINDY TRUCKING CORPORATION
KEEGAN TRUCKING INC
FM & V TRUCKING INC K & G SHIPPING LLC COLPER INC M J & SONS TRUCKING, INC

FM & V TRUCKING INC G&K SHIPPING INC CJ & J SERVICE INC JM TRUCKING & SONS LLC

KOJNE TRUCKING INC AMSX INC J D MONDEROY INC D CORALES DELIVERY LLC BONILLA ENTERPRISES DOL-MAR TRUCKING CO
CORDI TRUCKING INC JARVIE CORPORATION LINKO CO INC F19 STAGE, LLC
MAJIC EXPRESS INC J COLLINS TRANSFER INCORPORATED J B TRANSPORTATION SJR SOULUTIONS LLC R&H ENTERPRISES

TRAJANOSKI TRUCKING INC
D CORALES DELIVERY INC BONILLA ENTERPRISES INC
JARVIE CORPORATION INC

BLF COURIER INC MGM DELIVERY SERVICE INC
M & E TRUCKING OF NJ, INC

LHDS LLC

MGM HOME DELIVERY INC

LOU'S DELIVERY SVC LLC E&M GARCIA LLC ABAKWA DELIVERY SERVICE INC

M & G GARCIA CORP

Page 14 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 22 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 861 8624 PAULO DEPAIVA 862 8631 JULIO DASILVA 863 8648 SEBASTIAO ALVES VIEIRA 864 8655 GUSTAVO DEJESUS 865 8662 ARNALDO LEITAO DE FARIAS
866 8679 KELSEI J DESOUZA 867 8686 MARCOS JACOBER 868 8693 WILLIAM S DIPOMPO 869 8709 ROBERT PETERSON 870 8716 AUGUST GRANRATH 871 8723 THOMAS L STRAND JR 872 8730 JOHN ROBERT FRICK JR 873 8747 TOM SALVO 874 8754 RICHARD LUCEY 875 8761 KENNETH J SMITH 876 8778 MARK S LAVILLA 877 8785 JASON DAINO 878 8792 CURTIS DAVIS 879 8808 JAMES L HANNON 880 8815 KEVIN FRANKLIN JOTZ 881 8822 ALAA MOHAMMAD 882 8839 ANTONIO SIMOES 883 8846 MACK ARTHUR SOLORZANO 884 8853 CHRIS DEVITO 885 8860 TYRONE ANTHONY CLARK 886 8877 LYNNE E DAVIS 887 8884 JAMES MICHAEL SMITH 888 8891 DAVID G LOTA 889 8907 GEORGE C COUTERMARSHJR 890 8914 SHAWN HOSEIN 891 8921 VIJAY GANPAT 892 8938 MARC JOSEPH SCHER 893 8945 KEITH M WATERMASYSK 894 8952 CARLOS A MUNERA 895 8969 LEON ARZUNIAN 896 8976 JAN SUTKOWSKI 897 8983 VIRGIL VILLANUEVA 898 8990 DENNIS BURNS 899 9003 GUY HAMEL 900 9010 TIMOTHY J VANBEEK 901 9027 VICKI GUILLIAMS 902 9034 NEIL B PLASKY 903 9041 LOUIS SILVESTRO 904 9058 EDWIN HAGAN 905 9065 KEN SICKNICK 906 9072 ROBERT NIVEN 907 9089 TIM WILSON 908 9096 JAMIE IBARRA 909 9102 RANDOLPH HALL 910 9119 MICHAEL T BLANCHARD 911 9126 JASMIN ORTIZ 912 9133 JAMIE WILLIAMS 913 9140 RUBEN MUNOZ 914 9157 PATRICIA STEWART 915 9164 JOSEPH R DELUCIA 916 9171 ROBERT J BEATRICE 917 9188 DEAN CLAYTON 918 9195 TAUHEED RUTLEDGE 919 9201 MARK SMERALDO 920 9218 SCOTT CUNNINGHAM 921 9225 CLAUDE ALCIDE BRISSON 922 9232 SCOTT LENZ 923 9249 ROBERT WHEELER 924 9256 ROBERT KOSCH

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

JPS COURIER SERVICES INC

MATHEWS TRANSPORTS INC

G GUS TRUCKING INC MATHEWS DELIVERIES INC

JACOBER TRUCKING SERVICES INC

Company Name 6

BLUE RIDGE PACKAGE SERVICE INC MRL TRANSPORT INC

TRINITY RANCH TRANSPORT LLC AJPS ENTERPRISES INC SOLORZANO TRUCKING INC DEVITO TRUCKING LLC
JSS79 INC DGL ENTERPRISES INC SHAWN'S EXPRESS DA EXPRESS LLC CC MUNERA LLC AVAL INC A V C EXPRESS, INC
TIM'S DELIVERY INC

DEVITO TRUCKING INC AD EXPRESS INC

BKN EXPRESS MTCR INC

ALSAMCAS INC FOCUS ENTERPRISES LLC

Page 15 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 23 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 925 9263 GREGORY ERIC SAUNDERS 926 9270 CHRISTOPHER SCOTT 927 9287 MICHAEL ONEILL 928 9294 OZGUR BEKTAS 929 9300 NILTON DOSSANTOS 930 9317 HAKSOO SON 931 9324 HARESH R PATEL 932 9331 MARIA LOPEZ 933 9348 LUIS M VENEGAS 934 9355 AYMAN ELSAKKA 935 9362 JOSE RIGOBERTO HERNANDEZ 936 9379 CLAUDIO A CABANELAS 937 9386 RICHARD THURSTON 938 9393 TIMOTHY HAGAR 939 9409 ARTHUR LESLIE 940 9416 ROBERT POLL 941 9423 JOHN FILOZOF SR 942 9430 WAYNE MICHAEL PAVLINET 943 9447 KENNETH A HASPEL 944 9454 DENISE DORSEY 945 9461 JOSE MANUEL OSORIO
946 9478 GUS M MOLINA 947 9485 ROBERT K ROBBINS 948 9492 ROBERT JOHN SKEHAN 949 9508 TIMOTHY WAYNE SHEPHERD 950 9515 JACK JOHNSON 951 9522 CHARLES CHRISTOPHER CARROLL 952 9539 TROY D GERMAIN 953 9546 MATTHEW THOMAS MURPHY 954 9553 CONROY SYKES 955 9560 SAER S HAQ 956 9577 BRYAN BENNEWITZ 957 9584 COLLIN C WATSON
958 9591 LAMAR HARGROVE 959 9607 LUIS RAIMUNDI 960 9614 BRETT THOMAS JAKIMER 961 9621 CESAR A CUBAS 962 9638 MICHAL CIELEMECKI 963 9645 RAMON A ZUNIGA 964 9652 BRIAN V MACDONALD 965 9669 RODRIGO A DEPAULA 966 9676 MICHAEL STARKS 967 9683 JOSEPH MURPHY 968 9690 EDWARD GLEESON 969 9706 RAYMOND J PAUL 970 9713 JOSEPH BARTOLOMEI 971 9720 MICHAEL BERSTLER 972 9737 EDWARD M DRAHOS 973 9744 GARTH JARRETT 974 9751 TIMOTHY HEALE 975 9768 ANTHONY M ROCCO 976 9775 KEVIN DEPAULI 977 9782 STEVE KEARNEY
978 9799 BOB VINCENT CONDON JR 979 9805 JASON HARLEY WOODY 980 9812 DEAN DRAPER 981 9829 THOMAS LEE 982 9836 ROBERT E TIRONE 983 9843 STEPHANIE HORNBAKER 984 9850 SCOTT GLENN KIGER 985 9867 BRYAN GENE GENTILE 986 9874 JOHN PINKERTON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

HARRISON EXPRESSLINE CORP

NEW JERSEY EXPRESS INC BAIRES TRUCKING INC

POLL TRUCKING INC SI EXPRESS, LLC PAVLINET TRUCKING INC HASPEL SERVICES INC NEHEMIAH INC JOSE M OSORIO INC
GUS JAGG LLC

V AND J'S TRUCKING INCORPORATED GUSS JAGG INC

SHEPEXPRESS INC
CARROLL COURIER CORPORATION TDG CAPITAL INC

SAER XPRESS LIMITED LIABILITY
COLLIN WATSON PICK UP & DELIVERY SERVICE INC FORTIFIED TRANSPORT INC
RILEY COURIER SERVICE, INC

RAMON ZUNIGA, INC

MS TRUCKING LLC
GLEESON DISTRIBUTIONS INC RIDGEWOOD DISTRIBUTION INC JOE BART, INC
EMD SERVICES INC JARRETT'S EXPRESS, INC

KDV ENTERPRISES INC KEARNEY & ASSOCIATES INC
RVC TRUCKING INC
DRAPER MCFARLANE CORP

ALREADY GONE INCORPORATED

Page 16 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 24 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 987 9881 TREVOR G SPENCER 988 9898 GLENN CHARLES SCHUBERT 989 9904 GABOR SELMECI 990 9911 DALKEITH L SMITH 991 9928 PIOTR ARTUR SIWIELA 992 9935 GEORGE DARKO 993 9942 CESAR DELACRUZ 994 9959 ADRIAN A NUNEZ 995 9966 PATRICK MICHAEL HAUGHEY 996 9973 ROBERT LALONDE 997 9980 JOSEPH DUNN 998 9997 VINCENT PETRINO 999 10009 ROBERT N COLLETTI
1000 10016 GEORGE SAUERWEIN 1001 10023 RICHARD STERNBERG 1002 10030 MICHAEL MALINOWSKI 1003 10047 VINCENT CUTRO 1004 10054 RONALD DAVIS 1005 10061 KEVIN MARTIN ELLIS 1006 10078 ROBERT KIRCHHOFER 1007 10085 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 1008 10092 CHRIS DELLISANTI 1009 10108 JAMES LAYFIELD 1010 10115 DAVID MINNICH 1011 10122 ERIC COLLAZO 1012 10139 MICHAEL HUNSBERGER 1013 10146 JOHN SWIATKOWSKI 1014 10153 THOMAS ENGSTROM 1015 10160 WILLIAM RIESS 1016 10177 MAXIME FRANCK RUPERTI 1017 10184 RUSSELL T WILLIAMS 1018 10191 DARREN ANTHONY BEIHL 1019 10207 KEVIN ALVAREZ 1020 10214 ERNEST JOHNSON 1021 10221 NIZAMUDEEN GOBIN 1022 10238 JAMES SIMPSON 1023 10245 PHILLIP JAMES IMBODEN 1024 10252 FADI KHALIL

1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038

10269 BYUNG LEE 10276 NATHAN SARAFIAN 10283 YUSUF HIKMET KANSAY 10290 ROBERTO BELLO 10306 AMR ELTORKY 10313 JHON ALEXANDER CARDONA 10320 FRANK CUCINOTTI 10337 DONALD NORDSTROM 10344 PAUL MEDOLO 10351 JEFF SMARGIASSI 10368 THOMAS ZANE 10375 DANIEL MROCZKOWSKI 10382 ERIC NIELSEN 10399 CHARLES DEFEO

1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049

10405 CHARLES FRANCIS BAUMAN 10412 RAY C RICE 10429 MARK ANTHONY MCGREGOR 10436 ARTHUR BRYANT 10443 GEORGE THERRIEN 10450 CHRISTOPHER J BOUCHER 10467 BARRY E KELLER 10474 EDWARD W PALMER 10481 ERIC VAUGHAN 10498 ALFONS HUBER 10504 ADAM JOHNSON

Company Name 1 GLB&M INC GABOTRANS LLC
C J R EXPRESS INC A N TRANSPORT LLC
GET R DUNN TRUCKING INC
RICH WORKS INC TM MALI ASSOCIATES INC VKC TRUCKING INC R & A EXPRESS INC HOME EXPRESS 4 U INC CJRJ TRUCKING, INC DELLISANTI TRUCKING INC LAYFIELD ENTERPRISES INC COLLAZO CORP

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

SELTRANS CORPORATION

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SENTINELS EXPRESS INC

STAGECOACH TRANSPORT INC Z'S COURIER SERVICE INC FADI'S EXPRESS BS LEE, INC

FADI EXPRESS CORPORATION

JEN TRANSIT INC

MROCZKOWSKI TRUCKING INC PIRANHA BROTHERS LLC FOUR DE INC
C F BAUMAN PROPERTIES, INC RICE INC
G M D T ENTERPRISES INC

MNR ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

Page 17 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 25 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1050 10511 WILLIAM GEE 1051 10528 MARK ZOFREA 1052 10535 MATTHEW STEPHEN HARNETT 1053 10542 JOSHARIF NEWTON 1054 10559 RENEE LYNN HEALY 1055 10566 VICTOR EMILIO SANCHEZ 1056 10573 NAYLYNN MAUNG 1057 10580 OSCAR VENEGAS 1058 10597 NOEL ERFE 1059 10603 JOHN PELMAS 1060 10610 WESTON RICARDO GUNN AUSTIN 1061 10627 SANTIGIE KAMARA 1062 10634 STEVEN E BECKWITH 1063 10641 WILLIAM D HALDANE 1064 10658 GEORGE SOUSA 1065 10665 WILLIAM WILLIAMSON 1066 10672 CARL I KAUFMAN 1067 10689 EDWIN ARMSTRONG 1068 10696 SCOTT C CONNOR 1069 10702 PETER TROISI 1070 10719 DANIEL DRUMMOND 1071 10726 DARRELL D DEBNAM 1072 10733 DONNALEE THERESA STRAUBE 1073 10740 WILLIAM CARTER 1074 10757 VINCENT IANNOTTA 1075 10764 ROBERT A THOMAS 1076 10771 JOHN DAVID MOONEY 1077 10788 WILLIAM LAWSON 1078 10795 CHRISTIAN M SMITH 1079 10801 LIBARDO ARCINIEGAS 1080 10818 DORIAN A LOFTON 1081 10825 JAMES PUORRO 1082 10832 ANGEL BUENO 1083 10849 KULVINDER SINGH 1084 10856 MIKE DAVIS 1085 10863 NELSON DELAHOZ 1086 10870 JOHN LEWIS CASH JR 1087 10887 MANUEL ALBERTO DASILVA 1088 10894 RALPH WALDMYER 1089 10900 SAM A KHALIL 1090 10917 JJOE E PHILLIPS 1091 10924 JOSE SERRANO 1092 10931 LAURIE BETH DECKER 1093 10948 CARLOS CHUMPITAZI 1094 10955 CAIRO CORTEZ 1095 10962 MEHMET AKIF BATIR

1096 1097 1098 1099

10979 PATRICK FLETCHER 10986 GUILLERMO PEREZALBALADEJO 10993 GERSAIN AGUDELO 11006 CARMEN RODRIGUEZ

1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112

11013 SEAN LAKE 11020 NENAD SIMIC 11037 PHILIP JAMES CLARK 11044 SCOTT NELSON 11051 GARO BEKIARIAN 11068 STEVEN AFOUXENIDIS 11075 GREGORY WEST DRAKE 11082 DAVID CHURCH 11099 MAURIA CLARK 11105 BRIAN BOUTIN 11112 HAL GOLD 11129 TIMOTHY P ROONEY 11136 ROBERT CHARLES PAULSEN JR

Company Name 1
S N TRUCKING INC
SAMLEP LLC LESWES ENTERPRISE INC
CRVN LLC ARMSTRONG TRUCKING INC DOUBLE D TRUCKING INC ICG & ASSOCIATES K B CARTER INC ANDREW'S INC ASW LOGISTICS, LLC
LUTFI FEDEX GROUND LLC
CHUMPITAZI CORPORATION EAST EX CORP; EASTEX CORPORATION FINASRIN INC G A INSTANT DELIVERIES CARMEN AND LOVEN CORP SHONDEX INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SAMLEP INC

ICG & ASSOCIATES
TPA ENTERPRISES SONBY CORP

2T ENTERPRISES INC

CARMEN AND LOREN CORP

Page 18 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 26 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1113 11143 GIACOMO C ANDREOLI 1114 11150 JOHN HOULIK 1115 11167 ROBERT W CLARK 1116 11174 WILLIAM TURNER 1117 11181 VAHAN THOMAS VARJABEDIAN 1118 11198 FRANKLIN PARKER 1119 11204 DIEGO VEGA 1120 11211 MARK KENNEDY 1121 11228 RONALD EDWARD TAGGART 1122 11235 JARROD CHARLES 1123 11242 RANDY MASON 1124 11259 DANIEL P LENIHAN 1125 11266 DANIEL MENDL 1126 11273 BINDRABAN DEOSARAN 1127 11280 RODERIC VANSANT 1128 11297 JEFF BELAND 1129 11303 THOMAS H REECE JR 1130 11310 BRYANT R BEAULIEU

1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136

11327 NICHOLAS MORALES 11334 BRIAN MCCARTHY 11341 ABRAHAM THOMAS 11358 PEDRO FILHO 11365 MEHMET AYDOGAN 11372 GERARDO CARRERA

1137 1138 1139 1140

11389 MELEN SIVRI 11396 MANUEL FILIPE COSTA 11402 RONALD CONTRERAS 11419 GEORGE R MEKHEIL

1141 11426 ADILSON F PATENTE

1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147

11433 DIDIER CARVAJAL 11440 ERNESTO PONS MARCELINO 11457 ESTER OLIVEIRA COSTA 11464 RICHARD BRUCE LEY 11471 MARTIN KENNEY 11488 HERBERT SPENCER

1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159

11495 PAUL WEISS 11501 FRED D OBORNE 11518 JAMES JESKIE 11525 DAVID SHELL 11532 RAYMOND FORTINO 11549 RICHARD PENNETTA 11556 JOHN GYURO 11563 JOHN PALUGHI 11570 JOSE TORRES 11587 TARIQ BASKERVILLE 11594 RICHARD KOCH 11600 ANTHONY COGDELL

1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167

11617 PHILLIP NEKRASH 11624 DENNIS J NOON 11631 MARIO JARAMILLO 11648 DOUGLAS ALAN CARROLL 11655 CARLOS H ABELLA 11662 MARK SIMMONS 11679 MIKE SCAFIRO 11686 WILLIAM M OBREGON

1168 11693 EUGENE FRIMPONG 1169 11709 PETER KAMINSKI 1170 11716 PAUL NANA

Company Name 1 A 2 B DELIVERY LLC
BOX HUMPERS INC

Company Name 2 A2B EXPRESS CORP

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DEOSARAN INC

BEAULIEU'S COURIER SERVICE; BEAULIEUS COURIER SRV MORALES EXPRESS INC

BRYANT TRUCKING LLC

BEAULIEUS COURIER SERVICE INC

J A CARRERA SERVICES INC SIVRI CORP
G M EXPRESS CO ANGELMINAS LLC
E MARCELINO CORPORATION
MARTIN KENNEY TRUCKING INC LABASH TRANSPORTATION LLC CRACK OF DAWN LOGISTICS LLC JMJ LOGISTICS, INC

J & J CARRERA SERVICES INC

NEW GM EXPRESS INC
ANJOMINAS INCORPORATED

GM EAST COAST INC

CK&G TRUCKING INC

S & L TRUCKING LLC
LABASH TRANSPORTATION, INC

TARIQ BASKERVILLE INC BASE RUNNER EXPRESS INC FOOTWORX DELIVERY CORPORATION

MARLTON GROUND INCORPORATED JARAMILLO TRUCKING CORP CARROLL TRUCKING CHAM ENTERPRISES INC

JKM TRANSPORT, INC

COISCO EXPRESS SERVICES CORP WAF EXPRESS AKKON CORP WORLD WORKS INC

WAF EXPRESS CORPORATION

Page 19 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 27 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1171 11723 FLETCHER HILL 1172 11730 JIM SAVARD

1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191

11747 ROBERT A HARRIS 11754 JEFFREY ALLEN WOOLF 11761 JOSEPH M TREGL 11778 DAVID MARK ASHMAN 11785 ROBERT S BAER 11792 MARCALLYN P GLORIANDE 11808 JOHN VISCO 11815 ANGEL FIGUEROA 11822 JEROMIS W YOKA 11839 WAYNE G DABNEY SR 11846 KOREEM CAMPBELL 11853 CLAUDE EL 11860 THOMAS L REYNOLDS 11877 JORGE F HEDIAN 11884 SERGIO J PASTORE 11891 MATT T DICKINSON 11907 GERARD R ORTEGA 11914 JAMES HOUGH 11921 LOUIS SCHMIDT

1192 11938 FERAS JALOUDI

1193 1194 1195 1196

11945 WILLIAM HORNBAKER 11952 JOSE W JARAMILLO 11969 ROBERT JOSEPH CROSS 11976 ZORAN LAZOROSKI

1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227

11983 KIRK PERICCIUOLI 11990 BRADFORD H BOGUSZEWSKI 12003 DANIEL F WALLACE 12010 SURINDER S SANDLAS 12027 ALEXIS MANUEL RAPOZO 12034 EDWIN MARTINEZ 12041 WAYNE KAUFHOLD 12058 JAMES BARTUCCA 12065 PATRICIA ANN BARLOW 12072 BRUCE EUFEMIA 12089 MICHEL GRAND PIERRE 12096 THOMAS C OBRIEN 12102 MICHAEL ANTHONY GUBITOSO 12119 BENJAMIN LUBERTO 12126 JOHN GLADDEN 12133 JOHN STOTTLEMYER 12140 ANDREW CRONIN 12157 RICCARDO SINDONI 12164 RALPH S BISOGNO 12171 SUNG MIN KIM 12188 EDWARD F PETERS 12195 MICHAEL DEAS 12201 FRANK ALFONSO 12218 ROBERT J LEIDER 12225 CLAUDIO ALBERTO GOMEZ 12232 WILLIAM DOWLING 12249 ERIC ROBOTHAM 12256 ROBERTO PASSALACQUA 12263 MARIO PADILLA 12270 JOSE PADILLA 12287 NICHOLAS KOINANGE

1228 12294 KENSON JOSEPH SIMEON 1229 12300 KRZYSZTOF KOZUCH 1230 12317 DAINIS KLAVINS

Company Name 1 FLETCHER HILL INC AVEX INTERNATIONAL
J A WOOLF INC J T TRUCKING INC
R S BAER INCORPORATED

Company Name 2
AVEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JEROMIS INC WK DISTRIBUTORS

WGD ENTERPRISES, INC

HEDIANS TRANSPORT SERVICE SERGEPAT INC

LK TRANSPORTATION INC YOUNG ENTREPRENEURSHIP LLC

LINCART TRUCKING LLC CARTLIN TRUCKING, INC
YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR EXPRESS CORPORATION

RJC TRANSPORT INC PELICICA EXPRESS LLC
KWP TRUCKING INC

SUPERIOR DELIVERY SYSTEMS INC

ALEXPRESS LLC

METONE CORPORATION EAGLESTAR INC GUBI4, INC JONNICK INC STELLATONY INC
ALFONSO TRUCKING
E&J TRUCKING INC
NIKOAL ENTERPRISES INC K SIMEON 2 CO JAKPOL TRANSPORT LLC

EAGLESTAR INC
BULK TRUCKS INC ER DELIVERY INC SKYY SYSTEMS INCORPORATED JAKPOL SERVICES CORP

Page 20 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 28 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1231 12324 RANDOLPH THOMPSON 1232 12331 EDWARD GIST 1233 12348 GARY HOPKINS 1234 12355 DENNIS A BOWDEN 1235 12362 ELLY HUSHOUR 1236 12379 DONATO CIRCELLI 1237 12386 DENNIS ALAN COOPER 1238 12393 DONALD E AHERN 1239 12409 RALPH R PAGLIUCO 1240 12416 WILLIAM D WERN 1241 12423 JEFFERY PERRY 1242 12430 ROBERTO MARTINEZ 1243 12447 DENNIS GAUNTT 1244 12454 LEANDRO FERMIN 1245 12461 STEPHEN GIEDEMANN 1246 12478 ALLEN WYDE 1247 12485 ALLISON FLAMM 1248 12492 ED CHANG 1249 12508 ARLENE QUESADA 1250 12515 WILSON GOMEZ 1251 12522 JOHN PATRICK MCWILLIAMS JR 1252 12539 DANIEL ARCHER 1253 12546 DAVID JOHN OSBUN 1254 12553 MICHAEL RAYMOND MONTANA 1255 12560 ANIBAL MOSQUERA

1256 1257 1258 1259 1260

12577 KEVIN LAROCHE 12584 JORGE ORMENO 12591 GANGADHAR VAIDY 12607 ANDRIY MAKSYMUK 12614 LEONARDO F GONZALEZ

1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270

12621 RALPH GIACOBBE 12638 KENNETH MISIEWICZ 12645 RONALD VENEZIA 12652 ROBERT J CONOVER 12669 JOSEPH SANTARSIERO 12676 CHARLES W HOEY 12683 MICHAEL SCHOETTLER 12690 RODNEY E ALSTON 12706 RICHARD J PATIRE 12713 BRIAN LEVINE

1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292

12720 JUNG HONG 12737 ANTHONY JACKSON 12744 MICHAEL TOFAUTE 12751 IRWIN G COACHMAN 12768 PAUL A WHILDEN JR 12775 RICHARD KONOP 12782 BRIAN L SCHROB 12799 DONALD SOLOMON 12805 SCOTT TERWILLIGER 12812 EDWARD BURKE 12829 MICHAEL J WODOPUJA JR 12836 SCOTT STOKES 12843 TRACI BARRETT 12850 CHARLES F DANIELS 12867 DWAYNE L BRAKE 12874 THOMAS CONNORS 12881 PATRICIA MCHALEEOSSO 12898 JOSE ALBERTO GOMEZ 12904 DANIEL JANKOWSKI 12911 DOMINGO VENTURA 12928 SAMUEL FERNANDEZ 12935 ORLANDO ORTIZ

Company Name 1 R TEE EXPRESS INC
BOWDEN'S EXPRESS, INC
DENNISCOOP CORPORATION AHERN INC BILL W TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JOVAN CORPORATION JAAR ENTERPRISES

CLEVELAND TRUCKING CORPORATION KIAISMA SERVICE INC
GONZALEZ TRANSPORTATION SERVICE LLC

L & Y GONZALEZ INC

PRACTICE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION; PRACTICE MGMT SOLUTIONS LLC T S I SALES GROUP LLC VALTON ENTERPRISES LLC

JP GROUND EXPRESS INC

I COACHMAN INC

744 STONE STREET, INC

R K HOLDINGS INC SCHROB CORP C L ALCOBA INC

DL2 BRAKE INCOPORATED
GOMEZ FLASH SERVICES INC D W J TRANSPORTATION INC LA&S TRANSPORT

LILI-ANGE SERVICE INC

Page 21 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 29 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1293 12942 EDWARD JAMES STEWARD III 1294 12959 LUIS AREIZA 1295 12966 MARK GREEN 1296 12973 JEAN CLAUDE BUISSERETH 1297 12980 KRZYSZTOF MIODUSZEWSKI 1298 12997 JASBIR SINGH 1299 13000 CHRISTIAN G MEDRANDA 1300 13017 CHRISTIAN DECARVALHO 1301 13024 GOKHAN YUKSEL 1302 13031 JOSEPH G LUIPERSBECK 1303 13048 JOSEPH ROBERT POINTKOWSKI 1304 13055 STEVE SONNON 1305 13062 ISAURO J ROBLES JR 1306 13079 THOMAS GOODHAND 1307 13086 EVA MAE TURNER 1308 13093 DAVID DOVER

1309 13109 CHRISTOPHER P MIN 1310 13116 JOSE L LUGO JR

1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324

13123 MICHAEL MORGAN 13130 MICHAEL KILMARTIN 13147 DONALD LUCAS 13154 DANIEL M DEAL 13161 DOUGLAS IAN RUSSELL 13178 MICHAEL KOHLHEPP 13185 SHADY W BENNETT 13192 JOEL K REID 13208 MARC T STEPHENS 13215 ALFREDO ALTIMIRANDA 13222 ROBERT J STEPANIAN 13239 LUCAS MARTIN 13246 MICHAEL JAMES JENKINS 13253 CRAIG DELILLO

1325 13260 JOHN MIGUEL RAMOS

1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331

13277 ADEM OZBEK 13284 CARLOS SALGADO 13291 JUAN E ORE 13307 MARLON O THOMAS 13314 DAMION M LAWRENCE 13321 JUAN TORRES

1332 13338 ALBINAS SLENDZOKA 1333 13345 PAVLO V VARAVKO

1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342

13352 JOE PAMELIA 13369 JOSEPH SANTESE 13376 JAMES FULMORE 13383 CALVIN STUART 13390 WILLIAM GARDNER 13406 KAZIMIERZ SANOCHI 13413 ALBERT SENATORE 13420 DOROTHY NEHLS 13437 SCOTT LEVINE

1343 13444 ROBERT HAINES 1344 13451 PAUL N LICSAUER

1345 13468 PHILIP R LEPERA 1346 13475 CHUVANO IRIZARRY 1347 13482 RAYMOND SKIPTUNIS

1348 13499 DANIEL DOUGHERTY

Company Name 1 EDWARD STEWARD CORPORATION MINI J SERVICE INC MARK GREEN INC

Company Name 2 XLT DELIVERIES LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DECARVALHO INC EFES EXPRESS
PT2PT LLC
BLACK MADONNA INC GOODHAND TRUCKING LLC
DOVER ENTERPRISES INC
MIN TRANSPORTATION INC J & J DELIVERY SERVICE

EFES EXPRESS II INC
DOVER CONTRACTING INC J & J DELIVERY SERVICE INC

S&CBENNETT TRUCKING DENMARC INC BSTEP EXPRESS INC

NIKA TRUCKING CORP
JOHN'S DELIVERY SERVICE (JDS) INCORPORATED OZ TRUCKING INC C A SALGADO DELIVERY SVC INC
MARPAL DELIVERY SERVICE INC AMAI & SON LLC JR TRANSPORT
AAO TRUCKING LLC

DELILLO TRUCKING LLC

C DELILLO TRUCKING CORP

LAD TRANS
STONE AAO TRUCKING CORPORATION

JEMA TRANSPORT CORPORATION

GARDNER ENTERPRISES SENATORE TRANSPORT INC SDB TRUCKING LLC HPDS LLC P-N-L TRANSPORTATION INC
RMS DELIVERY LLC

SDB PACKAGE AND DELIVERY CORPORATION

P-N-L TRUCKING LLC

P-N-L TRANSPORTATION INC

MNR ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

BARRINGTON LOGISTICS INC

Page 22 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 30 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1349 13505 PATRICK CARRIGAN 1350 13512 PHILLIP WASHINGTON 1351 13529 PEDRO VARGAS 1352 13536 THOMAS STEFANSKI 1353 13543 STEPHEN SUDIA JR 1354 13550 WILLIAM ROSATI 1355 13567 RYNE FRANK RIVELL 1356 13574 EDWARD MITCHELL 1357 13581 WILLIAM G WILSON III 1358 13598 DARREN MELLITO 1359 13604 WILLIAM CATELOTTI 1360 13611 MICHAEL FARIA 1361 13628 ADRIAN G WHITTAKER 1362 13635 NJOROGE WAWERU 1363 13642 ALI BILEN

1364 13659 VINCENT AFRIYIEKORRIE

1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397

13666 ROBERT A SANGSTER 13673 CHARLES CAMPBELL 13680 GARY BILLUPS 13697 WILLIAM J MEYER 13703 ROBERT JOHN DILLER 13710 THOMAS WISCHERMAN 13727 DARLENE ORTS 13734 PAUL LIDDY 13741 DANIEL SCOTT BLISS 13758 MARK LAMB 13765 CONNIE WEEMS 13772 CARL CHRISTOPH WOERMANN 13789 MIKE MONK 13796 TED ENGERT 13802 SCOTT BROWN 13819 LEROY REAVES 13826 KEVIN CUNNIFFE 13833 ROD A LOPEZ 13840 HENRY YU 13857 DAVID A CUTRONA 13864 DANIEL ACOSTA 13871 CHARLES R DURAND 13888 RUBEN COLONIA 13895 JAMES DOWNS 13901 HECTOR ESCOBAR 13918 JORGE A RAMIREZ 13925 ROGELIO LOPERA 13932 MIGUEL DELEON 13949 MILES DAVID THRASH 13956 ARMAND WELLS 13963 JOANN D CECILIO 13970 JAMES SMITH 13987 DEAN HUTCHINSON

1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410

13994 JAMES P COOK 14007 CHARLES BLOODGOOD 14014 DENNIS PALMIERI 14021 MIKE HATALA 14038 MARGARET RITCHIE 14045 JOHN CHIASSON 14052 DANIEL K OSULLIVAN 14069 RONALD MUNROE 14076 FRANCIS LYNCH 14083 LARRY ALLEN SULLIVAN 14090 JOHN J POST 14106 ROBERT DOUCETTE 14113 JOHN FAASSE

Company Name 1 PEDRO SV INCORPORATED

Company Name 2

RIVELL TRANSPORT INCORPORATED

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JONALL TRUCKING LLC KORRIE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
JENALI INC LJ&T INC

DALI TRANSPORTATION, INC
WILLIAM MEYER LLC

SWS ENTERPRISE INC C WOERMANN INC
JNJE INC STANLEASE INC

LUCKY DRAGON LLC D CUTRONA INC DACOSTA SERVICES CHARLES DURAND INCORPORATED

EIGHT-8 CORPORATION DACOSTA SERVICES INC

HECTOR ESCOBAR TRUCKING, INC JAM RAMIREZ LLC

D L EXPRESS INC
MRH TRANSPORT
OSULLY CORP G & J TRUCKING LLC DELIVERITE CORP

SHAFOR ENTERPRISE, INC SHAFOR ENTERPRISE, INC
MRHH TRANSPORT INC

Page 23 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 31 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1411 14120 MICHAEL HICKS 1412 14137 REGINA LOVENBERG 1413 14144 MICHAEL LEHMANN 1414 14151 MICHAEL G DENTREMONT 1415 14168 DAVID PENICARO 1416 14175 MICHAEL BINNEY 1417 14182 PHILIP J STRYKE 1418 14199 DAVID SALTER 1419 14205 RASHEEN GIBBS 1420 14212 LAWRENCE JAMES HILL 1421 14229 JOSEPH M EVANOFF JR 1422 14236 THOMAS KIERNAN 1423 14243 CLINTON BENNETT 1424 14250 JIMMY MATIAS

1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471

14267 NEBOJSA SPIRKOVIC 14274 SASO TOPUZOVSKI 14281 ISRAEL SANCHEZ 14298 EUN S LEE 14304 ANTHONY TIM FERRO 14311 BENJAMIN MULLI 14328 RICARDO J CORDEIRO 14335 EDWARD M CORDEIRO 14342 CAROLE OBRIAN 14359 ROBERT LLOYD PALMER 14366 CRAIG CARMODY 14373 JASON LAROCHE 14380 ROBERT W WOODSON JR 14397 JONATHAN NELSON 14403 JOHN HEACOCK 14410 ROBERT W GRAGNANO 14427 ROBERT WALTER JARRELL 14434 CARL FULCO 14441 ROLAND PRINCE JR 14458 ROBERT MILLAWAY 14465 SCOTT M CROSTA 14472 MARTIN J EGAN 14489 EDWIN ROSA 14496 NEIL ALFRED ROBIDOUX 14502 MARTIN L HOWARD 14519 IAN H AROESTE 14526 ROBERT SCOTT KUGELMAN 14533 DAVID DOYLE 14540 VINCENT JOSEPH HIGGINS 14557 THOMAS STOUDT 14564 JOHN ROBERT WEIR 14571 WILLIAM D KLINE 14588 JULIO A BELTRE 14595 COREY NIEL JORDAN 14601 ERIC EDWARD SLATER 14618 ANDREW ARENA 14625 KOFI AHENKORAH 14632 MIKE SMITH 14649 ROBERT RISTOSKI 14656 DARWIN J ARRIETA 14663 DEWAYNE ANTHONY SMITH 14670 MARIO LUCIO BOMTEMPO 14687 VLADIMIR DIAZPOLANCO 14694 ROBERT DUNLAP 14700 LEONARD BRUCE BOKENKO 14717 YVONNE EVERETT 14724 JON E HILDUM

1472 14731 MIKE SCOTT 1473 14748 JAMES DUTTON JR

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

D A PENICARO LLC
R L GIBBS INC LAW HILL CORPORATION HAICO INC
EE TRUCKING DELIVERY
WIJUS TRANSPORT INC
RC TRUCKING INC Z C TRUCKING INC
CJ'S P&D INC JML INC NELSON DELIVERY INC
JARRELL & SONS TRUCK
LEXCO INC MARANNE LLC

ES TRUCKING DELIVERY INC
JML INC RWJ TRUCKING INC BIG DOG DELIVERIES, INC

ROBERT S KUGELMAN INC
KMA TRUCKING INC STOUDT LOGISTICS LLC JRW TRUCKING LLC
J A B COURIER CORP
S&R DELIVERY INC DARENA, INC
ROMAN EXPRESS INC D&V SUCCESS ON WHEELS INC DSV TRUCKING LLC BOMTEMPO CLEANING CORP VEMJ CORPORATION

MLDB EXPRESS CORP

SUNRISE DELIVERY SERVICE CORPORATION M T SCOTT'S TRUCKING INC

Page 24 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 32 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1474 14755 JAMES DUTTON 1475 14762 RAYMOND CHALENSKI 1476 14779 ROBERT L BRUNETTI 1477 14786 FRANK SIMONETTI 1478 14793 JEFFREY MARRA 1479 14809 JOHN ALBANESE 1480 14816 ATILIO CIUCCI 1481 14823 MARTIN P ROTH 1482 14830 DENNIS BOYKO 1483 14847 GARY POWOSKI 1484 14854 RAYMOND J CALVO 1485 14861 PATRICIA BRUNING 1486 14878 MIKE GORGA 1487 14885 DON SMITH 1488 14892 ESTEBAN ALVAREZ 1489 14908 DANTE TORRES FELICIANO 1490 14915 MARLENE RONCSKEVITZ 1491 14922 ERIK HUSSLEIN 1492 14939 ANDY MALAVE 1493 14946 PATRICK NGEI 1494 14953 LUIS DOMENECH 1495 14960 MICHAEL THOMAS LEPORE 1496 14977 EDWARD GIL 1497 14984 GREGORY J MARINO 1498 14991 ALEJANDRO ALFONSO 1499 15004 TRACI JEAN HUDACEK 1500 15011 MICHAEL J LEBERS 1501 15028 TRAVIS DOW 1502 15035 ERNEST NEAL 1503 15042 LOVELYNN NIEVES 1504 15059 JASON DEGROOT 1505 15066 RONALD FOLLANSBEE 1506 15073 JON CANZATER 1507 15080 SCOTT MCLAIN 1508 15097 PETER R DESANTIS 1509 15103 THOMAS O GRANDE 1510 15110 ROBERT JOHN WARNER

1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537

15127 BRIGITTE MORRISON 15134 GENNARO CRACCO 15141 JOHN WALKER 15158 MICHAEL ROMANCHAK 15165 JOHN KASHICKEY 15189 JEFFREY POMERLEAU 15196 GREGORY COOKE 15202 MICHAEL I RIVITZ 15219 ROBERT WARD 15226 MICHAEL MCMULLEN 15233 CARLOS IRIZARRY 15240 MATTHEEW J LIEBLANG 15257 TERRY BABBS 15264 CHRISTOPHER VANLENTEN 15271 EDWIN CRESPO 15288 THOMAS R FORREST 15295 PETER V ZASTKO 15301 ALESSANDRO FERNANDES BARROS 15318 FRANCIS CHARLES GRIFFIN 15325 RUDY TRBOVICH 15332 GITONGA WAIGUCHU 15349 BRIAN LYNCH 15356 KHALED BADWAN 15363 DAVID LOHOFF 15370 STEVEN MARC NUCIFORA 15387 RICHARD SNYDER 15394 RICHARD BEAGAN JR

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

CBI EXPRESS INC

ALVATUI CORP

CROSSROADS HOME DELIVERY INC IRON BLUE ENTERPRISES AM'S COURIER SERVICES

BLUE METTLE, INC

LEPORE'S TRUCKING
RTR TRUCKING INC JETSET EXPRESS LLC

TEDOW INC

DEGROOT INC BRITISH DEUCES LTD RELIABLE DELIVERY SERVICE INC R J WARNER LLC CANT STAY INC

T D N INC
RJ WARNER EXPRESS CORPORATION

U CLICK WE COME, INC R I NO 2 CORPORATION C I DISTRIBUTORS, INC TERRY TRANSPORTATION FORREST TRUCKING INC SKY USA

R I NO 2 CORPORATION

LYNCH INC CALDWELL TRANSIT INC SCRABBLETOWN INC
COVENANT MANAGEMENT SVCS LLC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 25 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 33 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1538 15400 THOMAS CHARLES PARK

1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601

15417 WILLIAM F CONVERY III 15424 TODD S JOHNSON 15431 KEITH REPACK 15448 VICENTE MIRANDA 15455 LEONARDO LARA 15462 STANLEY STEIN 15479 STEVE J KUBATKA 15486 THOMAS S SCHMIDT 15493 TIMOTHY IRWIN GREENING 15509 WILLIAM LOMBO 15516 CHARLES PATRICK MCCLINTOCK JR 15523 ARTHUR R JONES 15530 BRYON FRYER 15547 RONALD D JOHNSTON 15561 DAVID A MCMAHON 15578 NATHAN L MACK 15585 RANDY AZZATO 15592 DOUGLAS BRIAN SMELTZER 15608 NATALIE FARMER 15615 TIMOTHY C LARSON 15622 DEREK WASHINGTON 15639 JOSEPH ANTOINE HARPER 15646 LEIGH WILLIAM STRAW 15653 CHARLES GREGORY EDWARDS 15660 STEVEN FRANCIS RYAN 15677 WILLIAM SHALLCROSS 15684 SCOTT NATHAN KARNS 15691 BILL V ANASTASOPOULOS 15707 KANCHANA JAYAWARDANA 15714 GEORGE WAHOME 15721 ROBERT G MAILHOT 15738 GAVIN V OPLINGER 15745 ROBERT T TREXLER 15752 THOMAS TOPPI 15769 GLENN WILLIAM PEW 15776 DAVID SHEATLER 15783 JOHN GARIS 15790 SUZANNE BECKER WRIGHT 15806 SHAWN T CLARK 15813 THOMAS RUSSELL CARHART 15820 DAVE NAUS 15837 DIANE TOMEO 15844 ANDREW MARTIN EZEQUELLE 15851 MATHEW TEETER 15868 HERBERT H SMITH 15875 WILLIAM FRANCIS FREDERICK JR 15882 JAMES CALLAHAN 15899 MAURICE DEMPSEY 15905 DAVID H PARKINSON 15912 FRANKLIN J GANCOS 15929 MICHAEL J SHOEMAKER 15936 JAMES WHITE 15943 BRIAN QUAIRIERE 15950 DIANA RESTANI 15967 DANIEL J CLAUS 15974 JUSTIN CHARELS CHUMAS 15981 OMOTOSHO ADETUNJI 15998 CHARLES KAMALA 16001 WILLAIM J HURLEY 16018 BRIAN LHOTA 16025 DANIEL SMITH 16032 JAY WILLIAM MALLICK 16049 ANDREW A VENEZIE

Company Name 1 AAA LAKESHORE TRANSPORT SYSTEMS INC
KUBATKA TRUCKING INC T S S TRUCKING, INC CPM DELIVERY LLC FRY BRY KNIGHT INC MACK DELIVERY SERVICE INC
HARPER J&T INC GTI INC; GTI, LLC
GWP ENTERPRISES INC
DAVID J NAUS, INC AME FREIGHT INC JAMES CALLAHAN INC DAPS GROUND INC SHOEHAUL INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CPM HOME DELIVERY, INC

PEW DELIVERY LLC

Page 26 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 34 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1602 16056 STEVEN JAMES HAYDEN 1603 16063 DALE W HARTLEY 1604 16070 JOHN SKLAR 1605 16087 ROBERT W KELSEY 1606 16094 BRIAN ALLEN KANTNER 1607 16100 ROBERT WORMAN 1608 16117 STEVEN BRIAN KOHL 1609 16124 ERIC JOHN MARSONEK 1610 16131 KEVIN BARDEN 1611 16148 JONATHAN W BARTLEY 1612 16155 GORDON W WISTI 1613 16162 RALPH M COLE III 1614 16179 JASON M ZAKLIKOWSKI 1615 16186 STEPHEN E RYAN 1616 16193 KEVIN SHADE 1617 16209 KEITH BEINLICH 1618 16216 JONG KU KANG 1619 16223 YILDIRIM DEYER 1620 16230 MICHAEL A VAILLANCOURT 1621 16247 GEORGE LAWRENCE BRIGGS 1622 16254 LAURENCE SHAW 1623 16261 JAMES KLEIN 1624 16278 RANDY R HEISERMAN 1625 16285 LANCE A HIGGINS 1626 16292 THOMAS LYDON 1627 16308 TERRY G DEAL 1628 16315 GENE KLINGER 1629 16322 DEBRA A DIBELLO 1630 16339 EDWARD J STOLLSTEIMER 1631 16346 WALTER R FALLER 1632 16353 VINCENT TOMASETTI JR 1633 16360 JOSEPH RUFFIN 1634 16377 NATHAN L GROSS 1635 16384 MATTHEW J SETH 1636 16391 MARK QUINN 1637 16407 MICHAEL I CONAWAY 1638 16414 GERARD MCHALE 1639 16421 AARON P MULLINS 1640 16438 SAMUEL A MCCOOL 1641 16445 RODNEY G SCHUMANN 1642 16452 WADE KLINGER 1643 16469 DAVID S MUNDIS 1644 16476 REGINALD D ISAAC 1645 16483 CHARLES T DIGIOVANNI 1646 16490 STEVEN JONES 1647 16506 BRIAN J SCHUH 1648 16513 MICHAEL PATRICK FOLEY 1649 16520 ERCAN DUZGUN 1650 16537 TIMOTHY ARTHUN

1651 16544 MICHAEL HAYDEN COSGROVE 1652 16551 RICHARD W RENNINGER 1653 16568 MICHAEL A HOLLICK

1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664

16575 ROBERT C WAID 16582 JEFFREY LEE HECHT 16599 JEAN CAPOBIANCO 16605 PHYLLIS BIEL 16612 RICHARD VIPOND 16629 SANDRA K PEZEK 16636 DOUGLAS R DARR 16643 JAMES P CAMERON 16650 ANNETTE L CRAIG 16667 DAVID SHEATLER JR 16674 JOHN SCOTT GLASGOW

Company Name 1 SH TRUCKING, INC ALWAYS RUNNING INC
LAKER TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KEITH A BEINLICH INC JONG KU KANG TRUCKING, INC GRAYWOLF TRUCKING INC MAV TRUCKING INC

EMC TRUCKING INC

JAK OF ATHENS INC

LYDON DELIVERY INC TERRY DEAL TRUCKING INC KLINGER PACKAGE DELIVERY LLC

GBK TRANSPORT INC

NATHAN L GROSS INC MATT SETH TRUCKING MFQ INC E P E D LLC ADVANCED TRANS SERVICES INC

D & C COURIER INC

J T I INC

BRICO DELIVERY LLC
DUZGUN TRUCKING INC ARTHUN ENTERPRISES PA LLC

BRICO DELIVERY INC
KAIROS GROUND SYSTEMS INC

STOP DROP AND ROLL DELIVERIES INC WAID & MCKENZIE DEL'Y SVC INC

SK PEZEK, INC J N J DELIVERY LLC DS GROUND, INC

J N J DELIVERY INC

Page 27 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 35 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1665 16681 GREGORY A EVANS 1666 16698 CLIFF HUTCHISON 1667 16704 CHRIS SCHLOSSER 1668 16711 JEFFREY CLAIR SCHRACK 1669 16728 DONNA YOHE 1670 16735 MARLIN R GOOD 1671 16742 TROY NOBLE 1672 16759 ANTHONY FERRAU 1673 16766 CARL E ALLISON 1674 16773 CHARLEY P CARBAUGH 1675 16780 ROBERT S KELLOGG II 1676 16797 HANI OMAR ABDEL-KARIM 1677 16803 MAMADOU SAIDOU BAH 1678 16810 DENIS F CARVALHO 1679 16827 JOHN MCCARTHY 1680 16834 DEBORAH J GOLDERESE 1681 16841 GARY BLAINE CROSS JR 1682 16858 PATRICK ARMAND DAUPHINAIS 1683 16865 BRUCE J RODMAN 1684 16872 GEORGE PENAGOS 1685 16889 DENNIS ROSS 1686 16896 JOHN S YOUNGBLUD 1687 16902 JOHN STAFFORD 1688 16919 GARY ROGER WAMSHER 1689 16926 THOMAS BRUCE FOREACRE

1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728

16933 ALBERT E HOUCK SR 16940 ROBERT A WHITE 16957 HARRY PACE 16964 RODNEY DUFF 16971 JAMES M STAGGERS 16988 JEROME JOHANNES 16995 HENRY HUSTED 17008 JASON E LONG 17015 LANCE WILLIAM NEWELL 17022 ALAN PACHECO 17039 MICHAEL ALLEN MARSHALL 17046 TODD L EVANS 17053 BELINDA MARIE SCHAEFFER 17060 MICAH ROBERT KOCHER 17077 BEN HOOVER 17084 LUIS ALMEIDA 17091 DENYS CLAUDE UWITONZE 17107 TIM GAGE REYCROFT 17114 WALTER GALLIVAN 17121 KEITH DETIBERIIS 17138 WILLIAM GAUNT 17145 DAVID CHARBONNEAU 17152 BRUCE R BERGERON 17169 DONALD SWIDERSKY 17176 MICHAEL DURDEVICH 17183 JOHN LUCOT 17190 JAMES E DEMARCO 17206 BERNARD LARKIN 17213 CHRIS J BASELICE 17220 BRIAN KEITH HAHN 17237 JON PRISCARO 17244 THOMAS E REED 17251 DAVID CRAMER 17268 RICHARD ALLEN SAKOSKY 17275 JAMES D GOFF 17282 JERRY ANTHONY CIMINI 17299 STEPHEN SCHNECK 17305 ROBERT S ANDERSON 17312 RASOOL PHILLIPS

Company Name 1 CLIFF K HUTCHISON INC JACE EXPRESS INC CANVISS INDUSTRIES INC TANMAN, INC
KFX LLC OMARZ, INC

Company Name 2 T S SERVICES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KKLG CORPORATION

WOODLAND PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL INC BEEJAY ENTERPRISES INC REZ LLC COLTAYR INC
STELLAR TRUCKING INC
DETI INC
DEMARCO CONTRACTING INC DECK ENTERPRISES T REED INC RAS DELIVERY SERVICES INC

Page 28 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 36 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1729 17329 SHELLEY WHEELER 1730 17336 ROBERT HUPFER 1731 17343 CHRISTOPHER EDGELL 1732 17350 ROBERT NORTON 1733 17367 ADALBERTO GARCIA 1734 17374 BRIAN ALEXANDER DOWNS 1735 17381 TRISTE P ERVIN 1736 17398 PETER V KIRITSY 1737 17404 MANUEL LEITE 1738 17411 DANIEL C WALKER

1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771

17428 RICHARD LANDERS 17435 CALVIN PIPER 17442 EMERY J KERNICH 17459 RALPH BONACCI 17466 ANTHONY C GEORGE IV 17473 ROBERT MORGAN 17480 KENNETH A GHERARDI 17497 WILLIAM FREEMAN 17503 LARRY EALEY 17510 MICHAEL GATES 17527 TODD CARBAUGH 17534 DAVID STOUT 17541 SCOTT CUNNINGHAM 17558 ADAM DEAN GREENSTEIN 17565 BARRY L STOVER JR 17572 FRANK HAUN 17589 MICHAEL HARRISON 17596 JOHN F LIGHTING JR 17602 JARED PUZDER 17619 MARK STEHLEY 17626 RALPH BABCOCK 17633 ROGER MANBECK 17640 JACEK ZAKLICKI 17657 JAMES MCNUTT 17664 DAVID MCAFEE 17671 NICHOLAS JOSEPH DEMATTEO 17688 DAVID A LAWRENCE 17695 THOMAS C MIKULSKI 17701 GORDON DEAN FERRARI 17718 ESTHER LUDWIG 17725 RANDY SHERMAN 17732 THEODORE TARLOWSKI 17749 JOHN BORDONE

1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790

17756 THOMAS W HECKER 17763 LYNN MANN 17770 RICHARD L MURPHY 17787 BRIAN MICHAEL HOLES 17794 EDWARD DELOACH II 17800 JOSEPH ROBERT KESTER 17817 ANTHONY DENNIS 17824 ABDOSSAMAD MORAWEJ 17831 DAVE EDWARD MITCHELL 17848 RALPH C MOYER 17855 RACHEL DANICA WHITSELL 17862 MARK PINTOF 17879 WILLIAM GASS 17886 SEAN R MCNEIL 17893 JASON FRANK PAWLOWSKI 17909 WILLIAM KERNER 17916 JOSEPH DECKER 17923 MICHAEL LEIDERMAN 17930 THEODROS ZEREIT

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DOWNS INC
D C WALKER TRANSPORT I LOGISTICS; DC WALKER TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS

RJM EXPRESS INC KAG DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LLC WILLIAM C FREEMAN INC

KG2 SERVICES INC

ADAM D GREENSTEIN, INC FFH LOGISTICS INC

JACEK INC
D&G EXPRESS LLC ENDEE LOGISTICS, INC

ERL INC

JONLIN EXPRESS SERV INC; JONLIN JOLIN EXPRESS SERV

EXPRESS SERVICES INC

CORP

R&K MOYER INC MICHAELS INC TEDEX TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 29 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 37 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1791 17947 LARRY COULTER 1792 17954 DOMINIC O OKOH

1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803

17961 LARRY J HASSON 17978 ROBERT L CARTER 17985 DAVID KAPAONA 17992 MARTIE MCCOY 18005 GARY M BURKHART 18012 RONALD COSTEN 18029 DOMINICK VALVANO 18036 CLIFFORD P JEWELL 18043 BRYAN GRIEST 18050 HENRY LEE 18067 DAVID CHARLES SCARNATI

1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852

18074 THOMAS WEAVER 18081 JOHN FREDERICK CAMPBELL 18098 JOHN DUMAN 18104 GEORGE A ROTH 18111 DAVID JOHN PLACE 18128 ROBERT O WHYMEYER 18135 STERLING GETHERS 18142 JOON G ROH 18159 MICHAEL GOLDBERG 18166 KEVIN JAMES BORKOWSKI 18173 RONALD ERIK STOUT 18180 WILLIAM CONNOR 18197 JASON RUSSELL MAJOR 18203 NESSER RENE MADRID 18210 HARDEEP S DHALIWAL 18227 ANDERSON GRACINDO DOSSANTOS 18234 THOMAS WRIGHT 18241 MICHAEL KENNEY 18258 WILLIAM ROBERT SHANCEY 18265 RONALD LOUIS CZEREPAK 18272 RICHARD F KAUFMAN 18289 PAUL HENDERSON GROSH 18296 MARK SATOLLI 18302 RICK WOLFINGER 18319 MARY SACKS 18326 KARL A STAMMER 18333 DOMINECK J YURCHICK 18340 MICHAEL DONOVAN HITE 18357 ROBERT C DITTMAR 18364 GEORGE CLEAVELAND 18371 DENNIS HINGER 18388 GEORGE FARRAH 18395 PAUL MICHAEL WANNER 18401 MIKE PARKS 18418 DON WALKAUSKAS 18425 BASSEM JARJOUS 18432 BRADLEY WALLAS 18449 GARNELL BROWN 18456 JOSH KOZAY 18463 JOHN SCHNITZER 18470 ANDREW J TIRPAK 18487 PAUL EUGENE JEFFRIES 18494 GLENFORD CUNNINGHAM 18500 STANTON PLENN 18517 MANUEL COLON 18524 ROBERT KLOSS 18531 MICHAEL STEVENSON 18548 TERRY ADAMS 18555 JAMES DEVENNY

Company Name 1
NEW GENERATION CONSOLIDATED LLC LJH DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

LOUIS DUFFINE EXPRESS LLC; LOUIS LOUIS DUFFINE EXPRESS DOUBLE NICKEL

DUFFINE INC

II, INC

DELIVERY II, INC

DUMANS DELIVERY SERVICES INC

BLACK DIAMOND LOGISTICS, INC IRG DELIVERIES CORPORATION A-MAX GRAFICS MSG DELIVERY INC

MEGBILL INC

AKAAL DELIVERY SERVICE INC

RC PONY EXPRESS LTD HUNTER'S NIGHT HAWK, INC

RC PONY EXPRESS CORP

M D HITE TRANSPORT, INC

PUNCTUAL PACKAGE SERVICE INC PARKSY INC JUST TRUCKIN PACKAGES, INC JOUSY INC WALLAS INC

GDC TRANSPORT CORPORATION AEH CORPORATION

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 30 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 38 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1853 18562 PAUL F BULLOCK

1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889

18579 DEWITT CLINTON WELDON JR 18586 ANDREW KUNSELMAN 18593 THOMAS COLNA 18609 PAUL GILBERT 18616 LYNN VAILLANCOURT 18623 JAMES RANKIN 18630 TODD DRISCOLL 18647 TIMOTHY DALE MILLER 18654 NICHOLAS JAMES CARDUFF 18661 JAMIE KESSLER 18678 RICHARD DZUGAN 18685 MATTHEW KIRSCH 18692 MICHAEL GAILEY 18708 CHARLES WAGGONER 18715 JOSE LUIS BUENANO 18722 ALBERT YERKE 18739 DANIEL RITCHEY 18746 KENNETH MICHAELS 18753 FRED W CONNER 18760 CYNTHIA TRAINI 18777 KIM KING 18784 JACK RUSSELL 18791 BRYAN R JENKINS 18807 ANTHONY ALLMAN 18814 GEORGE WILLIAM ADAMS 18821 DAVID MCCAMEY 18838 SHAUN KEITH QUIGLEY 18845 SCOTT DAVID PAPAY 18852 RYAN ANTHONY RIZZO 18869 DAVID GANSSLE 18876 JOHN YI 18883 JASON A SUTLIFF 18890 CARLOS ALBERTO RUIZ 18906 JANELLE D MOYER 18913 JOSEPH MORGAN 18920 NATHAN ALLEN ROACH

1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912

18937 KEN BARBER 18944 WESLEY DUNNING 18951 MELODY TINGLE 18968 GARY HANESELL 18975 HUGH FITZGERALD 18982 JACOB N BORDETSKY 18999 MILTON SOVERAL 19002 KENNETH SHOOP 19019 FRANCIS WALSH 19026 MICHAEL GREGORY CRANE 19033 SCOTT W HELLER 19040 JAMES CORLE 19057 BRIAN WOOD 19064 JOHN D JONES JR 19071 MATTHEW DOUGLAS GIBBONS 19088 MARCEL DASILVA 19095 JAMES ROSHALA 19101 MICHAEL W KLEIN 19118 THOMAS BOWMAN 19125 DONALD C WILLIAMS 19132 DOUGLAS SWEETSER 19149 NORMAN JOSEPH CHILL 19156 LOUIS A WITCHEY

1913 19163 MICHAEL MARKOWSKI 1914 19170 DANIEL E FARREN

Company Name 1 BACICCIO TRUCKING LLC

Company Name 2 ROADRUNNER DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DRISCOLLS TRUCKING INC
MK ENTERPRISES LLC JLB TRANSPORT LLC MICHAELS INC FREDDCO INC

MK ENTERPRISES II INC MK ENTERPRISES II INC JLT TRANSPORT CORP

REETZO INCORPORATED YI ENTERPRISES INC

PARKGRIEF ENTERPRISES LLC KB SERVICES INC

PARKGRIEF ENTERPRISES INC

FITZ FAST FREIGHT, INC

WALSH EXPRESS
J CORLE LOGISTICS INC
GIBBONS TRANSPORTATION INC M X SILVA SERVICE

CHILL CONSULTING CORPORATION WITCHEY ENTERPRISES, INC; WITCHEY INC
MONTANA-DANNY, INC

Page 31 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 39 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1915 19187 KEVIN CHARLES ESHELMAN 1916 19194 MISTI COYLE 1917 19200 PAUL KOELLNER 1918 19217 THOMAS HOWARD SCHOLL 1919 19224 MATTHEW ZELNO 1920 19231 GREGORY A KOWATCH 1921 19248 CHRIS KALISZEWSKI

1922 1923 1924 1925

19255 M JOHN HAMM 19262 TIMOTHY SMITH 19279 ARTHUR FREDRICK HUNSINGER 19286 JAMES AARON QUEEN

1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977

19293 CHRISTOPHER COMES 19309 STEVEN K HELM 19316 DOMINIC VERGNETTI 19323 SCOTT R HANSON 19330 MICHAEL DUANE LUKENS II 19347 MELISSA MILLER 19354 TERRY W TWIST 19361 THOMAS LACHANCE 19378 DAVID ALLAIN 19385 GUY T GRAY 19392 JOAN E HARROLD 19408 WARREN GREEN 19415 RICHARD L KAPP JR 19422 JAMES GRASSO 19439 RONALD MEHALCO 19446 BRAD W VANDERBECK 19453 MARTIN J MURPHY 19460 THOMAS GREENWOOD 19477 MICHAEL OCONNOR 19484 JOHN HARTSHORNE WIKOFF III 19491 DAMON V OSKEY 19507 PENNY ELLIS 19514 CHRISTOPHER HOGG 19521 RANDALL PHILLABAUM 19538 ZERFE KEBEDE 19545 MARC HOOVER 19552 MATTHEW OWEN CLOPPER 19569 MICHAEL SOLOMON 19576 WILLIAM L RUBINCAM 19583 JAMES KARANJA 19590 MILTON SANCHEZ 19606 AMY REYNOLDS BERGER 19613 DANIEL STURGIS 19620 DUANE PJ TOCCI 19637 PETER D STERITI 19644 VINCENT M ORLANDO 19651 DEAN KOPPENHAVER 19668 WAYNE MARQUARDT 19675 HAROLD SNYDER 19682 JOSEPH C CONDI 19699 STEVEN BUDGE 19705 THOMAS ALPAUGH 19712 GREGORY BEDICS 19729 ROY A BISTLINE 19736 JEFFREY MCBREATY 19743 L GERRY MORGAN 19750 PATRICK GALL 19767 DARWIN F DEAMER 19774 GARY COMLEY 19781 ANDREW LUCAS 19798 SCOTT PATTERSON 19804 KEN RAVEN

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

D&K SERVICES JHET INC CONSTITUTION TRANSIT LLC
DOMINIC VERGNETTI'S INC TIMBER STONE INC INTENSE INC

KB VENTURES LLC

KB VENTURES; KB VENTURES LLC

CMK VENTURES INC

CMK VENTURES INC

CONSTITUTION TRANSIT CONSTITUTION

LLC

TRANSIT INC

MEHALCO INC BWV ENTERPRISES INC

RANDY'S PACKAGE SYSTEM INC
VISTA TRUCKING, INC KAWAKA ENTERPRISES INC JSA ENTERPRISES INC PLS ENTERPRISE INC MARQUARDT, INC MORNINGSTAR DELIVERY LLC
BELMORG INC
A J LUCAS INC

Page 32 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 40 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1978 19811 ROBERT WHELAN 1979 19828 ALTON EDWARD STIGGERS 1980 19835 ANDREW J ELMY 1981 19842 JOSHUA A BECK 1982 19859 MATTHEW KRAMER 1983 19866 RICHARD LEE KURTZ JR 1984 19873 JAMES M SERFASS 1985 19880 MARK T CARR 1986 19897 CHRISTOPHER CIAVATTO 1987 19903 KONCHANH CHONMANY 1988 19910 ARTHUR GRIMES 1989 19927 ROBERT EVICH 1990 19934 THOMAS USSELMAN 1991 19941 JEFFREY D FURTADO 1992 19958 DAVID VERSAW 1993 19965 CHRIS HANTZ 1994 19972 JOSEPH BONINO 1995 19989 JAMES PALOMBARO 1996 19996 MIKE BOOK 1997 20008 DOUGLAS DANNER 1998 20015 SCOTT RANDELL STULTS 1999 20022 JOHN T CAREY III 2000 20039 SCOTT ALAN TRICARICO 2001 20046 DAVID MARSTON WOODBURY JR

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

20053 KENNETH W MORRISON 20060 KIM HANSHAW 20077 CHARLES SMITH 20084 JEFFREY C BARR 20091 BRUCE MCHUGH 20107 JOHN RANDOLPH 20114 WILLIAM A REICH 20121 DONNA GORDNER 20138 ROMAN BLONAROWYCZ 20145 GERALD BRINKLEY 20152 WAYNE MATHEW LINDQUIST 20169 JAMES CARR 20176 ROBERT THOMAS 20183 RICHARD ANICOLA 20190 ROBERT URQUHART 20206 MANFRED A HECKMAN 20213 LOUIS KEITH LEONARD 20220 WILLIAM JOSEPH KIBE II 20237 RYAN F SMITH 20244 LOUIS LAUER 20251 ZACKARY HLISTA

2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

20268 TIMOTHY CABRAL 20275 FUAT GULDUREN 20282 ADI ALI 20299 DAN OTELL 20305 JAYE MILTON BARTLE

2028 20312 DAVID M SLAW

2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038

20329 RICK CHAMBLEE 20336 KEITH SHPAKOFF 20343 KIM FLEMMING 20350 WILLIAM EARL PONDER 20367 DON L BRENNEMAN 20374 JASON BEELER 20381 SCOTT ANTHONY GREENMAN 20398 DAVID KENNEDY 20404 MELISSA MARIA DELAROSA 20411 NATHAN DATTS

Company Name 1 BECK SERVICES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RAMS BS MAILPIECES & CONC INC

ME2U DELIVERY INC

THL, INC BOOK ENTERPRISES INC

BOOK ENTERPRISES INC

MUDD CITY INCORPORATED

ASHIN ENTERPRISES LLC DAVE WOODBURY CONTRACTING INC

HANSHAW TRUCKING INC JCB DISTRIBUTION INC

W REICH ENTERPRISES INC GORDNER TRUCKING INC

W L TRUCKING, INC RJT TRUCKING INC

HLISTA ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

KINGDOM TRUCKING INC; KINGDOM TRUCKING, INC DELAWARE HOME DELIVERY SERVICE, LLC

DELAWARE HOME DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

DHATZ ENTERPRISES

Page 33 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 41 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2039 20428 DAVID OSBORN 2040 20435 BRUCE WINGER 2041 20442 STEVEN GUISER 2042 20459 JONATHAN MERRILL 2043 20466 MOULOUD ZOUAOUI 2044 20473 NEAL OBRIAN 2045 20480 DARLA TINKER-WRIGHT 2046 20497 JOHN A BRANDON 2047 20503 CLEVELAND RHINE 2048 20510 PETER ANTHONY ZELNO 2049 20527 KENNETH HOSLER 2050 20534 JOHN L VERBOS 2051 20541 CALVIN FELICIANI 2052 20558 DOUG SWISHER 2053 20565 DANA MARTIN BEAL 2054 20572 JAMI WHITE 2055 20589 DAWN BOWMAN 2056 20596 CARLA J SCHOAF 2057 20602 TREVOR HOLMES 2058 20619 PETE WHITTICAR 2059 20626 AMOS SHINE MCCLAIN 2060 20633 WILLIAM JOSHUA WEIGLE 2061 20640 JASON THOMAS BAUGHMAN 2062 20657 ARYOSVALDO SILVA PEREIRA 2063 20664 RICARDO NUNES SILVA

2064 20671 CHARLES EDMONDSON 2065 20688 HARRY DECRESCIO

2066 2067 2068 2069

20695 DENNIS STEPHEN MORGAN JR 20701 HASSAN BOUSEKHANE 20718 WILLIAM JOHN CURRIER JR 20725 ELES JORGE SOARES

2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088

20732 RONALD SWIGERT 20749 BRUCE DERSTINE 20756 ROBERT JAMES BRETZ 20763 HOWARD E WERTMAN 20770 PAUL CARL SEIFERT 20787 WILLIAM A WELLS 20794 DONALD ALLEN LYONS 20800 DALE E WARNER 20817 BARBARA D HEPP 20824 ROBERT B MICHALIDES 20831 MICHAEL P TEBERIO 20848 KERRY R WAGNER 20855 RICHARD MANNING 20862 MARK BRIDGE 20879 JOHN PONTIUS 20886 ANTHONY ANDERSON 20893 MICHAEL JOHNSON 20909 JEFFERY M BAUER 20916 DANIEL GORDON TRUMP

2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098

20923 NURI SAHIN 20930 CHARLES WALKER 20947 DENNIS SCHAEFFER 20954 MELVIN HECKMAN JR 20961 JOHN KANE 20978 STEPHEN J RATOWSKI 20985 DUANE VALLEY 20992 LARRY L JOHNSON 21005 MATTHEW L LEIB 21012 MICHAEL F HARVAN

Company Name 1 BRUCE ALLEN WINGER INC MERRILL DELIVERY, INC O'BRIEN FHD INC D & J WRIGHT INC GROUNDONE LLC
JOHN L VERBOS JR INC FELICIANI & CO LLC
HAWX INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GROUND ONE, INC

BAUGHMAN INC
US ALLIANCE GROUP INC; USA ALLIANCE CORPORATION
DECRESCIO ENT INC; DECRESCIO ENTERPRISES INC DENNIS S MORGAN JR INC

SOARES TRANSPORTATION INC

R & E TRANSPORTATION INC

WERTMAN EXPRESS INC RUNWELLS INC D E WARNER INC

GT TRANSPORTATION LLC
THE BEST CENTER INC SJR COURIER SERVICES INC L L JOHNSON INC LEIB INCORPORATED BUCKET TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED

TRUMP GOOD TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 34 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 42 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2099 21029 WILLIAM SHANABROUGH 2100 21036 KATHY J SHORT 2101 21043 TIM IRWIN 2102 21050 BIBIANO OUANO 2103 21067 CHARLES LEON FRANCHINE JR 2104 21074 LEROY BROWN 2105 21081 DAVID J KOZUP 2106 21098 THOMAS LOSCH 2107 21104 MICHAEL ANDRE BURTON 2108 21111 CHRIS SOLLEY 2109 21128 MICHAEL J ROBERTSON 2110 21135 FRANK MCSLOY 2111 21142 RICHARD BLASE REIN JR 2112 21159 NATHAN S UBA 2113 21166 DANIEL BUCKLEY 2114 21173 ANTHONY MCELVANEY 2115 21180 MIKE SHAFFER 2116 21197 JAMES SNYDER 2117 21203 EDWIN VALENTIN 2118 21210 SABRI CETIN 2119 21227 ROBERT H KENNEDY 2120 21234 JAMES PRENDERGAST SR 2121 21241 THOMAS M KOCON SR 2122 21258 ROBERT J SAFKO 2123 21265 LEONARD POSTRECH 2124 21272 TODD D FINKENBINER 2125 21289 GEORGE UPDEGRAFF 2126 21296 RICHARD EMERSON APPLAS JR 2127 21302 LARRY MCCARTY 2128 21319 ANGELO CARANCI 2129 21326 DAVID A MCHENRY 2130 21333 ANDREW S THOMAS 2131 21340 STEPHEN R GAMBINO 2132 21357 PHILIP CHARLES BERTOLINO II 2133 21364 ANGELO DONGILLI 2134 21371 NICHOLAS AZZARELLO 2135 21388 EDWARD DONGILLI 2136 21395 TIMOTHY ALAN BROWN 2137 21401 JONATHAN ALAN PUSKAR 2138 21418 DAVE RUCKERT 2139 21425 TERRY W MACK 2140 21432 ASHLEY EUGENE HALLORAN 2141 21449 RITCHARD A KISER 2142 21456 GEORGE ROBERT KLESH JR 2143 21463 KEVIN LEVINE 2144 21470 TED LESKO 2145 21487 WESAM JOSEPH KAMHIA 2146 21494 JOHN GRAY 2147 21500 RALPH TITO 2148 21517 STEPHEN R SMITH 2149 21524 THOMAS E WITHEROW 2150 21531 BRIAN R BIEBER 2151 21548 ANTHONY LATINO 2152 21555 MORRIS PIERCE 2153 21562 RONALD HAWKINS 2154 21579 STEPHEN FOWLER 2155 21586 KALVIN DRUMMOND 2156 21593 DANIEL A SANDLER 2157 21609 JEFFREY HART 2158 21616 WILLIAM H MAGLET 2159 21623 EMILIO DIVALERIO 2160 21630 GLENN E BOVAIRD 2161 21647 DANIEL MARK FISHLER 2162 21654 KOJO NKETSIAH 2163 21661 DENNIS OSBORNE

Company Name 1 TIMOTHY L IRWIN INC BROWN GROUND INC TOM SVEN INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

REIN ENTERPRISES LLC
DAN BUCKLEY, INC T&D DELIVERY INCORPORATED
SNYDER ENTERPRISES INC LEV TRANSPORT, INC SSNA INC KENNEDY MUMFORD KARRIERS INC
TKS DELIVERY SERVICE

TODD D FINKENBINER INC E U TRUCKING INC
KLM ENTERPRISES NINA TRANSPORTATION INC

SRG DELIVERY INC PS BERTOLINO LLC DG DRAFTING INC AZZARELLO INC JEN-SIE TRANSPORT INC T BROWN, INC

DG DRAFTING INC

GLOBAL T-SMACK INC

M G CORPORATION

MARMARITA EXPRESS LLC R C DELIVERY SERVICES INC

SANDLER TRANSPORTATION INC GERDEN INC

Page 35 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 43 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2164 21678 JAMES J RUSSO JR 2165 21685 RICHARD H SOMERS II 2166 21692 JOSEPH MOZEKO 2167 21708 GEORGE HAMMER 2168 21715 RODNEY ROTHROCK 2169 21722 RICHARD SMITH 2170 21739 NICHOLAS STILLO 2171 21746 CHRISTOPHER J OWEN 2172 21753 BRIAN MARKLE 2173 21760 MARK A PIPER 2174 21777 ROY J MARANKI 2175 21784 LUIS ORTIZ 2176 21791 RAHUL SHARMA 2177 21807 THAD STULTZ 2178 21814 DANIEL PROCACCINO 2179 21821 TODD CRAWFORD 2180 21838 SULAIMAN BROOKS 2181 21845 MICHAEL T PENTZ 2182 21852 ROBERT LOUIS HAUSER 2183 21869 CONRAD MILLIRON 2184 21876 MAURICIO GARCIA 2185 21883 QUINN T OLIVER 2186 21890 CASEY CLASSEN 2187 21906 ADAM JOHN HECKMAN 2188 21913 ROBERT NEIL SHINDLEDECKER 2189 21920 JAMES DAVIS 2190 21937 KRZYSZTOF ZIELINSKI 2191 21944 HENLEY KIPYEGO 2192 21951 IGOR S NIKIFOROV 2193 21968 MICHAEL CARPENTIERI 2194 21975 JAMES BARR 2195 21982 MICHAEL PROKOPOVICH 2196 21999 ARDELL HASSENPLUG 2197 22002 BERNIE FARRELLY 2198 22019 DENNIS PERSING SR 2199 22026 LOREN GRANT WEYANT 2200 22033 RUDOLPH HAYDEN 2201 22040 WILLIAM INGRAM 2202 22057 ARMANDO JOHN SIANO 2203 22064 WADE THOMAS GOUGHNEOUR 2204 22071 BRETT GOLDMAN 2205 22088 KEITH M STIGER 2206 22095 FRANK ROGERS 2207 22101 CHRISTOPHER STOLL 2208 22118 JOHN ARTHUR MILLER 2209 22125 TIMOTHY LARKIN 2210 22132 SCOTT HEMPHILL 2211 22149 ROBERT PATERNI 2212 22156 SHAWN M SPONSLER 2213 22163 JAY POPLAWSKI 2214 22170 WENDY ANN OSTRANDER 2215 22187 ROBERT SHOWALTER 2216 22194 WILLIAM EDWARD BENCH 2217 22200 DONALD ROBERT BOROWSKI JR 2218 22217 WAYNE A COOK 2219 22224 CHARLES I MAXWELL JR 2220 22231 ROBERT GUERTIN 2221 22248 NIKKI JEAN ADAMS 2222 22255 SCOTT A FRASER 2223 22262 SONNY CAHYADI 2224 22279 HERMAN MELKYSEDEK TIRTASAPUTRA 2225 22286 MIKE CONLEY 2226 22293 MICHAEL REARDON 2227 22309 STEVE COHEN 2228 22316 JOHN STEVEN TOWNE

Company Name 1 CHIP CORPORATION G M HAMMER ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

WOODSHER INC
MARK PIPER INC ROY J MARANKI INC

PROC CORP
PENTZY INC EAGLE 1 TRANSPORTATION, INC

SHINDY, INC AZIA TRANSPORTATION CO INC
B J EXPRESS, INC L G WEYANT, INC

KMSTIGER INC STOLL N DRIVERS INC

SHOWALTER EXPRESS BRENBAY INC CCB TRUCKING INC S C EXPRESS INC

GOLDEN ODESSEY LTD MIZBEAH LLC

NEW MIZBEAH INC

MICHAEL REARDON TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 36 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 44 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2229 22323 MICHAEL WASSMER 2230 22330 ALADINO SALAS 2231 22347 ED TWEED 2232 22354 RICHARD LAMAR HUMES 2233 22361 TRACY HUNT 2234 22378 JAY TRACHIM 2235 22385 MARK A KASHI 2236 22392 JOHN BUSTIN SR 2237 22408 MARCUS FORD 2238 22415 GEORGE WALSH 2239 22422 LAURIE CLEMMER 2240 22439 PHILIP ROY FORNEY 2241 22446 DENNIS SHORT 2242 22453 AARON CURLEY 2243 22460 JEREMY SMITH 2244 22477 JOSEF VISHENGRAD 2245 22484 JAKE DOUANGDY 2246 22491 JEFFREY JARVIS 2247 22507 ROBERT JOSEPH DANEAULT 2248 22514 DAVID MOTTERSHEAD 2249 22521 JASON RUTLEDGE 2250 22538 MICHAEL MCNELIS 2251 22545 JEFFREY THOMAS SPAW 2252 22552 MICHAEL J SEAR 2253 22569 BRIAN EMERSON NALEPA

2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292

22576 JEFFREY DAVID NALEPA 22583 BRYAN SCOTT DEIHM 22590 NICHOLAS MICHAEL BUZZUTTO 22606 CHRISTOPHER MANLEY 22613 AARON RUSSELL WAY 22620 TEMISTOCLES R SANTOS 22637 LOUSYAN I SALLEET 22644 JOHN APPLIN 22651 DAVID SUTCH 22668 DAVID KELLERMAN 22675 THOMAS P GRAZIOUS 22682 MORTEZA MODARRES 22699 JOHN J SKOLODA 22705 DAWN MARIE BURKHOLDER 22712 JOHN MAIDL 22729 GERALD DADDARIO 22736 RICHARD L ORGOVAN 22743 PAUL HOOVER 22750 NATHAN WRIGHT 22767 CURTIS CLEVER 22774 EUGENE ROBERT COAKLEY 22781 MICHAEL W MEEDER 22798 KAREN L MELFI - OLIVA 22804 JERRED ROSS AMICK 22811 ROBERT JUSTIN DELORME 22828 JOHN THOMAS HENNIGER 22835 BOGDAN KAROL STEPIEN 22842 NICANOR JUNIOR DOSSANTOS 22859 JUAN CARLOS REY 22866 TERCIO CAMPOS 22873 MANUEL MONTROND 22880 DARCI TOMAZ SILVA 22897 SCOTT DUNN 22903 DAVID J ARMSTRONG 22910 DOUGLAS POTTER 22927 CHARLES CHUBB 22934 STEPHEN PAUL MARTIN 22941 RYAN SHUPP 22958 GORDON R KUTZ III

Company Name 1 SALI TRUCKING INCORPORATED

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

M A K TRUCK, INC

SCHNELL & SAUBER, INC
SHALOM EXPRESS JAKE & SONS DELIVERY INC

CM MCNELIS INC
THREE B'S DISTRIBUTION INC
HOLD FAST INC DEIHM'S TRUCKING INC
A WAY TRUCKING, INC MATT & LUCAS INC ALS DELIVERY INC JOHN APPLIN LLC BUTSON-SUTCH INC
GRAZIOUS, INC MODARRES COURIER INC

THREE B'S DISTRIBUTION INC
J W A EXPRESS INC

DADDARIO TRANSIT INC

CLEVERS DELIVERY SERVICE INC
MKS EXPRESS INC KARDAN, INC

B & S SPECIALTY SERVICES INC

JR'S VAN SERVICE INC

REY INVESTMENTS INC

MCL COURIER SERVICES, INC

GRK 3 INC

Page 37 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 45 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2293 22965 DANIEL GUTOWSKI 2294 22972 KEVIN SCOTT LYLE 2295 22989 MICHAEL JAMES SKELTON 2296 22996 ABASS B PHILLIP 2297 23009 CHARLES BREISACHER 2298 23016 FERDINAND STROZZERI 2299 23023 TODD LUTTRELL 2300 23030 MARK FRANKLIN WAGNER

2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316

23047 JAMES R GREEN 23054 CHRISTOPHER JOHN 23061 VICKIE RICHARDS 23078 CHARLES R WOLFE 23085 GARY P VERRECCHIA 23092 RICHARD STEVEN NICHOLAS 23108 DAVID MORRISON 23115 PHILLIP LERCH 23122 EUGENE CLYDE WOOMER 23139 JAMES KEITH KUHN 23146 DAVID DALLESSANDRO 23153 STENIO P SILVA 23160 JOHN P CONNORS 23177 TIMOTHY P BRASINGTON 23184 FRANK YARNALL 23191 MARK S HAMILL

2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349

23207 GENE E SNYDER JR 23214 RANDALL KRIEGER 23221 KWON HO LA 23238 GEORGE P MILLER 23245 MICHAEL S MCCLAIN 23252 IVAN R MIELNIK 23269 KARIN SWANTEK 23276 BILLYJ VANG SMITH 23283 CY K EMINHIZER JR 23290 OUKHAYI BRAHIM 23306 CRAIG BOLLINGER 23313 JAMIE ASMAN 23320 WILLIAM SUTARA 23337 NGUYEN HUY 23344 JEREMY ROBERT BLACK 23351 MATTHEW JONES 23368 DANIEL EDWARD LAHR 23375 E JEFFREY JOX 23382 MILAN PANIC 23399 GIL FERREIRA 23405 WILLIAM B HORNBAKER 23412 WILLIAM A ROBERTS 23429 KENNETH FRED ROEDER 23436 JOHN SHARKEY 23443 ROBERT K LONG 23450 DAVID M MIZENKO 23467 PAUL JENNINGS GILOTTY 23474 PETER WILLIAMS 23481 DAVID MORGAN 23498 DANIEL A DEANGELIS 23504 MITCHELL D EMERICK 23511 GUY CELESTE 23528 JOHN EUGENE BROGGI

2350 2351 2352 2353 2354

23535 WADE R CUTLER 23542 CLARK PECORARO 23559 PAUL MARKULICS 23566 LEE ALAN DOERNTE JR 23573 ROBERT LACOFF

Company Name 1 DGUTOWSKI INC KS LYLE ENTERPRISES INC FORMATTMAN, INC P2P LOGISTICS, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RAIDER TRANSPORT LLC GREENS DRIVING SERVICE INC

MW RAIDER TRANSPORT CORPORATION

P J LERCH TRUCKING LLC
KOMORNY INC
SSS TRANSPORTATION INC JPC TRUCKING INC T BRAZ TRUCKING INC FRANKS PRO SERVICE INC MS HAMILL TRUCKING LLC

M S HAMILL TRUCKING, INC

CON'S CORP M JONES LLC

MATTHEW JONES INC

MILAN JMS, INC BLEST EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION

RL SERVICES INC MIZENKO, INC

HAPPY PUP EXPRESS
BROGGI'S SHORTSTOPS AND DELIVERY, INC WARCU INC

Page 38 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 46 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2355 23580 CLIVE E SMITH 2356 23597 JAYNE BASS 2357 23603 JARED STEFANICK 2358 23610 GLENN C WERWINSKI 2359 23627 HEATH HOKE 2360 23634 ITALO PAZ 2361 23641 ROBERT B FOWKES 2362 23658 LARRY J SCHUCKERS 2363 23665 GLENN R PIPER JR 2364 23672 PATRICK M ROACH 2365 23689 MICHAEL R WOOLMAN 2366 23696 MICHAEL R SUTSKO 2367 23702 DONNA J CAESAR 2368 23719 GREGORY E WAGNER 2369 23726 BERT BAKER 2370 23733 RICHARD POWELL 2371 23740 SAM K BAXTER 2372 23757 RAYMOND D KINNEY 2373 23764 JAMES A WANNER 2374 23771 DAVID A CID 2375 23788 WENDY J GOLLWITZER 2376 23795 DAVID LABARGE 2377 23801 KEVIN C KIRSCH

2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418

23818 RONALD JOSEPH LANICH 23825 KEITH VINGLINSKY 23832 GARY LAZARZ 23849 STEVEN J BIRTON 23856 JOSEPH A FARELLI 23863 GABE SANTRY 23870 WILLIAM B SCHEIVERT 23887 DAVID C VALENT 23894 DERALD P ROGERS 23900 BARAKA E MWAIJANDE 23917 SYLVESTER KOLLIE 23924 THOMAS HEIPLE 23931 BRIAN MCDONALD 23948 JACQUELYN LOVE 23955 JOHN P MONTGOMERY 23962 BOBBIE JO ZEIGLER 23979 JOEL LIBBOS 23986 JEFF FARRELL 23993 CHARLES BROSIOUS 24006 HUBERT P DAVIS 24013 MIKE JOHNSTON 24020 FRANK LEVI DONTON 24037 ROBERT J ROBELE 24044 TIMOTHY ALLEN CARBAUGH 24051 BRENDA A MURRAY 24068 ALLESANDRO MICOZZI 24075 FREDERICK DELUZIO 24082 AARON J SNYDER 24099 EDWARD J GRAHAM 24105 MARK E MILLER 24112 MICHAEL HUGHES 24129 MICHAEL PATRICK EVANS 24136 NICHOLAS ROBERT DANTONIO 24143 ESTHER AMALA IWUOHA 24150 ROBERT WILLIAMS 24167 DENNIS PLONSKI 24174 KEN MINER 24181 DAVID SCHAEFFER 24198 DAVID L FRASER 24204 MARK D CLEMENS 24211 JOHN WAYNE TEMPLES

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GMT HOME INC HEATH HOKE INC
RBF DISTRIBUTION, INC PAPPY'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC
ROACH TRUCKING SERVICES INC
SUTSKO LOGISTICS INC

GLOBAL PACKAGES LLC

DAVID A CID INC
LABARGE INCORPORATED SOUTH TRACY ENTERPRISES LLC

SOUTH TRACY ENTERPRISES II, INC

MWAIJANDE INC SKA ENTERPRISE LLC
LOVE COMANS INC

AKM TRUCKING INC FROUND, INC 921 ECS INC
HERMES LLC
DAVID BRUCE SERVICES, INC

Page 39 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 47 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2419 24228 RICHARD W DANIELS 2420 24235 BRAD WARD HIPPLE 2421 24242 WILLIAM LEE KNEPP 2422 24259 DAVID DANIEL ANDERSON 2423 24266 FRANKLIN JOHNSON 2424 24273 LEELAND ALLEN AKMAL 2425 24280 JEREMY JOHN BENNETT 2426 24297 ROBERT MICHAEL FINK 2427 24303 SCOTT COLEMAN 2428 24310 SHAWN FARLEY 2429 24327 RAY N BERRY IV 2430 24334 CINDY A SMITH 2431 24341 JOHN WALTER JACOBS 2432 24358 ROBERT DORE 2433 24365 JAMES SABA 2434 24372 SANDRO CARRERA 2435 24389 RAQUEL CORREA DASILVA 2436 24396 ADONIS DESMORNES 2437 24402 PAUL WILLIAM FLOYD JR 2438 24419 JOHN CHUCK PORTER 2439 24426 DENNIS LONG 2440 24433 JAMES OKEEFE 2441 24440 CHARLES A CHAVIS 2442 24457 JOHN SMITH 2443 24464 LEWIS ERNST 2444 24471 ASHMAN LEONARD 2445 24488 ROBERT POLKOWSKI 2446 24495 RICHARD SAUNDERS 2447 24501 BARRY ROBERT WORMAN 2448 24518 EARL GRANT 2449 24525 NICHOLAS STEPHEN MARIOTTI 2450 24532 DAVID J LEAHY JR

2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482

24549 RANDY STEELE 24556 KIM LAMEY 24563 GRANT ADAMS 24570 KATHY SCHMIDT 24587 ROWLAND ANTHONY GERMSCHEID 24594 ROBERT JAMES HALYE 24600 MICHAEL STRALEY 24617 MICHAEL BADALATO 24624 RICHARD STERNER 24631 CHRISTOPHER L MORRIS 24648 ELIO RAMIREZ 24655 RODNEY L QUIGGLE 24662 SEAN ANTHONY CATALINO 24679 SIHJAE CHUNG 24686 JEFFERY M SCHWARTZ 24693 JOHN A DAVID 24709 BRYAN D JARRUP 24716 JOSEPH MICHAEL RISSI 24723 EDWARD M BERNAT 24730 ROBERT CORREIA 24747 KENNETH J MARSHALL 24754 KENNETH MARTIN BERNESSER 24761 ROBERT SHIFFER 24778 KENNETH HOLQUIST 24785 THOMAS DEWAINE HOWE 24792 MARK E DECKER 24808 CRAIG A BATLEY 24815 PAUL TRESSLER 24822 MICHAEL L GOOD 24839 MARK REED 24846 RICHARD SEMPLE 24853 CARL S GRAVES

Company Name 1 TWK LOGISTICS INC SDAR INC ROBB LOGISTICS INC
M N M TRANSPORTATION INC JAZERICK EXPRESS CORP ADROLEYBIZ INC AARROW TRUCKING CORP
LEWIS J ERNST JR INC
BARRY'S BOWLING, INC LEAHY ENTERPRISES, LLC
RCK ASSOCIATES, INC K9 ENTERPRISES, INC JEWEL PENN INC R L STERNER INC WHIPTASTIC EXPRESS LLC QUIGGLE DELIVERY INC NO PATIENCE EXPRESS INC
ML GOOD INCORPORATED BUZZMARK INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

LEAHY/JOHNSTON ENTERPRISES INC
LOGISTIC VENTURES INC

Page 40 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 48 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2483 24860 ANJANETTE LYNNE SLENKER 2484 24877 CHERYL S PISARCIK 2485 24884 LOUIS M FELLI 2486 24891 RICHARD E HOAG 2487 24907 VALERIE GAIR 2488 24914 TODD L BEIL 2489 24921 THOMAS JAMES PETERSEN 2490 24938 BRIAN SCOTT 2491 24945 JOSEPH B TURKO 2492 24952 RAY A JOHNSTON 2493 24969 JEFFREY DINGER 2494 24976 SCOTT GARMAN 2495 24983 JEREMY D SMITH 2496 24990 BRIAN BLACK 2497 25003 ROBERTO HENDERSON 2498 25010 JAMES HYEONG KIM 2499 25027 ERIC DAVID ORTWEIN 2500 25034 ROBERT S FOWLER 2501 25041 FRANKLIN ECHEVERRIA JR 2502 25058 GARY MIELNIK 2503 25065 KESARI SHAKESPEARE CHIGWEREWE 2504 25072 PATRICK MCINTIRE 2505 25089 STEPHEN M BRUNELLE 2506 25096 W DAVID ARMSTRONG 2507 25102 ROBERT SWALLOW 2508 25119 ROBERT N FESIG 2509 25126 JOHN LEE TOWN 2510 25133 DAVID CRUISE 2511 25140 STEPHEN WERTZ 2512 25157 THOMAS MARTIN 2513 25164 THOMAS FAHERTY 2514 25171 ROBERT D ALLEN 2515 25188 MARK A IMLER 2516 25195 ANTHONY R DEANGELO 2517 25201 JERRY L GREENE 2518 25218 RICHARD HOAG 2519 25225 PAUL J TURK 2520 25232 JIM SALVIO 2521 25249 COLE W CAMPBELL 2522 25256 DAVID A BARTON 2523 25263 PEDRO JUAN TORRES 2524 25270 DONALD RICHARD MCHUGH 2525 25287 ANTHONY DOMINICK CAMAROTE 2526 25294 RICHARD CAMERON 2527 25300 SERGUEI ROUSSANOV 2528 25317 STEFAN MOSTAFA HAMRI 2529 25324 JAY CIPOLLA 2530 25331 DONALD J EVANS 2531 25348 RICHARD MICHAEL NIXON 2532 25355 EARL LELAND PAUGH 2533 25362 MARK CASWELL 2534 25379 PHILLIP ROBERT VOGT 2535 25386 BRADY GROFF 2536 25393 COREY BROWN 2537 25409 RAYMOND BAKER 2538 25416 RICHARD DIAS 2539 25423 ERIC GILBERT FINZEN 2540 25430 MATTHEW T JAKIMOWICZ 2541 25447 ALAN D SHIRLEY 2542 25454 HARRY BESECKER 2543 25461 GENE HATHAWAY 2544 25478 BRIAN L WATSON 2545 25485 ANTHONY THOMAS WELLS 2546 25492 JEFFREY A WEBSTER 2547 25508 JEFFERY MARTIN

Company Name 1 AMA FLEET ENTERPRISES INC
HOAG INC VALENTINE EXPRESS INC
TKO INC

Company Name 2

BASIC BLAACK ENT INC JAMES HYEONG KIM, INC ERCORT INC
BIG G TRUCKING INC UHURU SERVICES INC HWC DELIVERY SERVICE HOT CORNER CARRIERS
DARTS MARKETING INC
FAHERTY DELIVERY EXPRESS INC WHITEOAK TRANSPORT LLC ARD TRUCKING INC
PJT ENTERPRISE LLC J&J FREIGHT LLC
ZIAJAY INC
THE LEE GROUP OF BOSTON SERGE LOGISTIG INC
NIXON TRUCKING INC

M JAK TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 41 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 49 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2548 25515 JAMES ISREAL 2549 25522 TIMOTHY STAUFFER AUKER 2550 25539 FELIX SOTOMAYOR 2551 25546 DANIEL SCOTT PICHNARCIK 2552 25553 YOUNG CHOI 2553 25560 HASSAN HAMRI 2554 25577 JOHN KOLB 2555 25584 DALE ECKMAN 2556 25591 GUY NYSWANER 2557 25607 MARK JOHNSON 2558 25614 DAVID PLISKO 2559 25621 KEVIN G EVERETT 2560 25638 ROBERT GREEN 2561 25645 GREGORY J FRASER 2562 25652 CHRIS DUNCAN 2563 25669 DANIEL ROBERT TROUT 2564 25676 RAYMOND SNELL 2565 25683 GEORGE FLACK 2566 25690 CARL REEVES 2567 25706 ANDREW HELWIG 2568 25713 ANTHONY KOHLMAN 2569 25720 MYRON ILKO 2570 25737 COREY ANTAL 2571 25744 DAVID DELOWERY 2572 25751 LEE P HYDE 2573 25768 DONALD J LIPPERT 2574 25775 SONJA WALKER 2575 25782 THOMAS ERMIN DIGAN 2576 25799 GIRMAY H DAWIT 2577 25805 SEHOON OH 2578 25812 JIM POWELL 2579 25829 GIOVANNI PILEGGI 2580 25836 GREG FESSLER 2581 25843 WILLIAM R HENNINGER 2582 25850 RICHARD VINSON 2583 25867 BARRY ROBAUGH 2584 25874 RICHARD J LUCE

2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595

25881 JOE DOUGHERTY 25898 JAMES PATTI 25904 JOSEPH SPLENDIDO 25911 DAVID WALTERS 25928 DARRIN MOHNEY 25935 CHAD R KEEFER 25942 GREGORY DOWNING 25959 DARRYL WAYNE DWYER 25966 DAVID R CAMPBELL 25973 TIM KOSTENBADER 25980 MARK SAYLOR

2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610

25997 ROBERT ANDERSON 26000 WON J KIM 26017 SCOTT JEFFERY ROCKWELL 26024 EVAN RAMSEY LEARY 26031 MAROS FORGAC 26048 ZORAN KOLONJA 26055 WILLIAM KWAKU SEWORDOR 26062 SCOTT CLIPPINGER 26079 JENNIFER OLSEN GOLDECK 26086 JOHN POLCYN 26109 WALTER MEDVE 26116 JOHN F TEMAN 26123 GREGORY J LEHNOWSKY 26130 WILLIAM IVANUSIC 26147 SOMKIET CHUENSUMRAN

Company Name 1 WOODLAND TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 2

JCK DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DNK EXPRESS, INC
GEORGE & SONS LLC
HELWIG & CIARAMELLA, INC
ILKO & COMPANY
DOUBLE D DELIVERS INC LEE HYDE INCORPORATED
DIGANS DELIVERIES INC G & Y INC OHNK LLC

GEORGE FLACK INC

B & S SPECIALTY SERVICES INC AMPA INDUSTRIES INC
R LUCE, INC

AMPA IND INC
RCM TRANSPORTATIONS INC

MISDAR INC CRK DELIVERY INC

MARK & ANG SAYLOR LLC
BRIDGEWAY ENTERPRISE INC SJR TRANSPORTATION, INC
M FORGAC INC ZORAN KOLONJA, INC SEWORD INCORPORATED
EVDEM, INC SHAWNEE CORP LLC GREG LEHNOWSKY, INC

ADEM DELIVERY INC

MARK SAYLOR DELIVERY INC

Page 42 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 50 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2611 26154 DAVID ROUNTREE 2612 26161 WILLIAM BEYERS 2613 26178 MICHAEL HITE 2614 26185 RONALD MARK ULRICH 2615 26192 DANIEL MCGUIRE 2616 26208 BRUCE THOMAN 2617 26215 BRIAN SCHOENLEBER 2618 26222 ERIC M BOHN 2619 26239 JONATHAN MICHAEL SOISSON 2620 26246 PETER J DEANGELIS 2621 26253 JEFFREY NERIS 2622 26260 ANDREW HOLAREN 2623 26277 HAROLD GRANT CLOSE JR 2624 26284 VASILIY BAKALENKO 2625 26291 TERRY GOLUB 2626 26307 GERARD PATRICK MCMANAMY 2627 26314 JOSEPH MONTALBANO 2628 26321 CHARLES E BUSS 2629 26338 ANTHONY J GLEMBOCKI 2630 26345 FREDERICK M MAGAZZU 2631 26352 STEVEN FITZGERALD 2632 26369 TIMOTHY P RHODES 2633 26376 SUNIL K PATEL 2634 26383 BRIAN T HUNTER 2635 26390 RONALD HICKS 2636 26406 WILLIAM RALPH SHAFER JR 2637 26413 MICHAEL JAGODZINSKI 2638 26420 STEVEN E BAKER 2639 26437 SCOTTY TODD 2640 26444 MICHAEL A HENNINGER 2641 26451 TODD PLOWMAN 2642 26468 JOHN CERMAK 2643 26475 JOHN P LAWRENCE 2644 26482 JASON WHELPLEY 2645 26499 STEVEN F BORNSTEIN 2646 26505 THOMAS R MALONE 2647 26512 THOMAS HOSE 2648 26529 EDWARD W SWAYZEJR 2649 26536 STEVEN LARRY LABARRE 2650 26543 DOUGLAS WOLFE 2651 26550 WILLIAM PAUL RITTER JR 2652 26567 SYED SHAMSUDDIN AHMED 2653 26574 DENNIS JOSEPH WALLS 2654 26581 RAPHAEL K KILONDU 2655 26598 KEVIN RICHARD WOODARD 2656 26604 EDWARD L LEBO 2657 26611 MICHAEL LONG 2658 26628 DAVE CHIPPLE 2659 26635 JOHN B WOLF 2660 26642 MARK A BOWERS 2661 26659 PAUL HARRIS BALSHEM 2662 26666 CYNTHIA R LOVELL 2663 26673 JAMES P DIPPRE 2664 26680 NANCY STOFFEY 2665 26697 RONALD LONG 2666 26703 TODD FREY 2667 26710 CHUCK SCHUCHT 2668 26727 JOHN KEITH GRANT 2669 26734 JERIKO SALVADOR RETANA 2670 26741 ROBERT E LOVE 2671 26758 SAMUEL W GREER III 2672 26765 DONALD WOODS 2673 26772 EUGENE STANLEY BANDISH 2674 26789 JAMES DIPPEL 2675 26796 KEVIN S SCHRAM

Company Name 1
ULRICH EXPRESS INC
BOHN ENTERPRISES INC LDW CORP NERIS LOGISTICS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PA GROUND2 INC JIHRA INCORPORATED

JACK CERMAK INC STEVEN BORNSTEIN LLC

AVA DELIVERY INC

PRO-LINK SERVICES LLC
ALPHA COURIER OF ATLANTA INC WOODARD TRUCKING
PA LOG HOMES INC ALPHA WOLF CORPORATION MB DELIVERY LLC PAUL H BALSHEM ENTERPRISES, INC CRL INC LITTLEDIP EXPRESS LLC
CARLIN TRANSPORTATION INC FLOMPS INC CHUCK SCHUCHT TRUCKING, INC VERNON RUN LLC GROUND AVENUE CORP

Page 43 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 51 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2676 26802 ANTHONY MARTIN MOSES 2677 26819 DAVID DEGEORGE 2678 26826 RYAN SLAGLE 2679 26833 JEFFREY PAUL WALTON 2680 26840 COREY MARTZALL 2681 26857 DAN DEMIANOVICH 2682 26864 CARRIE ANN LUNDGREN 2683 26871 MATTHEW FALK 2684 26888 ERIC WOODWARD 2685 26895 ALEXANDER YEBOAH 2686 26901 JORGE ALBERTO CEBALLO 2687 26918 MEMORY CHITAKUNYE 2688 26925 ISHEUNESU CHITAKUNYE 2689 26932 JOSEPH GERALD ODONNELL 2690 26956 JOHN ROBERT MILLER 2691 26963 DAVID BRIAN BEITLER 2692 26970 HOWARD DIRK SKROUPA 2693 26987 PETER TOMASAK 2694 26994 WALTER L CLINGER 2695 27007 SCOTT ABDO 2696 27014 NANCY BUNGE 2697 27021 THOMAS V LUSCAN 2698 27038 LOUIS KUEBLER 2699 27045 DENNIS STEVENS 2700 27052 WILLIAM MIHALYAK 2701 27069 MOHAMMAD A MOGHAL 2702 27076 KENNETH M KAHLERT 2703 27083 BETTY JO ROGERS 2704 27090 JERE LEE MILLER 2705 27106 EDWARD WHITE 2706 27113 AMY LYNNE BATUK 2707 27120 FLENARD PULLEY 2708 27137 RUSSELL GRAHAM 2709 27144 JOSEPH LISHMAN 2710 27151 MICHAEL J OPECKO 2711 27168 DANIEL K COTE 2712 27175 ROY A SNYDER 2713 27182 ROBERT MARK RORKE SR 2714 27199 A MICHAEL BRADSHER 2715 27205 TREMELLE RENEE GODWIN 2716 27212 ROBERT O GRUNDITZ JR 2717 27229 MICHAEL SEITZER 2718 27236 JOHN FLAIM 2719 27243 SCOTT GALLENTINE 2720 27250 JOHN K FLAHERTY 2721 27267 GREGORY BOBECK 2722 27274 ROBERT CIGLER 2723 27281 BRIAN THOMAS KEAYS 2724 27298 JAMES W LINEY 2725 27304 HEATHER SMITH 2726 27311 WILLIAM CLAYTON HEISLER 2727 27328 IAN HARVEY 2728 27335 JEFFREY JAMES KLUCK 2729 27342 ROBERT NISWONGER 2730 27359 WILLIAM J HAMELLY 2731 27366 STACEY SHUTT 2732 27373 JUSTIN Y BAKER 2733 27380 WILLIAM NELSON 2734 27397 JONATHAN C EMLET 2735 27403 DENNIS ANGELOPOLUS 2736 27410 PAUL NORBERT TREMBLAY 2737 27427 JAMES M SCHULTZ 2738 27434 DUWAYNE BARKER 2739 27441 NELSON FERGUSON

Company Name 1 MOSES TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DEMIANOVICH INC SEBASTIAN, ZORA, BEETHOVEN INC

TRANSHIP SOLUTIONS LLC MEISH INVESTMENTS INC RAWHIDE EXPRESS VAN DELIVERY

TRANSHIP HOLDINGS INC

WLC ENTERPRISES INC FEDEX HILL, INC

KMK DELIVERY INC J L MILLER TRUCKING, LP

A M BRADSHER INC GODWIN & GODWIN INC

T2 ENTERPRISES INC
FIVE STAR INDUSTRIAL SALES LLC JW LINEY, INC

FENWAY CORPORATION

KLUCK INC HAMELLY ENTERPRISES INC

HAMELLY-BRUESTLE INC

PROCURATIO SYSTEMS INC

Page 44 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 52 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2740 27458 THOMAS M BECKER

2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 2761 2762 2763 2764

27465 GEORGE P ACKERMAN 27472 GERRY WHITE 27489 ELIZABETH M BERGSTROM 27496 JACK D HEISEY 27502 TERRY L ZUVER 27519 EDWARD C NELSON 27526 TERRENCE KANE 27533 ROBERT REAKES 27540 ROBERT W LAMB 27557 MIRIAM HASKER 27564 ANTHONY JOHN FRATTINI 27571 JAMES A HARSHBARGER 27588 PAUL COLES ESPOSITO 27595 DAVID GARDNER 27601 KEITH FREDRICK BURRELL 27618 ROBERT MCKINLEY DELLINGER JR 27625 BENJAMIN LEVINE 27632 SHAWN REIS 27649 GORDON R LEMUNYON 27656 MICHAEL RUSSELL SEASOCK 27663 JAMES CAMPBELL 27670 JAMES V DICARLANTONIO 27687 JEFFREY BRUSCA 27694 CHRISTOPHER JAMES SCHICK

2765 27700 KENNETH E HOLLIS 2766 27717 GOBRAN JANO

2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 2791 2792 2793 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801

27724 PANAGIOTIS GEORGIADES 27731 MOHAMED IGUENI 27748 ROCK FORTIN 27755 BLAIZE CONTE 27762 DONNA J EICKHORST 27779 MARK LANE 27786 JOHN GALLAGHER 27793 BRIAN WILLIAM FARR 27809 PHILIP R MORAN 27816 DONNA NEPVEU 27823 JOHN BRENNAN 27830 RICKIE BUCH 27847 DAVID F KEIM 27854 CHRIS JOHNSON 27861 THOMAS A COBAUGH 27878 MICHAEL GEORGE HICKERNELL 27885 DANNY DEROSA 27892 RAYMOND JONES 27908 JIMMY YEAKEL 27915 TIM KLEIN 27922 RANDY BEY 27939 STEVEN J BURKE 27946 STEVEN HOMKA 27953 TOBY KUTZ 27960 EDWARD SHEARER 27977 MICHAEL SCOTT RHODES 27984 BRIAN J ETTER 27991 BOB CLARK 28004 ANCEL ORTIZ 28011 TIMOTHY A BRYANT 28028 MELANIE PAPPASERGI 28035 JOSHUA MICHAEL BURRS 28042 DAVID DENNIS 28059 MICHAEL SADLER 28066 ROBERT LUIS RUIZ

Company Name 1 BECKER PACKAGE & HANDLING INC; BECKER PACKAGE & HANDLING, INC

Company Name 2

WHITE STUFF, INC

TERRYS PICK UP & DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MIRLANX INC FRATTINI EXPRESS INC OPSE INDUSTRIES LLC
RD DELIVERY INC
GSMR DELIVERY INC
LAUREN ENTERPRISES INC SCHICKER ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED MLM DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

T & SHE TOGO INC NBC GROUND INC

MLM DELIVERY SERVICE MLM DELIVERY SERVICE

LLC

INC

GALLAGHER, INC UP FROM THE GROUND INC

COBAUGH DELIVERY SERVICES, INC
DST TRUCKING INC 2&4 YOU CARRIER SERVICES INC

CONXXED LLC CROSS RHODES INC B M ETTER INC WHAT ABOUT BOB LLC
TAB TRUCKING INC
M D R DELIVERY, INC RLR LOGISTICS INC

FEDORA EXPEDIA INC

Page 45 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 53 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2802 28073 DARREN W REINERT 2803 28080 BRANDON M HONTZ 2804 28097 COREY BENJAMIN BATES 2805 28103 MARIO MAZZELLA 2806 28110 GLEN MICHAEL MAROIS

2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819

28127 BRENDA EDWARDS 28134 ROBERT LOVING 28141 SHANNON HARDENBROOK 28158 ROBERT BECHTEL 28165 ROBERT WILLIAM SNYDER 28172 DAVID PEDUTO 28189 MICHAEL T BILLINGS 28196 JOSE ORTIZ 28202 IAN JAMES 28219 LINDA LOU MAYER 28226 STEVE GRATTEAU 28233 ANDREW W SMITH 28240 MICHAEL T HENRY

2820 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826 2827 2828 2829 2830 2831 2832 2833 2834 2835 2836 2837 2838 2839 2840 2841 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2850 2851 2852 2853 2854 2855 2856 2857 2858 2859 2860 2861 2862 2863 2864

28257 KARL MUSHALA 28264 ORTHNEAL DANLEY BOWEN 28271 LEON S REBUCK 28288 WILLIAM W CHISHOLM 28295 GREGORY THOMAS BAZIS 28301 WILLIAM HAMMOND 28318 DONALD SPECIALE 28325 MICHAEL ASCHOFF 28332 EUGENE KATAPSKI 28349 PAUL RICHIE 28356 REED STEIGERWALT 28363 BRENDA STEPHEN 28370 BRUCE QUINN 28387 CARL S STOFKA 28394 JAMES PANSERA 28400 DUNCAN KEEDY 28417 JOHN G NASH 28424 KEVIN MATTHEW HUGHES 28431 DAWN HOUP 28448 THOMAS J GURAL 28455 THOMAS JOE GEYER 28462 PATRICK SUSZYNSKI 28479 GERALD MYLIN 28486 MARK G HEYDEMAN SR 28493 PEERAPONG CHUENSUMRAN 28509 BRYAN WILCOX 28516 RANDY WEBB 28523 GEOFFREY MCCORMACK 28530 MICHELLE DENISE KESTER 28547 RUSSELL KARL YEAGER 28554 DAVID CHEGE 28561 EMMANUEL TAVARES 28578 AMANI KOUAME 28585 HIRANABIFF SATHLER VASCONCELOS 28592 STEVE KNIGHT 28608 JOSEPH A SCHREIBER 28615 RICHARD EVANS 28622 ROBERT P CLEMMER 28639 ENRIQUE STEINAS 28646 RICHARD BIBB 28653 JAY SHULL 28660 PATRICK WERCINSKI 28677 KIM WILHELM 28684 RICHARD MICHAEL SNARE 28691 DOUG M BEMBENIC

Company Name 1 YBS ENTERPRISES LLC GLENN MAROIS INCORP
RYDAY INC INNOVATIVE RESOURCES
MANTICORE TRANSPORT INCORPORATED R'S DELIVERY
P E RICHIE LOGISTICS LLC
TEAM PANSERA LLC KMH ENTERPRISES, INC D & E LLC
RANDY L WEBB INC M KESTER INC SASSE LLC
P&D DELIVERY INC E F STEINAS INC
DOUG TRUCKING CORPORATION

Company Name 2 G & R GROUND; G & R GROUND INC
TEAM PANSERA INC
E F STEINAS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 46 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 54 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2865 28707 MICHAEL WASHINGTON 2866 28714 HYUN CHO 2867 28721 GREGORY J MCMULLEN 2868 28738 MICHAEL MUNDWILER 2869 28745 NATHAN ALLEN KEEN 2870 28752 VINCE W SCAIFE 2871 28769 DONALD GENE TRISSLER II 2872 28776 ROBERT M HILLEGAS 2873 28783 LARRY SHAY 2874 28790 BRAD MOSER 2875 28806 DAVID J KRUPA 2876 28813 RONALD SCHLEBUSCH 2877 28820 ROBERT SMITH 2878 28837 TROY RUPPERT 2879 28844 JON A FRANCSCHINI 2880 28851 OSCAR BOYD 2881 28868 JEROME P SERVINSKY 2882 28875 KEVIN BASHNICK 2883 28882 DANNY W MCDONALD 2884 28899 CHARLES PRICE 2885 28905 RICHARD WOODS 2886 28912 NICHOLAS THOMAS AIELLO III

2887 2888 2889 2890 2891 2892 2893 2894 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899

28929 THOMAS REES 28936 BRIAN R WAGNER 28943 JAMES DANIEL ORCHULLI 28950 RONALD H ALGERI 28967 LOAY ELDAGANY 28974 SEAN RICHARDS 28981 CHRIS MOYER 28998 JOHN FARINA 29001 RAFAEL ALVES 29018 CHRIS SWARTZ 29025 AGUINALDO P FERREIRA 29032 RAUL TIBEAHOARA 29049 EMMANUEL KWESI NAYAN

2900 2901 2902 2903 2904 2905 2906 2907 2908 2909 2910 2911 2912 2913 2914 2915 2916 2917 2918 2919 2920 2921 2922 2923 2924

29056 KWABENA ASIEDU 29070 DEBBIE L SPRENKLE 29087 PAUL BOEHM 29094 SANDRA PEARL ROOT 29100 LYNN ANDRUS 29117 BRIAN E HEBERLE 29124 DEREK WILLIS 29131 NATHAN EDWARD SUDOL 29148 MICHAEL J NEMCHECK 29155 TODD TOLOMEO 29162 YVENS DAUDIER 29179 LORI SANDERS 29186 JEFFREY A WEETER 29193 JEFFREY S SCANLON 29209 PAUL MANCINI 29216 KENNETH RUCKER 29223 TIMOTHY L BEARY 29230 DANIEL CLARK 29247 JEFFREY SCOTT COLLINS 29254 ERIC THOMAS ANDERSON 29261 JOHN J SECOR 29278 MICHAEL BOGART 29285 DANIEL ISAJIW 29292 SEAN M SEN 29308 TIMOTHY JOHN STEVENS

2925 29315 DOUGLAS DINGA 2926 29322 DAVID DONADZE

Company Name 1 H AND JOO, INC; YOUNG MOO INC MUNDY & SONS INC SCAIFE TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2 H AND JOO, INC

KLS DELIVERY INC BWM TRUCKING INC

RMS DELIVERY INC

MADDIEDOG INC

WOODS PARCEL INC AIELLO TRANSPORTATION INC
EMCREES, INC

AIELLO DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CHRIS MOYER INC CTS EXPRESS, INC NAYAN AND SONS INTERNATIONAL INC
CATSPAW INC
NEMCHECK ENTERPRISES INC

K R RUCKER LLC BEARY INC D R CLARK, INC J COLLINS INC
J&A SECOR, INC
D I DELIVERY SERVICE INC
T STEVENS TRUCKING INCORPORATED

Page 47 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 55 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2927 29339 STEPHEN HERB 2928 29346 LARRY MACEK 2929 29353 JOANN WEYANDT 2930 29360 THOMAS GREEN 2931 29377 THOMAS ANDERSON 2932 29384 TIMOTHY A CAIN 2933 29391 JOHN DIETZ 2934 29407 ROBERT ADAMS 2935 29414 MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER NOVAK

2936 2937 2938 2939

29421 GLEN T CATRANIS 29438 RANDY KUITUNEN 29445 DUANE N STEELE 29452 DAVID L MALICKSON

2940 29469 CASIMIRO DELUCA 2941 29476 MICHAEL ALVIN

2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959 2960 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968 2969 2970 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 2981 2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988

29483 CARMEN RALPH BRODT 29490 DARRYL K RANKIN 29506 JOSEPH G BOYER 29513 CRAIG S WALKER 29520 THOMAS E BICKEL 29537 MICHAEL S WOLFE 29544 RONALD HEATH 29551 JASON WAYNE MARIANNA 29568 JENNIFER REBECCA YANKASKY 29575 BRIAN S HUBER 29582 DAVID M RICE 29599 JOHN GILLICH 29605 CHRISTOPHER T ROONEY 29612 SERGE PIROGOFF 29629 THOMAS SMITH 29636 BILL GREENBERG 29643 JOHN A SLAUGHENHAUPT 29650 TERENCE L CONNORS 29667 DAVID PRICE 29674 JOEY L AYERS 29681 RODNEY HARRIS 29698 ALEXANDER M BISHOP 29704 JAMES C REED JR 29711 MARK C ALLEN 29728 BRIAN MELLINGER 29735 JAMES J WRUBEL 29742 RONALDR CLARENCE WILLIAMS 29759 BRIAN LACY 29766 JOSHUA LAWRENCE 29773 GERALD RAY REESE 29780 JASON SMITH 29797 SUSAN REA HENRIQUES 29803 WILLIAM ACKERMAN 29810 MICHAEL TATASCIORE 29827 JOSEPH JUDE SCHWOYER 29834 WILLIAM HENDERSON 29841 STEPHEN MICHAEL HRICIK 29858 DANIEL JOSEPH JOHNSON 29865 OVIDIU COLDEA 29872 MIODRAG MIR MRKALJ 29889 LYNN ANTHONY BLAGBURN 29896 DARRYL A HALL 29902 DWAYNE LYNDELL CULLUM 29919 HENRY LITTLE 29926 BRIAN MEYERS 29933 ROBERT K SIMPSON 29940 RAMON CARTER

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MICHAEL C NOVAK INC

RCM TRANSPORTATIONS INC

RANDKOLL INC

MALICKSON HOME DELIVERY SERVICE CORP

ALVIN, MICHAEL H & KAREN E GENERAL PARTNERSHIP

TRIPLE P HARRISBURG CORP

YANKIE J, INC DMR TRUCKING, INC SERGE PIROGOV CONSULTING, INC KNOX TRANSFER LLC GROUND DELIVERY EXCHANGE INC

J J W DELIVERY, INC

J J W DELIVERY, INC

JASTERS DELIVERY SERVICE MAIN LINE GROUND INC

JT TRANSPORT INC

JOHNARTHUR, INC MRKALJ INCORPORATED DJ & C HALL DELIVERY INC

Page 48 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 56 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 2989 29957 KIMBERLY FRYLING 2990 29964 LOUISNER VICTOR 2991 29971 ROBERT WOLFENDEN 2992 29988 JUSTIN COLIE 2993 29995 JOSEPH MATTHEW BON 2994 30007 JOHN DIGGS 2995 30014 KEITH EUGENE FITZPATRICK 2996 30021 SHAWN MOORE 2997 30038 NEVAL TRAVERS 2998 30045 MAURICE AGOSTINI 2999 30052 JOSE ELIAS RODAS 3000 30069 NARISH MAHADEO 3001 30076 WARRACE TEEL 3002 30083 NORMAN KESSLING 3003 30090 COLONEL MCNEIL 3004 30106 SALIOU DIALLO

3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052

30113 VINCENT J MUSACCHIO 30120 DIETMAR FAULKNER 30137 RICHARD STICHEL 30144 SAMUEL QUAYE 30151 EDWIN B COLLIER 30168 THOMAS LEWIS 30175 MONROE L KENNEDY 30182 LAWRENCE BRILEY 30199 LEE SETSER 30205 JAMES E EUTSLER JR 30212 MICHAEL KRIETE NELSON 30229 REGINALD COPES 30236 DENNIS HONG 30243 MARK S JONES 30250 MICHAEL WANKEL 30267 MICHAEL PAUL COOK 30274 IKECHUKWU CHRISTOPHER ONOCHIE 30281 CRAIG TYRONE GRAYS 30298 BILL BROWN 30304 PATRICK TAYLOR 30311 GRACE MARIANO HOCSON-ISLA 30328 KIRK EDWIN PARTLOW 30335 MICHAEL SANDMEIER 30342 JEFF ROBESON 30359 ERIC STANLEY 30366 ROBERT BRADLEY 30373 VALERIE AMELIA SHORTER 30380 MICHAEL ALAN THOMPSON 30397 EDWARD SHORE 30403 JOHN M BRIGGS 30410 WILLAIM L WHEELER 30427 STEVEN O TRYHUBENKO 30434 JAMES E BRASWELL 30441 TIMOTHY P HERZING 30458 JOE ROGERS 30465 DAVID CHRISTIAN BRAUN 30472 LORNE BAER 30489 WILLIAM EDWARD WEBSTER 30496 ROBERT LEON STOTTLEMYER 30502 DANIEL F BRESSON 30519 RICHARD LEE ELLIOTT 30526 JUSTIN WILLIAMS 30533 STEPHEN WILDSTEIN 30540 TODD HAINES 30557 MICHAEL KEMPA 30564 MATTHEW J PTACEK 30571 LAWRENCE BERTHOLDT 30588 ROGER ALLEN EASTER

Company Name 1 BRV DELIVERY SERVICES INC
E & L TRANSPORTATION INC SMALL TREASURES INC DIALLO SERVICES INC
NEL-EX TEAM RPS INC M P COOK INC EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE C&D LOGISTICS LLC
ZJK INC BRASWELL TRANSPORT INC WEBSTER DEL SVCS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE

CTG LOGISTICS INC

Page 49 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 57 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3053 30595 ERIC W BOOKER 3054 30601 DAVE G BROWN 3055 30618 JAMES EDWARD CREEGAN 3056 30625 CHRIS BAUR 3057 30632 KEIRAN FERGUSON 3058 30649 DAVID TAKEUCHI 3059 30656 RASHAD HAKIM 3060 30663 MICHAEL OLIVER WATKINS 3061 30670 DONNIE ALLEN EATON 3062 30687 JEVAN LALL RAMSARAN 3063 30694 SEYED A MAJEDI 3064 30700 FRANKLIN G ROGERS 3065 30717 DONALD VAN BOURGONDIEN SR 3066 30724 RUDYARD KIPLING SCOTT 3067 30731 UHODARI WINSTON HENDRICKSON 3068 30748 FRANK SCHAEFER JR 3069 30755 SALAHELDEIN HAROWN 3070 30762 STEPHANO J MHINA 3071 30779 KWESI KORANTENG 3072 30786 SAMUEL BUKAMBU 3073 30793 MICAHEL E VALENTINE 3074 30809 MICHELLE GARDNER 3075 30816 WAYNE HOLEMAN 3076 30823 MARSHALL K CAUDILL 3077 30830 NANA KWAME BOATENG 3078 30847 DELFIN G SALES JR 3079 30854 KIRK ANTHONY HEW 3080 30861 GARY EHRLINGER 3081 30878 JOHN STARK 3082 30885 WILLIAM DOWNEY 3083 30892 AARON GROSS 3084 30908 STEPHEN HENRY LEGGETT 3085 30915 DANIEL GLENN BOTTS 3086 30922 KENNETH H MASON SR 3087 30939 WILLIAM C MORLEY 3088 30946 PAUL A BIANCHI 3089 30953 STEPHEN C PEELS 3090 30960 RALPH JOSEPH FLAHERTY 3091 30977 CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN FOSTER 3092 30984 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SIEBER 3093 30991 JOHN M MEIERS 3094 31004 LOIS L JAMES 3095 31011 NICOLE DUNLEAVY 3096 31028 DALE BRIAN ROSE 3097 31035 RONALD KENNETH HAWKINS 3098 31042 HOWARD PELT 3099 31059 ANTOINE MATHIAS BURTON 3100 31066 PHILIP A HEALEY 3101 31073 RYAN MESSERCOLA 3102 31080 GARY P METZ 3103 31097 TRACY ALAN BIVENS 3104 31103 KEVIN W KYLE 3105 31110 SHAH SHARRIEFF MOORE SR 3106 31127 ALEX MILES WAGNER 3107 31134 CHARLES BRAXTON 3108 31141 JAMES CROTEAU 3109 31158 MICHAEL MAURICE JONES 3110 31165 KANE J MILLER

3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116

31172 CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND 31189 STEPHEN PATRICK CONNORS 31196 FRANK BREWER 31202 KENNETH N MATIVO 31219 EMILY REBECCA MIDDLEKAUFF 31226 DAREN LEE CRAWFORD

Company Name 1 DAVID G BROWN DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

HERZOG EXPRESS INC

JLR ENTERPRISES
DJ TRANSPORTATION, INC DARISON DELIVERY SERVICES LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CAUDILL ENTERPRISES INC SMART DELIVERY INC

DELIVERED INC ARIS INC SC PEELS INC
PARCEL EXPRESS, INC

K & K DELIVERY INC

JAMES MICHAEL CROTEAU INC
KANE J MILLER LLC
CB&A HOLLAND INC S CONNORS INC

KANE J MILLER INC; KANE J MILLER LLC

Page 50 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 58 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3117 31233 RYAN MARSHALL SPOONER 3118 31240 JOSEPH WADE 3119 31257 DARIN CHAMBERS 3120 31264 NEIL FITZPATRICK 3121 31271 WILLIAM F EVANS III 3122 31288 KEVIN GREGORY LYLES 3123 31295 GARY DUMAS 3124 31301 THOMAS LEDUC 3125 31318 RONALD E PRICE 3126 31325 MICHAEL MURPHY 3127 31332 GEORGE LYMAN BARKER 3128 31349 RANDY LEWIS DEAN 3129 31356 MICHAEL J BRAND 3130 31363 COLIN AYU 3131 31370 EMMANUEL SARPONG 3132 31387 MENACHEM ORBACH 3133 31394 GERARD BINKO 3134 31400 JERRY WINSTON ALDERSON 3135 31417 MARTIN ROBERTS 3136 31424 ROBERT GUSTON 3137 31431 JOSEPH LUDWIG WEIR 3138 31448 SEYMOUR LAMONT EADDY 3139 31455 TENDEKAY JANGANO 3140 31462 AUGUSTINE NUMBOUSSI NJINJOH 3141 31479 DAVID E CARLSON 3142 31486 JONAH GOSNELL 3143 31493 MITCHELL VUKOV 3144 31509 TALIB MUWAKKIL MADYUN 3145 31516 JAMES T BAILEY 3146 31523 PAULA PATTERSON 3147 31530 JEFF WELCH 3148 31547 WILLIAM F EVANS 3149 31554 JAMES FEASTER 3150 31561 KEVIN DARGAN 3151 31578 BRUCE RAYNE 3152 31585 GEORGE ALBERT BOWERSOX 3153 31592 ROBERT ANTHONY VENABLE 3154 31608 NATHANIEL LEE MASON 3155 31615 JAY WHESTONE 3156 31622 CHARLES CANFIELD BALZER III 3157 31639 RAYMOND VANETTA JR 3158 31646 PHILIP CAMPBELL 3159 31653 MARK D MANSFIELD 3160 31660 DEWAYNE ANTHONY WASHINGTON 3161 31677 JOHN JOSEPH BUCKLEY III 3162 31684 DAVID MEADE 3163 31691 ROBERT EUGENE BARNHART 3164 31707 RAY HENRY HARTLE JR

3165 3166 3167 3168 3169 3170 3171 3172 3173 3174 3175 3176 3177 3178 3179 3180

31714 MICHAEL LYONS 31721 JOHN COLEMAN 31738 MICHAEL SAMPSON 31745 RICHARD W VOYLES 31752 WILLIAM GEORGE PAYNE II 31769 STEVE DONALD DOCKERY 31776 MICHAEL BRENNAN 31783 RENWICK BLAKE 31790 CODY S WEBSTER 31806 KEITH ONEILL 31813 JOHN WENDELL MACKLIN JR 31820 KATHLEEN MARIE CALLAHAN 31837 RICHARD GIOIOSA 31844 JAMES AARON GRAHAM 31851 LARRY DEAN RAVENELL JR 31868 BRET ASHLEY HUFFMAN

Company Name 1
RELIABLE DELIVERY INC KEVIN ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

M J BRAND DELIVERY SERVICES INC
ASONABA ENTERPRISES, INC ORBACH LLC

WILMAR DELIVERY LLC

2 R DELIVERY INC

MUWAKKIL ENTERPRISES INC
EVAN DELIVERY SERVICES INC KLK SERVICES INC HORIZON TRUCKING INC VENABLE DELIVERY INC NTNT CARRIER EXPRESS LLC LIGHTENING TRANSPORT INC

DSD INC JR XPRESS INC
R E B ENTERPRISES INC CHM TRUCKING CORPORATION; CHM TRUCKING INC

RVOYLES ENTERPRISES PAWS INC

PAR DELIVERY INC

KAO SERVICES LLC

KAO SERVICES INC

OUTSOURCE DELIVERY SERVICE INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 51 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 59 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3181 31875 THEODORE MEAGHER 3182 31882 HOUYOUNG OH 3183 31899 GEORGE SANNER 3184 31905 RICHARD WINSTANLEY 3185 31912 JOHN S CURLEY III 3186 31929 ABDULNUR ZAID 3187 31936 DAVID BRYAN WEGNER 3188 31943 ISAAC LARBI 3189 31950 JOSHUA CLARK 3190 31967 MICHAEL TIMMONS 3191 31974 DEREK BILL EMSLEY CHRISTIAN COLE 3192 31981 ROBERT AJANAKU 3193 31998 GAVIN SIMPSON 3194 32001 DONVILLE ALLEN 3195 32018 BRIAN MACNEILL 3196 32025 LYNNE ROACH 3197 32032 CARTIAS EDWARD MAZONGE 3198 32049 WILLIAM F OBRIEN JR 3199 32056 RICARDO SALOM 3200 32063 RICHARD KOENIG 3201 32070 HENRY JOHN ZIMMERER 3202 32087 JOSEPH NYANTAKYI 3203 32094 OUSMANE CISSE 3204 32100 EYIMOFE PESSU 3205 32117 TOMMY SOWOLE 3206 32124 DAMIR BADIC 3207 32131 ELWALEED OSMAN 3208 32148 ATHUMANI UBAO 3209 32155 FORTUNE YACINTHE KINGUELEWA 3210 32162 DAVID MICHEAL TORSTENSEN 3211 32179 SEAN CLINE 3212 32186 JAMES P BITTLE 3213 32193 ROBERT WISNER 3214 32209 JEFF WAGNER 3215 32216 ROBERT COLLEY 3216 32223 FRANCISCOJR GARCIA JOSON 3217 32230 GERWIN LAWRENCE GEORGE 3218 32247 LOUIS MILIO 3219 32254 CHRIS BROCKMAN 3220 32261 JEFFREY HULL 3221 32278 MICHAEL J EVERSON 3222 32285 MINGYU CHANG 3223 32292 KWESI AMU DAMPSON 3224 32308 CHARLES BROOKS 3225 32315 ALFAGO D WHITE 3226 32322 ERNEST FITZGERALD DAVIS 3227 32339 DAVID P BARNES 3228 32346 LAWRENCE R TOTTY III 3229 32353 CHARLES OLIN JARRELL III 3230 32360 GENE ABSHER JR 3231 32377 BRIAN CAMPBELL 3232 32384 EARL WILLIAM MCGHEE 3233 32391 GORDON ROYCE SMITH 3234 32407 SHELLY ANN SAMUEL 3235 32414 PATRICK HYNES 3236 32421 STEFPHON THOMAS 3237 32438 MICHAEL GILLIS 3238 32445 ANTHONY ODELL ARMSTRONG 3239 32452 WILLIAM O LINCOLN III 3240 32469 HENRY EMIL LIESKE IV 3241 32476 GARY SOHL 3242 32483 CHRISTINA LYNN BROOKS 3243 32490 JOHN JOSEPH OBRIEN 3244 32506 BRIAN KEITH DOUGHTY 3245 32513 DENNIS ALLEN LORD

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

AMERIPARKING & VALET CO INC

MAZONGE INC LOYALTY SHIPMENT SERVICES INC
OURANI INC MOFF PARCEL SERVICE INC DBADIC DELIVERY SERVICE INC TARSEEL INC HIDDEN ARROW LLC
SANJO INC RIDE ON TRUCKING INC
J & J CHANG'S INC
MIDALANTIC TRANSPORTATION COJ DELIVERY INC

ARMSTRONG TRUCKING INC HENRY E LIESKE IV INC
DENNIS LORD INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 52 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 60 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3246 32520 MICHELE WELSH 3247 32537 KENNETH STEWART 3248 32544 SEAN C ANDERSON 3249 32551 SEAN TIMOTHY CORDWAY 3250 32568 RYAN THOMPSON FUQUA 3251 32575 MARCUS CALTON OSUIGWE 3252 32582 GREGORY DYE 3253 32599 ANTHONY PEAKE 3254 32605 RALPH CARMELLO BRADLEY III 3255 32612 JEREMIAH MICHAEL MCKENZIE 3256 32629 SCOTT M BROWN 3257 32636 DANIEL ANTAL WILLIAMS 3258 32643 JAMES PETENBRINK 3259 32650 RUSSELL E BITTNER III 3260 32667 JEFFREY ANTHONY THOMAS 3261 32674 CHRIS FRIES 3262 32681 TREVOR RICHARD 3263 32698 TYRONE BOX 3264 32704 ROBERT AFARIMINTA 3265 32711 JOHN MUIRU MWANGI 3266 32728 HUA HAO HUANG 3267 32735 STEVE HORANT 3268 32742 EDWARD GHARTEY 3269 32759 LARRY FORSON 3270 32766 YASSIR M ELGACK 3271 32773 ROBERT REID 3272 32780 PERRY JONES 3273 32797 SEAN W KERCHNER 3274 32803 SMITH KWAME OLIVER VODI 3275 32810 SAM PHILLIPS

3276 3277 3278 3279 3280 3281 3282 3283 3284 3285 3286 3287 3288

32827 JOHN REULING 32834 RON DAVIS 32841 JOHN T BLADES 32858 PHIL WRIGHT 32865 THURLOW MARCELLUS QUEEN 32872 GARY BENNETT 32889 WADE JEFFREY COHEN 32896 SHOWALTER C JENKINS 32902 CYRUS KIBUNJA 32919 CHRISTOPHER P WILBUR 32926 RICHARD JOHNSON 32933 CORY DARDEN 32940 MICHAEL DIMETRE CCHALMERS

3289 3290 3291 3292 3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 3300 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308

32957 JERRY FERGUSON 32964 ANTHONY VINCENT JACOBS 32971 VICTOR W MAYA 32988 ENRIQUE S PEPINO 32995 RAFAEL S PEPINO 33008 ANTONIO CARPENTER 33015 SCOTT ERIC FREY 33022 JAMES FIELDS 33039 MATTHEW BEAVERS 33046 BERNARD ANTHONY-JEROME TRENT 33053 JOHN ROBERT LASEK 33060 ERIC FRANCIS 33077 JAMES POTTER 33084 MATTHEW S GELDMACHER 33091 JAY KUHN JR 33107 BRIAN SHIMER 33114 JAMES BRASHEAR 33121 DALE ALTIZER 33138 KEVIN HENDERSON 33145 RONALD JOHNSON

Company Name 1 FIREWOOD & STUFF LLC
BOXZ R US INC
JDS DELIVERIES INC BITTNER ENTERPRISES INC BESTBOYZ INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

FIREWOOD & STUFF LLC BOXES N BAGS, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GHARTEY CORPORATION KAS INTERNATIONAL LLC

BIRAM GROUP INC

SFP DELIVERY SERVICE; SFP DELIVERY SERVICE INC RCD LOGISTICS, INC BLADES TRANSPORT INC
ELITE HOME DELIVERY INC
MSAFIRI TRANSPORT LLC

MSAFIRI ENTERPRISE INC

DIMYTRUIS 69 DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

J & S LINEHAUL INC

BIGEFRAN INC POTTER ENTERPRISES INC GELDMACHER TRUCKING LLC

DEFEX INC

Page 53 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 61 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3309 33152 MILTON RUSSELL 3310 33169 NII A AKOGYERAM 3311 33176 LARRY M COLBERT 3312 33183 ROBERT MILLER 3313 33190 GORDON GARRETT 3314 33206 BENJAMIN ADU ASAMOAH 3315 33213 LAURENCE MARC RUSSELL 3316 33220 PRINCE ANTWI 3317 33237 RAYMOND SHIPLEY 3318 33244 JOHN ANTHONY GORDON 3319 33251 THOMAS STEPHEN BUSH 3320 33268 TIM GREEN 3321 33275 DAVID ALLEN WOLFORD 3322 33282 WILLIAM C MACOMBER 3323 33299 THOMAS EDWARD HARE 3324 33305 STEVEN KOPP 3325 33312 KWAME POKU 3326 33329 FLOYD HILBURN JR 3327 33336 NICHOLAS T ZURKAN 3328 33343 MARK WARREN

3329 3330 3331 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 3337 3338 3339 3340 3341 3342 3343 3344 3345 3346 3347 3348 3349 3350 3351 3352 3353 3354 3355 3356 3357 3358 3359 3360 3361 3362 3363 3364 3365 3366 3367 3368 3369 3370 3371 3372

33350 MICHELLE RENEE HANNA 33367 DAVID SCOTT CHAPMAN SR 33374 DAVID COLIN CARRICK 33381 KARL A STEVENSON 33398 ALAWI AKBAR 33404 RICHARD LEKANE 33411 NEIL MATTEI 33428 JOHN J CUSH 33435 WILLIAM WARREN FOWLER 33442 THOMAS L SHUPE 33459 HORACE ROBERSON 33466 FELIPE SOARES FUSARO 33473 ROBERT BIRELY 33480 CARLTON GIBSON 33497 ANDREW J INGRAM 33503 DAVID M HARICH 33510 CORY L GENTRY JR 33527 DION T DIAMOND 33534 JULIAN HARLEY 33541 RABAH HASSAD 33558 ROBERT JOHN BARRON 33565 JULIE SMOOT 33572 GARY T GLASSMYER 33589 HAROLD AARON SEARS II 33596 JULIUS SIMMS 33602 MARCUS JAMES 33619 KENNETH R CROSS JR 33626 LARON JAVAR JONES 33633 SANH KIM LA 33640 DEAN HERROD 33657 JENNIFER SHEELEY 33664 ERIC BAUGHMAN 33671 BRANSON LANE WRAY 33688 RONALD LEE DAVIS 33695 BRENT ANDRE MILSTEAD 33701 KEVIN J TAYLOR 33718 DAVID WILKIE MCGUIGAN JR 33725 CJETT DARRYL CHAVIS 33732 MAURICE DEANS 33749 KEITH MCILWAIN 33756 JOO YEAN KWON 33763 RICHARD L PATRICK 33770 LORI PAULETTE DEVER 33787 ROY LEE SHOVER

Company Name 1 M&B ENTERPRISES LLC
GJG TRANSPORT INC
3JRS TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KP TRANSPORT LLC Z-MAN EXPRESS INCORPORATED PL WARREN ENT OF GSO INC; PL WARREN ENT/GSO INC/MARK WRN
KDC INC
GUARANTEE DEL EXP INC
JENWAR INC
FMF ENTERPRISES INC
BROCO INC

KENJO EXPRESS

BGSJ INC KPV DELIVERY SYSTEMS INC LD FREIGHT INC
KMAC ENTERPRISES INC RAD DELIVERY TEAM, INC SHOVER & SON INC

SHOVER INC

Page 54 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 62 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3373 33794 JASON CARPENTER 3374 33800 JENNA NICOLE WELLS 3375 33817 FREDERICO HILLWEGG 3376 33824 TONY HERRERA 3377 33831 BABALOLA SAMUEL OGUNDEKO 3378 33848 JONAS MANCHO 3379 33855 RICHARD WALLACE 3380 33862 SAMUEL YEBOAH 3381 33879 YISHAK TEKIE 3382 33886 PATRICIA KURNIK 3383 33893 MICHAEL PAUL COX 3384 33909 JIM BLADES 3385 33916 GEORGE DANQUAH 3386 33923 GUY SAHOUEGNON 3387 33930 GERALD G NEMBHARD 3388 33947 NORMAN DAWSON BLAND 3389 33954 ROBERTO RIVERAOZUNA 3390 33961 GUEVARA MATOME 3391 33978 JOSEPH ORITSEMINOMI MENE 3392 33985 CHRISTIAN ONYEMA OKOLI 3393 33992 EUGENE S PALCHO 3394 34005 FRED SAUNDERS 3395 34012 JEFFREY PREVOST 3396 34029 ANIBAL RAMIRO ARELLANO 3397 34036 KEITH BRACKIN 3398 34043 ERNEST THOMPSON 3399 34050 VICKIE BEAVER 3400 34067 ROSSANDRO MEDEIROS LUCENA 3401 34074 DUANE C ALLEN 3402 34081 TYRONE PATTON 3403 34098 RODNEY KENNETH CASLOW 3404 34104 TIM FRANCIS BLAIR 3405 34111 RAYMOND HAYES 3406 34128 RICKY A DULSKI SR 3407 34135 KELLY HASTINGS 3408 34142 FREDERICK PATRICE LEWIS 3409 34159 RUFUS GREENE 3410 34166 MARK SALLER 3411 34173 RONALD G COLLINS 3412 34180 KIP DARELL MCFADDEN 3413 34197 CLARA JANE BROWN 3414 34203 ABDUL AMIE KARIM 3415 34210 JOHN MCKELVEY 3416 34227 RODNEY FRANCIS THOMAS 3417 34234 BRYAN K PLOWDEN 3418 34241 TOM DETERMAN 3419 34258 PHIL FRENCH 3420 34265 MARK CAREY MACDONALD 3421 34272 YEONG OH 3422 34289 JESSIE STEPHENS 3423 34296 WILLIAM TRUITT 3424 34302 LEWIS SHIRLEY 3425 34319 BYUNGCHUL CHUNG 3426 34326 BRIAN JOSEPH CLUSTER 3427 34333 VINCENT R BARILL 3428 34340 GEORGE WILLIAM ELIOPOULOS 3429 34357 JASON WESLEY BROWN 3430 34364 CHARLES LARRY TUCKER 3431 34371 KEVIN RILEY 3432 34388 JOSEPH WROBEH 3433 34395 KEVIN O JAMES 3434 34401 CAIUS EMEKA EGBUFOAMA 3435 34418 DEREK QINGGUAN YANG 3436 34425 WILBERT CARNES 3437 34432 DONALD MONTGOMERY

Company Name 1 W S N H INCORPORATED
MPDIS INC
MPC CORPORATION
OZUNA INC GM TRANS SERVICE INC PALCHO ENTERPRISES

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MBU CONSULTING LLC

M BU CONSULTING INC

TYRONE PATTON TRUCKING INC

EMERALD DISTRIBUTION CO
MACDONALD DELIVERY INC BL TRANSPORT INC
CT EXPRESS DELIVERY INC AFJ INCORPORATED TEAM K JAMES INCORPORATED

Page 55 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 63 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3438 34449 PREMO PENNESI 3439 34456 ROBERT WEEKS 3440 34463 NANA POKU 3441 34470 DOUG THOMAS WHITE 3442 34487 JOHN BANGS 3443 34494 GARY CRONIN 3444 34500 BRUCE PATRICK HALL 3445 34517 STEVEN ESCHMANN 3446 34524 GERARD EDWARD DACHILLE 3447 34531 ENRICO CABRERA QUINTANA 3448 34548 ALAIN BLAISE ETOUNDI 3449 34555 GREGORY JENKINS 3450 34562 JEFFREY SERIG 3451 34579 KENNETH S SLAGLE JR 3452 34586 HAROLD VELASCO 3453 34593 SEFIK CIVIC 3454 34609 DAVID BOSS 3455 34616 GREGORY W NULL 3456 34623 WILLIAM T RUSTEMIER 3457 34630 RICHARD DON MYERS 3458 34647 DOUGLAS R HINES 3459 34654 DERRICK ODELL MCINTOSH 3460 34661 JUDY A MEUSHAW 3461 34678 ROBERT ALLEN BOGGS

3462 3463 3464 3465 3466 3467 3468 3469 3470

34685 MICHELLE ASPER 34692 STEVEN B COONEY 34708 ERIC DILLON 34715 PATRICK CALHOON 34722 ALAN WRIGHT 34739 FREDERICK R STRAHLMAN 34746 DAVID WAYNE SHRINER 34753 JOSEPH MARSIGLIA 34760 TRACY LINWOOD FRANKLIN

3471 3472 3473 3474

34777 LARRY MUIR 34784 HOWARD GREGORY SCOTT 34791 TRACY LATONA 34807 JOHN BENJAMIN ALLNUTT III

3475 3476 3477 3478 3479 3480 3481 3482 3483

34814 KELVIN LAMONT CARROLL 34821 TIMOTHY ISAAC 34838 DAVID JEROME JOHNS 34845 BRIAN MIDDLETON 34852 EDWARD SAULS JR 34869 BRENDAN FRANKLIN 34876 JOHN DENNIS 34883 DANIEL BUDACZ 34890 MICHAEL DILUTIS

3484 3485 3486 3487 3488 3489 3490 3491 3492 3493 3494 3495 3496 3497 3498

34906 CARLOS COLEMAN 34913 MOHAMOUD A WARFA 34920 MARK RAIDT 34937 CRAIG BENTLEY 34944 ROBERT A HOLDERFIELD 34951 NORMAN COX 34968 BEVON WRIGHT 34975 ROGER CHILDS 34982 ANDRES ALBERTO PEREZ 34999 HAKEEM ABIODUN OSENI 35002 JAMES A CURTIS SR 35019 WENDY FLANNERY 35026 JOSEPH M GANLEY III 35033 TOM CANAVAN 35040 JOHN B GILLS

Company Name 1
J N P TRANSPORTATION INC DTW ENTERPRISES INC MIDDLE ATLANTIC SALES INC PROSPERA ENTERPRISES INC SEYMORE PACKAGES INC
ABE DELIVERY INC
SLAGLE ENTERPRISES

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MCINTOSH DEL & TRANS INC B2BOGGS ENTERPRISES LLC

B2 BOGGS ENTERPRISES INC

WRIGHT PACKAGE, INC FS TRANS INC
FRANKLIN EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE LLC L&L TRUCKING INC
ALLNUT DELIVERY AND SUPPORT SERVICES LLC
BRICA INC
DZB ENTERPRISES INC DILUTIS DELIVERIES; DILUTIS DELIVIES INC
C&C TRANSPORT SYSTEM COX & COX CONTRACTING INC BAILEY BUILDERS INC

J&P IND BS SVCS INC

Page 56 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 64 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3499 35057 JAMES D COSTA JR 3500 35064 CHARLES LONAS 3501 35071 DOUGLAS MISS 3502 35088 JOSEPH AKINKUOWO 3503 35095 JAMES ANTONAKOS 3504 35101 ERNEST R THURMON 3505 35118 PATRICK VUYUGHO KUMCHU 3506 35125 SHARON BRITNER 3507 35132 ATSOU AYAWO SERGE AMEGEE 3508 35149 PAUL DEPASQUALE 3509 35156 RON HOLLAND SR 3510 35163 DANIEL DEMPSEY 3511 35170 ARTHUR SNYDER 3512 35187 STEVEN KISS 3513 35194 WILLIAM JONES 3514 35200 ELGIN GORDON 3515 35217 HIEP VAN NGUYEN 3516 35224 DEWAYNE BYDUME 3517 35231 ELMER LINGERMAN 3518 35248 CLEVE D MOORE 3519 35255 LARVENE ELIZABETH PERRIGOY 3520 35262 JAMES OTTO ZAMBRENY 3521 35279 REGINALD LEGETTE 3522 35286 MERVIN JONES 3523 35293 JIM WEBER 3524 35309 RICHARD EARL BACOT JR 3525 35316 JAMES S FINNEY 3526 35323 WELVIN WILLS 3527 35330 SHAWN MONAGHAN 3528 35347 WESLEY BRISCOE 3529 35354 MARK GALLIANO 3530 35361 WILLIAM ALLEN 3531 35378 MARSHALL CHAD TILLMAN 3532 35385 JOHN TAYLOR 3533 35392 ANTHONY LEE WILSON

3534 3535 3536 3537 3538 3539 3540 3541 3542 3543 3544 3545 3546 3547 3548 3549 3550 3551 3552 3553 3554 3555 3556 3557 3558 3559 3560 3561 3562

35408 JOHN EDWARD BODENCAK 35415 JEROME MELVILLE DOUGLASS 35422 LEO CHARLES BURGESS 35439 KRISTINE C LONG 35446 TERRY L MCCREADY 35453 JOHN YOUNG 35460 PAUL LOUIS FOURNARAKIS 35477 MICHAEL WARD 35484 DONALD MEARS 35491 DOUGLAS R DEMARS 35507 LEWIS HAGLER 35514 BARRY K DENHAM 35521 RICHARD M SULLIVAN 35538 JOYCE A THOMAS 35545 DAVID E PAUL 35552 ALAN ANGELO DULIS 35569 HERMAN R WARD JR 35576 JOHN D HANEY 35583 KEVIN STOUDT 35590 ROBERT HODNETT II 35606 RICK SPENCE 35613 BRUCE ALAN SPEDDEN 35620 COREY MEDLEY 35637 ANDRE D M DISMUKE 35644 JOHN M FALLON JR 35651 GEORGE R SUMMERS 35668 JAMES CLARK PHIPPIN 35675 CHRIS REED 35682 BLAKE TAYLOR

Company Name 1 MAFISHES INCORPORATION

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KISS DELIVERS INC GORDON GROUND SERVICE INC JAY COURT INC

MASM INC TTA INC
AFAB INC CHOPSWILSON PACKAGE DELIVERY SERVICE LP

CAPTAIN COURIER, INC

A M E S TO DELIVER, INC

A D I TRANSPORTS INC

STOUDT, INC

SPEDDEN TRANSPORTATION INC
ON TYME DISTRIBUTION INC JMF ENTERPRISES INC
J C PHIPPIN INC
TAYLORMADE ENTERPRISES, INC

ON TYME TRUCKING

Page 57 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 65 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3563 35699 STEVE FREDRICK MOXLEY 3564 35705 ANNE PRATHER 3565 35712 JEFFREY S MINNER 3566 35729 THOMAS E COX 3567 35736 MATTHEW ANTHONY TREML 3568 35743 CHADD NICHOLAS MAGRUDER 3569 35750 EMIN DUMAN 3570 35767 KEITH A JONES 3571 35774 PAUL W CURRY 3572 35781 GREGORY DOUGLAS THACKER 3573 35798 CHRIS LOPES 3574 35804 MICHAEL WALTON 3575 35811 SCOTT JEFFREY MILSOM 3576 35828 NORMA CLEAVELAND 3577 35835 LATANYA LEVETTE SMITH 3578 35842 RUSSELL LECATES 3579 35859 TIM WYATT 3580 35866 WILLIAM PERCELL BRIGGS JR 3581 35873 TIMOTHY TROUTMAN 3582 35880 ANDREW JOSEPH ENGLAND 3583 35897 OSCAR VALDES 3584 35903 CHRISTOPHER SHOWARD 3585 35910 IRFAN A DASS

3586 3587 3588 3589 3590 3591 3592 3593 3594 3595 3596 3597 3598 3599 3600

35927 THOMAS SPENCE 35934 JASON COCO 35941 ROBERT PROVOST 35958 ARTHUR COLLINS 35965 KRISTEN ELY 35972 HARVEY HYLAND III 35989 JAMES FINNEY JR 35996 JON SCOTT FOUNDS 36009 MATTHEW STEPHEN FARREN II 36016 STEVE DAWSON 36023 JEFFERY P WOODS 36030 ARTHUR DUKES 36047 JAMIESON ANDREW MARTIN 36054 DANIEL NONE ARNDT 36061 QUENTIN WILKERSON

3601 3602 3603 3604 3605 3606 3607 3608 3609 3610 3611 3612 3613 3614 3615 3616 3617 3618 3619 3620 3621 3622 3623 3624 3625

36078 VINCENT OMBATI 36085 GARY WAYNE PICK 36092 MARK LEE MUNDY 36108 MICHAEL LEWIS HORTON 36115 JAMES LEE WILLIAMS 36122 RICARDO SCAGLIONE 36139 DAVID BANKS 36146 BRIAN P DURNIL 36153 MICHAEL LAWSON 36160 KEITH TUTTLE 36177 CHAD ANTHONY DICKIE 36184 ANDREW L GEISLER III 36191 STACIE PINTO 36207 LON COLEMAN 36214 RUSSELL EDWARDS 36221 WILLIAM KEVIN MALBONE 36238 TIMOTHY DOUGLAS WILLIAMS 36245 CURTIS LAWING 36252 ALEX TETTYENSKY 36269 ROBERT BRANDON CHANEY 36276 CECIL DAVIS 36283 TAREK LYNN FARMER 36290 EARL JR FRANCIS 36306 ALESTEVE CLEATON 36313 MY ANH PHAM

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

QIK DELIVERY INC
ALL STATE TRANSPORTATION LLC
WAYNE CURRY, INC DADCO INC
3-D DELIVERY INC
LADYSMITH DISTRIBUTIONS INC LECATES ENTERPRISES INC T W COURIER INC

CMS TRUCKING INC DASS ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

HYLAND ENTERPRISES INC
FARREN TRANSPORT, INC
Q&D TRUCKING LLC; Q&D TRUCKING, LLC G W PICK INC MARK MUNDY INC HORTON LLC CJ EXPRESS
LAWSON5 INC KEITH INCORPORATED

R BRANDON CHANEY INC SOUTHERN STYLE TRUCKING LLC
EARL B INCORPORATED
HEINE, INC

Page 58 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 66 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3626 36320 FREDA STILTNER 3627 36337 JAMIE NICOLE BANTONPULLEN 3628 36344 ANTONIO SILVA 3629 36351 AARON NATHAN STAATS 3630 36368 SHERMAN EDWARDS SANDLIN 3631 36375 SHAWN MAURICE WILLIAMS 3632 36382 CHARLES MICHAEL WHITE 3633 36399 MERWYN DC DOLOR 3634 36405 SCOTT WINFIELD 3635 36412 CONLIN ZANI 3636 36429 DAVID L BULLOCK 3637 36436 JOEL GEPHART 3638 36443 ROBERT CHERRY 3639 36450 MORITZ GUNDERSEN III 3640 36467 DAN ZITA 3641 36474 COLLINS ASABERE WILLIAMS 3642 36481 ERNEST MOORE

3643 3644 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3653 3654 3655 3656 3657 3658 3659 3660 3661 3662 3663 3664 3665 3666 3667 3668 3669 3670 3671 3672 3673 3674 3675 3676 3677 3678 3679 3680 3681 3682 3683 3684 3685 3686 3687 3688 3689

36498 HOUSTON D WALTHALL 36504 THOMAS BOND 36511 MATTHEW BARTNETT 36528 GERARDO BALUYOT JR 36535 JAMES A NICHOLSON 36542 JOEL T LOMOTEY 36559 JONICK CORP 36566 IVICA SVALINA 36573 ROBERT MARTIN BRADLEY 36580 JERRY DARYL DOBBINS 36597 MARK RHEA 36603 DIMITRE MOLLOV 36610 DUANE JEFFREY HUNT 36627 CHRIS S STEWART 36634 PATRICIA EARLES 36641 MICHAEL DAVID BAILEY 36658 ARTHUR ROBERTSON 36665 FRANCIS OWUSU 36689 FRANCOIS KAZADI MUTOMBO 36696 MARK JEFFRIES 36702 PATRICIA ANN GRAHAM 36719 ELBERT LEE MERRICK II 36726 RODNEY GILLIAM 36733 MICHAEL W BROWN 36740 RICHARD HOOD 36757 LEONARD KENT RAKES 36764 PHILLIP HALE 36771 VIRGINIA G KIBLER 36788 PAUL HOLMES 36795 LAURIE C GRECCO 36801 ALLEN BAREFORD 36818 MICHAEL SCOTT MCLEAR 36832 STEPHEN GABOUREL 36849 ANTHONY L HAWKINS 36856 HARVEY FRAZIER 36863 KEITH MALOS 36870 RANDY S CHENAULT 36887 ERNESTO GADDESS 36894 TIMOTHY MAHONEY 36900 CHRIS THOMPSON 36917 ANTONIO STARKE 36924 CHARLES W THOMPSON 36931 DAVID TRIVETTE 36948 WILLIAM E FRYE 36955 JANE COOK 36962 LEONARD HARVEY WELLS JR 36979 CHAD MARTIN CAMPBELL

Company Name 1 PULLEN ENTERPRISES, INC
WEEKEND DANCE PARTY INC S WILLIAMS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DAVID L BULLOCK LLC

DAVID L BULLOCK INC EASTERN GRANITE INC

JAGCOR LLC

C & B LLC MOORE'S TRANSPORTATION INC
BARTNETT TRUCKING CORP LOMOTEY CORPORATION KLLT CORP DNM DELIVERY CORPORATION PE & SH DELIVERY INC BEACH BAILEY, INC VITA DOLCE LLC P GRAHAM INC

PTEMM TRANSPORTATION, INC

KLLT CORP

KLLT INC

RB HOOD INC AMYGDALYTICS, INC

MSM P&D INC

RANDY SCOTT CHENAULT INC
STARKE ENTERPRISES INC D TRIVETTE INC

D TRIVETTE INC

Page 59 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 67 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3690 36986 CORNELIUS P SMITH III 3691 36993 KENNETH JAMES NELSON 3692 37006 KYLE GRAY 3693 37013 SCOTT FINN 3694 37020 JOYCE DUCHARME 3695 37037 SCOTT ANDERSON 3696 37044 BETSY WHITTAKER 3697 37051 WILLIAM SCOTT CURTISS 3698 37068 KENNETH FLYNN 3699 37075 BARKLEY HAMPTON DAVIS 3700 37082 COBREN REILLY BUTLER JR 3701 37099 RENO BAIETTI 3702 37105 SAMUEL PRINCE KARIKARI 3703 37112 DAVID MYERS 3704 37129 SADEQ OADAH MOHAMMAD 3705 37136 GEORGE W PATRICK 3706 37143 JAMES OWENS 3707 37150 CONNIE HALE 3708 37167 THOMAS BAILEY HUBBLE 3709 37174 JAMES HICKMAN 3710 37181 EMMANUEL EDU 3711 37198 DANIEL FIALOR 3712 37204 HENRY R ALLEN

3713 3714 3715 3716 3717 3718 3719 3720 3721 3722 3723 3724 3725 3726 3727

37211 REGINALD K SNEAD 37228 HOWARD J CARRINGTON 37235 PATRICK ALFORD 37242 DAMIR PAJAZETOVIC 37259 ROLAND SCOTT 37266 KOFI ASEBI BOAKYE 37273 JAMES DANIEL SNOW JR 37280 WARREN A HARPER 37297 DORIAN W KUZMA 37303 RICHARD MOUNTAIN 37310 VERNEL L BROWN JR 37327 SHARON B WHITESIDE 37334 JAMES E ECKERT 37341 ADARKWA BOAKYE 37358 SIBRON LLOYD HENRY

3728 3729 3730 3731 3732 3733 3734 3735 3736 3737 3738 3739 3740 3741 3742 3743 3744 3745 3746 3747 3748 3749 3750 3751 3752

37365 RICK WIDENER 37372 ANTHONY WADE MARION 37389 STEPHEN DRAH 37396 DIANE JO WOOD 37402 WADDELL CLAYTON SPEARS 37419 MIHAIL MAGDALENOV IGNATOV 37426 DANA E STEPHENS 37433 LARRY SEABORNE 37440 WALTER WILLIAM MCKEON 37457 MARK S JOHNSON 37464 JOE BREWER JR 37471 DOUGLAS ALLEN PHILLIPS 37488 THOMAS GOODWIN 37495 JUAN MAURICE WARD 37501 CHARLES H BRADBY 37518 ROSINAL DERON BROWN 37525 JACKQUELYN PEIRANO TYREE 37532 ROBERT MORTON MCCOY 37549 GARY BUCKLEY 37556 MARVIN R LIGHTY 37563 DON T RICHARDSON 37570 HARVEY LEE GOFF JR 37587 ROBERT EUGENE COUSINS 37594 NOLAN ANDREW RISINGER 37600 BRIAN KNIGHT

Company Name 1 C P SMITH III LLC HOSS TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 2 D & C TRANSPORT, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DIVA DELIVERY INC CURTISS ENTERPRISES INC
WIESIS LLC C R BUTLER, INC

WSCURT, INC

DAVE MYERS GOODS INC
GEORGE PATRICK, INC
CON CON INC
JAMES B HICKMAN INC
DANIEL FIALOR CORPORATION H R ALLEN COURIER LLC
THE ESTATE OF REGINALD SNEAD PATDAN INC ALFORD TRUCKING LLC DAYO TRUCKING INC

5X EXPRESS INC
H R ALLEN INCORPORATED POA , INC

SNOWS TRUCKING INC W A HARPER, INC DK TRUCKING NY INC

VERNEL BROWN INC

NORRIS PACKAGE TRANSPORT INC ABAF ENTERPRISES LLC ISLAND EXPRESS LLC
RLW TRUCKING MAKK, LLC S DRAH COURIER, INC JETT BAY INC

ISLAND EXPRESS CORPORATION

MMI CORPORATION

ON YOUR MARK INC JOE'S TRANSFER INC D ALLEN P, INC
BRADBY TRUCKING INC
J T DELIVERY R S A M INC
MARVA TRUCKING CO INC

Page 60 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 68 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3753 37617 REGINALD R SMITH

3754 3755 3756 3757

37624 BRIAN J SIMPSON 37631 ANTHONY HENDERSON 37648 MELVIN GLENN MINNIX JR 37655 LONG LE

3758 3759 3760 3761 3762 3763 3764 3765 3766 3767 3768 3769

37662 DANIEL PHINNEY 37679 WES HARRIS 37686 DONALD COLEMAN 37693 JENNIFER BELLEMER 37709 JAMES C MCNAIR JR 37716 MAYNARD LIPSCOMB 37723 CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON 37730 JEFFREY BESTPITCH 37747 ROBERT EDWARD BUCHANAN 37754 FRAZEL DORES HARRIS 37761 JOSEPH PACHECO 37778 SHEDRICK COSEY

3770 3771 3772 3773 3774 3775 3776 3777 3778 3779 3780 3781 3782 3783 3784 3785 3786 3787 3788 3789 3790 3791 3792 3793 3794 3795 3796 3797 3798 3799 3800 3801 3802 3803 3804 3805 3806 3807 3808 3809 3810 3811 3812 3813 3814

37785 HAROLD PICKRELL 37792 SAMPSON HAGAN 37808 PAUL PHILIPPY 37815 RODNEY DALE MILLS 37822 MIKE C CATRON 37839 CIGARO NANA OFOSUHENE 37846 ROBERT TIMOTHY GRANT 37853 MICHAEL RHYNE 37860 RICHARD L BURTON 37877 DRAGOMIR TODOROV DROUMTCHEV 37884 ALEXANDER BURTON 37891 WILBUR N WOOD III 37907 GLENN COULOMBE 37914 ZORAN GAJEK 37921 ISAAC BOATENG 37938 JOY ANNE WALKER 37945 DEWAYNE DAVIS SR 37952 MARK LEVY 37969 KEVIN B DUNCAN 37976 STEVEN TROY HULL 37983 PRINCE E REID 37990 SHEREE WIMMER 38003 TOM R WRING 38010 KEVIN S HAM 38027 DARRYL PENN 38034 THOMAS RAY WILSON 38041 GARY E JOHNSON 38058 RODNEY A BROWN SR 38065 PAUL J BEATTY 38072 MIKE POFF 38089 TIMOTHY W DUNBAR 38096 KEN STUART TAYLOR 38102 TOY TALLEY IV 38119 CLARENCE K BOWLES 38126 DAVID BUCHANAN 38133 THEODORE EDISON 38140 ALLEN WILSON 38157 CLARK CURTIS KELLER JR 38164 HAROLD V BURCHETT 38171 KEVIN MATHEWS 38188 MARK A WILKERSON 38195 TONY RAY PALMER 38201 LENARD HARRIS 38218 JOHN DREW CRINER 38225 CHRISTOPHER M HARRIS

Company Name 1 RRS EXPRESS LLC
BRIAN SIMPSON ENTERPRISES INC TCB DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2 PPEX PURPLE PROMISE EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3

DRAGON INC #9 G M P & P INC

DRAGON 9 INC; DRAGON 9, INC

COLEMAN SMALL PKG EXPRESS INC

BESTPITCH PARCEL SERVICE LLC
TURBO PWR INC J & E PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC

COSEY ENTERPRISES, INC

S& M TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

ARLO-PEPPER INC

THE HONER INC D&K INTERNATIONAL CORP

Z G TRUCKING INC
TRIPLE D TRUCKING CO LLC
S T HULL INC
WRING CORPORATION DLPENN INC SAW LLC RODCO ENTERPRISES, INC
TIMOTHY W DUNBAR INC

EDISON'S EXPRESS FED-UP TRUCKING INC

JDC SHIPPING INC HARRIS TRANSGROUP INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 61 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 69 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3815 38232 THOMAS L WILSON 3816 38249 HENRY ALAN YOUNG 3817 38256 TERESA L BUCHANAN 3818 38263 LISA MARIE ANDERSON 3819 38270 TONY A JEFFERSON 3820 38287 MICHAEL T RANKIN 3821 38294 HARRY BLAIR 3822 38300 MICHAEL ALBERT KNISELY 3823 38317 KRISTINE HECKLER 3824 38324 MICHAEL GENTRY 3825 38331 JUAN SUGERS 3826 38348 GARY BRADLEY 3827 38355 JAMIE MCCADDEN 3828 38362 JASON RALSTON 3829 38379 PATRICK HEATH 3830 38386 JAMES LIPSCOMB 3831 38393 BRIAN JAMES LIVSEY 3832 38409 CHARLES AMOSAH 3833 38416 NEWTON C MCMURRY 3834 38423 YAW AGYEI 3835 38430 MICHAEL WEST 3836 38447 ERIK ESTRADA 3837 38454 BRIAN A FLYNN 3838 38461 MARK S KELLY 3839 38478 WILLIAM E BOGGS 3840 38485 JOHNNY FRIMPONGMANSO 3841 38492 GEORGE DANIEL RUSSO 3842 38508 MICHAEL RYAN PRAGLUSKI 3843 38515 ELIZABETH VAIR 3844 38522 JOHN NSIAH ADJEI 3845 38539 MOUEZ IDRIS 3846 38546 MARTHA BAUMGARDNER 3847 38553 BRUCE ASHLEY FAULKNER III 3848 38560 JOSEPH WAYNE HICKS 3849 38577 DAVID W HARRIS 3850 38584 BOBBY OQUINN 3851 38591 LYNN MORSE 3852 38607 DAN DUKES

3853 3854 3855 3856

38614 DALE PRESTON COUNTS 38621 LINDA BRANKLEY BOWMAN 38638 TONY LEON HILL 38645 JASON T GREENE

3857 38652 MICHAEL K CAREY

3858 3859 3860 3861 3862 3863 3864 3865 3866 3867 3868 3869 3870 3871

38669 WILLIAM C MILLER 38676 TIMOTHY ALBERT LAYN 38683 KAREN P WYNN 38690 WALTER WAYNE CASTELOW 38706 TERRY LEE BREWSTER 38713 GEORGE HOLSENBACK 38720 MARK EARL LUNSFORD 38737 JOHNNY ANTHONY PRITCHETT 38744 MICHAEL MEADOWS 38751 COREY M HOOVER 38768 RONNIE CARTER 38775 PARRAN HOLLIS III 38782 SANG H PARK 38799 RICHARD KENTON SHORTT

3872 3873 3874 3875

38805 SCOTT CHAMBERLAIN 38812 MICHAEL JOHN BALL 38829 NORMAN POWELL GRIFFIN 38836 MICHAEL TAYLOR

Company Name 1
CANGADAD ENTERPRISES INC MSJ ENTERPRISES LLC WHTZEND INC TBJ DELIVERY, INC
BLAIR ENTERPRISES INC GROUND FORCE INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

GOLD STAR DELIVERY INC

SUGARS TRUCKING INCORPORATED
J & R CARRIERS INC JARMA INC
JRL ENTERPRISE LLC B K LIVSEY INC

AGYEI CORPORATION WEST EXPRESS INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PRAGLUSKI TRUCKING INC L I F INC
ROCKET DOG EXPRESS

ROCKET DOG EXPRESS

LYNDHURST CONVEYANCE SYSTM LLC

T E D D INC J T GREENE ENTERPRISES LLC
MICHAEL CAREY LLC
ALEXXIS COMMUNICATIONS INC LAYN NC, INC
CASTELOW ENTERPRISES INC B&T BREWSTER INC

JAYGREENE ENTERPRISES INC MZC DELIVERY SYSTEM INC

SONJOHN, INC
HOOVER'S PARCEL SERVICE INC CARTER'S EXPRESS INC PARRAN M HOLLIS III LLC
SHORTT AND ASSOCIATES; SHORTT AND ASSOCIATES, INC
MJ BALL INC

Page 62 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 70 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3876 38843 JILL R FRIZZELL 3877 38850 PHILIP LALONE 3878 38867 MATTHEW ALBERT 3879 38874 RODNEY ALLEN MILES 3880 38881 CHARLES PRESCOTT 3881 38898 MARTY THOMAS BARROWMAN 3882 38904 SOSTENES B DONASCIMENTO 3883 38911 MICHAEL TRAVIS JERNIGAN 3884 38928 STEPHEN RUBLE GRAHAM 3885 38935 ROBERT OBRIEN 3886 38942 WILLIAM M HERR 3887 38959 MATT J APPLEGATE 3888 38966 MICHAEL ATSUSEADE 3889 38973 TEMPLE DELANO JACKSON 3890 38980 PAUL T BELANGER 3891 38997 DICKSON DARTEH 3892 39000 ISAAC TETTEH TETTEYENYO 3893 39017 ARTHUR DUKES 3894 39024 CHARLES MARIO FARANDA 3895 39031 WILLIAM C PAGANO 3896 39048 RICKY R FLOOD 3897 39055 PAUL YEBOAH 3898 39062 JIM THOMPSON 3899 39079 JAMES MICHAEL CORCORAN 3900 39086 ROBERT CAREY 3901 39093 MICHAEL BERRY 3902 39109 MARK D DEAVULT 3903 39116 DAVID H RAMSEY 3904 39123 ROBERT TIMOTHY CAUDILL 3905 39130 WILLIAM R JERMAN 3906 39147 GARLAND HUDSON JR 3907 39154 JUDY WILSON 3908 39161 EDWARD BEKOE ADJISAM 3909 39178 ASAAD MAKAWI 3910 39185 WILEY HART 3911 39192 EDWARD A CAMPBELL

3912 3913 3914 3915 3916 3917 3918 3919 3920 3921 3922 3923 3924 3925 3926 3927 3928 3929 3930 3931 3932 3933 3934 3935 3936 3937 3938 3939

39208 MCCARTHY K MATHIS 39215 DRAGAN SIMIC 39222 JOSE C FARRAR 39239 KAREN FELTS ADAMS 39246 SCOTT ZERBE 39253 NANA ADJEI ACHEAMPONG 39260 MARK PITTMAN 39277 JON PARMELE 39284 ROY LEE BROWN 39291 LINWOOD WHITE 39307 BRANSON SCOTT BROADAWAY 39314 EDWARD J FINCK JR 39321 GREGORY ALAN COPENING 39338 STEPHEN LEE ROSENBERG 39345 CHARLES GLEE 39352 JOHN WAYNE JONES 39369 JOHN WAYNE JONES 39376 KELVIN P HODGE 39383 RICHARD SCOTT VEST 39390 VICKI TUCK 39406 MICHAEL BOROFF 39413 JEROME RICKS 39420 CHARLES ANTHONY FITZGERALD 39437 CASSIE M WASHINGTON 39444 MERLE THOMPSON 39451 RODNEY KEITH JONES 39468 DEBORAH SHARP GUNTER 39475 JON GARLAND CUMMINGS

Company Name 1 J R A F INC; JRAF INC
CVM INCORPORATED

Company Name 2

HFB, LLC MICHAEL A SEADE ENTERPRISES INC
DYLAN EXPRESS BP EXPRESS INC
CORCORAN DISTRIBUTING INC BERRY TRANSPORT CORP
BROUTE'S INC J&R ENT OF SOUTHHAMPTON INC
CAMPBELL CONTRACT CARRIERS, INC MATHIS TRANSPORT INC
MP DELIVERY CORP
BROADAWAY CONSULTING LLC
JC JONES INC JC JONES INC RSV INC MAYROC CORPORATION FOGGY BOTTOM TRUCKING INC 5X EXPRESS INC LITTLE PUPPY DELIVERIES

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 63 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 71 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 3940 39482 STEVE SOARES 3941 39499 ANNE M COSTELLO 3942 39505 RICHARD CORBITT WRIGHT

3943 3944 3945 3946 3947 3948 3949 3950 3951 3952 3953 3954 3955 3956 3957 3958 3959 3960 3961 3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 3967 3968 3969 3970 3971 3972 3973 3974 3975 3976 3977 3978

39512 JOHANN CHRISTIAN LOMAX 39529 MICHAEL ERIC WIRT 39536 STEPHEN H RITTER 39543 LEO DONALD BERGERON 39550 CHERYL SELF 39567 ROBERT JOHNSON 39574 DARRELL SAWYER JR 39581 JASON BOYCE 39598 DAVID E CAMPBELL 39604 REINHARD WILLLIAM HINDENLANG 39611 DARRELL GENE BRANUM 39628 ROBERT TERRY 39635 LAALAMI HATIM 39642 IRVINE KYTER ROBY 39659 RICHARD CARSON LAVENDER 39666 DONALD WAYNE POWELL 39673 FLETCHER BERNICE WHITE JR 39680 VERNON LEE BAKER 39697 AMADOU A BARRY 39703 JAMES L THOMAS 39710 RALPH WILLMOTT 39727 STEPHEN ARDELL ROLLINS 39734 DWIGHT A WOOD 39741 GARY DIXON 39758 ROBERT S HARDY II 39765 RICHARD L HAROLD 39772 SEVERIN BROHIRI 39789 LEWEY BOYD HALE JR 39796 JAMES NORMAN GUSLER 39802 JAKE HALL 39819 JEFFREY A SPRAGUE 39826 WILLIAM K POLAND 39833 TERRY SYKES 39840 CLARENCE WYNN 39857 PEYTON PAGE 39864 DAVID WILLIAM VAUGHN

3979 3980 3981 3982 3983 3984 3985 3986 3987 3988 3989 3990 3991 3992 3993 3994 3995 3996 3997 3998 3999 4000 4001 4002

39871 ALEX WYNN 39888 LYLE A LOTTS 39895 GASAN ELJACK 39901 REGINALD BRYANT 39918 BRIAN ALEXANDER 39925 GARRY R HALL 39932 CHARLES PERDUE 39949 JOSEPH B JONES 39956 ROMEO R RIVERS 39963 BRENT COLLOM GOODWIN 39970 STACY ZIMMERMAN 39987 MATTHEW STEPHEN DINGUS 39994 CHI FAI YUEN 40006 DAVID LEE WHITAKER 40013 STANLEY W ANSELL 40020 ANTHONY MICHAEL ASHBY 40037 BRADLEY DEAN GREGORY 40044 TAMMY LYNN KENNEDY 40051 DANIEL L DONOFRIO 40068 ROBERT KELLY FIRLAN 40075 WILBUR E REYNOLDS 40082 BILL BURKE 40099 JEFFREY SNIDER 40105 WILLIAM JOSEPH WHITTAKER

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

EVOLUTION DELIVERY SYSTEMS INC

MONKEY BOTTOM ENTERPRISES

R C WRIGHT TRUCKING, INC

WIRT INCORPORATED KANDERSTAG INC; KANDERSTEG INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

R & L DELIVERY INC DWP EXPRESS INC
S ROLLINS INC
B REYNOLDS HALE INC ON TIME INC INDCON INC
HIDDEN ARROW DELIVERY OF VA INC
CHARLES L PERDUE INC
TOTAL PACKAGE INC ANN LOY LLC GOOCHLAND EXPRESS INC STASH, INC T KENNEDY FX INC DINO'S PAX LTD
B A L T SERVICES INC

Page 64 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 72 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4003 40112 JEFFREY WAYNE BACON 4004 40129 KAREN ADDISON 4005 40136 SHERRAL CRAWLEY 4006 40143 BETTY KITE 4007 40150 BRIAN L YOUNT 4008 40167 CRAIG CURRY 4009 40174 KUMNITH KEO 4010 40181 MICHAEL ELLIOTT VAUGHAN 4011 40198 GREG MULLINS 4012 40204 SUSAN G TAYLOR 4013 40211 BRIAN KEITH COMPTON 4014 40228 JAMES MAURICE JONES 4015 40235 DARREN KEITH MCINTIRE

4016 4017 4018 4019 4020 4021 4022 4023 4024 4025 4026 4027 4028 4029 4030 4031 4032

40242 DEMOND CHESSON 40259 PATRICK HOLT 40266 MICHAEL ANTHONY TILLMAN 40273 JOSHUA BAILEY 40280 RYAN HUDSON 40297 JASON T VOLKERDING 40303 DOUGLAS HEMINGWAY 40310 JASON ANDREW MILLER 40327 ANDRE LENELLE GREENE 40334 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM KEENE 40341 PAUL MITCHELL 40358 LEWIS STANLEY SHILLING 40365 CHARLES EDWARD GREENE 40372 ROBERT STRANG 40389 ROBERT HERRING 40396 OLEGARIO JOSE ANTUNES NEVES 40402 ALVIN J GRAVES

4033 4034 4035 4036 4037 4038 4039 4040 4041 4042 4043 4044 4045 4046 4047 4048 4049 4050 4051 4052 4053 4054 4055 4056 4057 4058 4059 4060 4061 4062 4063 4064 4065

40419 TERRY M ALLAMONG 40426 GEORGE HENRY WEBB 40433 ROBERT E CARTER 40440 BARRY D NOLEN 40457 DARKO GRKOVIC 40464 ALFRED HEWTON 40471 CRISTOBAL DIGAMO 40488 REDZO HODZIC 40495 SCOTT FLOYD DORMIRE 40501 GORDON DALE SPIDLE 40518 JARRIOUS C LASSITER 40525 DONALD ALONZA PIERCE JR 40532 BOBBY LEE MERRIX 40549 WILLIAM B MICHAUD 40556 ERIC HERBERT 40563 EMIR KRIVOSIC 40570 JOSE VILLALOBOS 40587 NILSCONNY HAMMARSTROM 40594 CHRISTIAN ANTWI 40600 VENISA STONESIFER 40617 DIMITAR CHAVDAROV ARABADZHIEV 40624 JONATHAN G MARTIN 40631 KENNETH DALE WILLIAMS 40648 LARRY WAYNE WILSON 40655 RICKEY RICHARDS 40662 JEFFERY EUBANKS 40679 ERIC SNEAD 40686 HARRY HOWERY 40693 JEFFREY A HALLENBECK 40709 JERRY B CARTER 40716 REGINALD BOOKER 40723 MICHAEL D SMITH 40730 TRAVIS LIONELL WARREN

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

KEO TRUCKING INCORPORATED BRANOLI'S TRANSPORTATION
MCINTIRE & JOHNSON INC; MCINTIRE INC T N B ASSOCIATES, INC

HE IS STILL FAITHFUL C K, INC P F M PRODUCTIONS INC BUBBAS ON THE WAY INC
GRAVES ENTERPRISES LLC TWO CREEKS LLC RED DIAMOND INC NOLEN DELIVERY INC THINKNET CORPORATION CRISAD TRUCKING, INC
KZ PIERCE COMMERCE, INC B&D DELIVERIES INC
HAMMARSTROM INC ANTWI BOASIAKO LLC BISTRICA INC

GRAVES ENTERPRISES INC
B&D DELIVERIES BOASIAKO CO

JUST US 3 TRANSPORTATION, INC HMH DELIVERY, INC
CRYSTAL CLEAR DELIVERY

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 65 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 73 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4066 40747 LOUIE THOMPSON 4067 40754 JAMES EDWARD PETERSON JR 4068 40761 JOHN MICHAEL GILLETTE 4069 40778 GREGORY GALLIHER 4070 40785 GARY TANNER 4071 40792 DERRICK ALEXANDER 4072 40808 SHERYL LYNN BAILEY 4073 40815 DONALD EDWARD HENDRIXII 4074 40822 DAMIEN DUPREECE TATE 4075 40839 JAMES C WILLIAMS 4076 40846 FONDA MARSHALL SEWARD JR 4077 40853 MICHAEL KIM TRAN 4078 40860 JASON W CARTER 4079 40877 SHAWN WATKINS 4080 40884 WILBERT JOYNER 4081 40891 DONALD W STORY 4082 40907 JOHN DAVID GANT JR

4083 4084 4085 4086 4087 4088 4089 4090 4091 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096 4097 4098 4099 4100 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4106 4107 4108 4109 4110 4111 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 4123 4124 4125 4126 4127 4128 4129

40914 SHAWN S MAYES 40921 COREY LAMONT WILSON 40938 MARCEL PERUSSE 40945 STEVEN PAUL JOYNES 40952 JON MAXWELL LAY 40969 NICK COLE 40976 CARROLL RODGER PANNELL 40983 FRITZ LEOPOLD 40990 KENNETH P FISHER 41003 GERALD N SHIFFLETT 41010 RICHARD H ELLETT 41027 DENNIS VAUGHN 41034 MICHAEL C BAILEY 41041 BRYAN FISHER 41058 CASELEY BOAT 41065 RICHARD B MCDANIEL 41072 KENNETH DAVIS LONGWORTH 41089 DANILO MAYOYO ESPIRITU JR 41096 MARIS ALLEN TALLEY 41102 GODWIN KWASI BOATENG 41119 DMITRO IVASHCHENKO 41126 WILLIAM BEDWELL 41133 MICHEAL DARIN SNAVELY 41140 JERRY W BEVERLY 41157 FLOYD MCKINLEY BEVERLY 41164 KENNETH RICKY WALL 41171 DAMIAN QUAMEY JOHNSON 41188 STANEY LEWIS TOWNES 41195 ERIC LYNCH 41201 PATRICK WEBB 41218 GREGORY EUGENE WRIGHT SR 41225 EARL SCOTT 41232 JOHNNIE D MIDDLETON 41249 RICHARD EASTMAN 41256 ANTHONY COLEMAN 41263 JAMES R MILES 41270 BENNY G DAVIS 41287 CHARLES NEAL COLLINS 41294 DERON F BRAXTON 41300 SHIRLEY L HARDY 41317 ASHLEY KENT 41324 DEWAYNE E PERKINS 41331 KEITH G LANYI 41348 CHARLES RONALD LOBODY 41355 BRADLEY T ANDERS 41362 CHRISTOPHER ROBERT TYREE 41379 ANWARN DRNELL CLEMENTS

Company Name 1 M GILLETTE INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JC WILLIAMS TRUCKING, INC FMS EXPRESS, INC MK TRAN ENTERPRISES INC
WLJ DELIVERY, INC GANT GROUP INVESTMENTS MAYES TRANSPORT INC
S M JOYNES ENTERPRISES INC

GANT GROUP DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

ELLETT ENTERPRISES INC R & D FREIGHT INC B&S TRANSPORT ENTERPRISE, INC B G FISHER ENTERPRISES INC UNIQUE ENTERPRISES LLC KENDON CORP DLD HOME DELIVERY, INC TALLEY & SON INC BOATENG'S TRANSPORTATION CORP PLANET OF BARGAINS INC
BCC EXPRESS INC
S & I CARRIER INC E V LYNCH INCORPORATED PA WEBB INC G E W, INC J D II, INC MATRIXX TRANSPORTATION, INC
FIRST CLASS EXPRESS INC LASHLEY TRUCKING INC
CRA INC MARY JANE INCORPORATED

Page 66 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 74 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4130 41386 JOSEPH M CLARE 4131 41393 RICHARD WAYNE MOTLEY 4132 41409 STEPHEN HOLDER 4133 41416 MICHAEL DANDRIDGE 4134 41423 GEORGE FERRELL JR 4135 41430 BRIAN ALAN TRINKLE 4136 41447 WAVERLY WHEAT JR 4137 41454 RAYMOND MARK REYNA 4138 41478 DAVID Q WILLIAMS 4139 41485 SAMUEL TODD JOHNSON 4140 41492 CHAD MILLER 4141 41508 SCOTT KYLE ROWLAND 4142 41515 DALE SHERRY DENNIS 4143 41522 DENISE MARIE DEVINE 4144 41539 SCOTT WAYNE GOOD 4145 41546 BRIAN KEITH PARKER 4146 41553 SANG C HAN 4147 41560 LORAN ROELL 4148 41577 TONY DAVIS 4149 41584 ROBERT CARLTON WHITE 4150 41591 MICHAEL FLINT 4151 41607 HARVEY SHANKS 4152 41614 CHARLES DIGGS 4153 41621 JAMES HOWARD 4154 41638 JOANN YOUNG 4155 41645 JUAN MANUEL GONZALES

4156 4157 4158 4159 4160 4161 4162 4163 4164 4165 4166 4167 4168 4169 4170 4171 4172 4173 4174 4175 4176 4177 4178 4179 4180 4181 4182 4183 4184 4185 4186 4187 4188 4189 4190 4191 4192 4193

41652 FREDDIE GARNETT JR 41669 JENRO LAMBAISO JR 41676 NANA DUAH 41683 MICHAEL BOATENG 41690 THOMAS EMIL BRABRAND 41706 WILLIAM I DAVIS 41713 MICHAEL I LEO 41720 SASA KOVACIC 41737 VIRGA P KUSMAN 41744 EDWARD SOWAH MILLS 41751 TYRONE DURHAM 41768 JOHN CARY 41775 TIMOTHY KEENER 41782 BORYS LYALYUTSKYY 41799 CHARLES DICKENS 41805 DARRYL ONEAL WATSON SR 41812 TONY A PATRICK 41829 JIM MURPHY 41836 MICHAEL E ANDREWS 41843 MICHEAL READE SAUNDERS 41850 DONALD EDUARDO CARPENTER 41867 BRETT A ALLEN 41874 ZACHARY B GIBBS 41881 RONALD SMALLWOOD 41898 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM MORRIS 41904 CARL CORBIN 41911 RANDALL GAINEY 41928 MICHAEL POLING 41935 JOHN E ADAMS 41942 JOHN R RITTENHOUSE JR 41959 RONALD YODERS 41966 MARK ANTHONY ALLEN 41973 DANA JOEL LONGWELL 41980 STANLEY P CANFIELD 41997 RICHARD A BARNES 42000 WILLIAM HERNDON 42017 ROGER LEE BELCHER 42024 CHRISTOPHER LEE TYREE

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

TBFN ENTERPRISES, INC DOUBLE T ENTERPRISES LLC

TRIBOND INC

TAE YANG02 INC

TAE YANG02 INC

FLINT TRUCKING INC
KINGSTON J ENTERPRISES INC JM GONZALES FREIGHT & OTHERS INC

AKUOKOS DELIVERY INC BRAX2 END INC

VEKTOR INC

DURHAM TRUCKING SERVICE, INC J CARY DELIVERY INC TS KEENER LLC
DICKENS TRUCKING INC DM WATSON INC T A P TRUCKING, INC MURPHY ENTERPRISES LLC
MICHAEL SAUNDERS INC

T A P TRUCKING, INC

Z GIBBS TRUCKING INC WDF INC

317 INCORPORATED TRANSNIK, INC CTS INC
R L BELCHER, INC

Page 67 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 75 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4194 42031 MARK A BRENNEMAN 4195 42048 JOSEPH JAMES LAFFERTY 4196 42055 BRIAN D STANLEY 4197 42062 DAVID MEADOWS 4198 42079 ERNEST TREMBLAY 4199 42086 SHAWN A THOMAS 4200 42093 JASON M BOLEN 4201 42109 ROBERT BRECKENRIDGE

4202 4203 4204 4205 4206 4207 4208 4209 4210 4211 4212 4213 4214 4215 4216

42116 JAMES MCKOWN 42123 JAMES H CLAY 42147 FRED MADONNA 42154 REGIS HALE 42161 WILLIAM HOWDERSHELT 42178 WILLIAM R ODHAM 42185 TENNIS KERRY COLEMAN 42192 KENNETH MAYNARD 42208 CARL HAYES 42215 EARL THOMPSON 42222 KEN MILLER 42239 JOHN MICHAEL YEAGER 42246 LAWERENCE JACK ASBURY 42253 GARY HAMRICK 42260 MICHAEL WAYNE BURTON

4217 4218 4219 4220 4221 4222 4223

42277 RANDY DALE STAUBS 42284 JERRY E CHASTEEN 42291 GEORGE F DONOHUE INC 42307 CHARLES ABEL 42314 TIMOTHY WARREN SIMON 42321 CARLA MICHELLE ETCHER 42338 RICK L ROHRBAUGH

4224 4225 4226 4227 4228 4229

42345 LISA LITTON 42352 JAMES SWANN 42369 BRENT ADDISON KESSLER 42376 RICH MARCUM 42383 SHELLIE CHEVONE BAILES 42390 CHAD FONDUK

4230 4231 4232 4233 4234 4235 4236 4237 4238 4239 4240 4241 4242 4243 4244 4245 4246 4247

42406 DOUGLAS R SNYDER 42413 BOBBY JOE ELLIS III 42420 BERNARD JOHNSON 42437 JOHN MARK ARNOLD 42444 DANA RAY MALLETT 42451 ESTON DWAYNE SITES 42468 JEREMY DOUGLAS GREEN 42475 WILLIAM A ROWE 42482 LAWRENCE E ROBINSON 42499 MICHAEL PATRICK KILLEN 42505 RICK WAYNE DILLON 42512 JAMES SUTHERLIN 42529 MICHAEL ANTHONY ODEN 42536 JEFF CHRISTNER 42543 RODNEY M REED 42550 ROBERT D BOXLEY 42567 DORIAN HENDERSON 42574 WILLIAM JOSEPH WAGNER

4248 4249 4250 4251 4252 4253

42581 FRANCIS M FAHEY 42598 JOHN KOWALSKI 42604 JEFFREY S SMITH 42611 DANNY WIGAL 42628 JEFFREY MCCUNE 42635 JAMES A HUGHES

Company Name 1 BRENNEMAN'S TRUCKING LLC JOE'S HAULING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

J & I TRUCKING INC BOBS TRUCKING
MCKOWN INC GRASSHOPPER EXPRESS INC

BRECKENRIDGE TRUCKING INC

ODHAMS TRUCKING COMPANY INC KM MANAGEMENT INC

KM MANAGEMENT INC

YEAGER DELIVERY SERVICE INC

BURTON'S FXG LLC; BURTONS FXG LLC

BURTON TRUCKING INC

SKB TRUCKING, INC

GEORGE F DONOHUE INC
PACKAGE DELIVERY LLC ETCHER ENTERPRISES INC R & R PACKAGE DELIVERY SERVICE INC BLUE PHANTOM FREIGHT INC B'MAC MOTOR FREIGHT INC

CHADRIQUE TRUCKING INC
SNATCH & GO INC BJE, INC; BJE, INC OF WV
JOCARN INCORPORATED SITES TRUCKING INC

CHADRIQUE TRUCKING INC

DILLON DELIVERY, INC MAO ENTERPRISES J & S CHRISTNER COURIER LLC RJD ACHIEVEMENT INC WAGS INC IRISH WALRUS ENTERPRISES INC

TMM TRANSPORT COMPANY

WIGAL & WIGAL INC S&H ENTERPRISES INC

Page 68 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 76 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4254 42642 DUANE M VICKERS 4255 42659 SCOTT RANDOLPH BARR 4256 42666 WILLIAM CRAWFORD 4257 42673 JON PARSLEY 4258 42680 JEFFREY W TRUMP 4259 42697 CHRISTION HOLLIDAY 4260 42703 MARC WALKER 4261 42710 KENNETH CHARLES WIX 4262 42727 JASON LEE TYE 4263 42734 ROBERT WAYNE BENNETT 4264 42741 JASON NEVILLE 4265 42758 DANIEL KEITH TUCKER 4266 42765 BRIAN HOKE 4267 42772 ROSS JAY BAILEY 4268 42789 RYAN KENNETH BAILEY 4269 42796 STACY JOE DUNLAP 4270 42802 KENNETH ALMO 4271 42819 JEFFERY W BOWMAN 4272 42826 STEVEN COYNE 4273 42833 STEVEN SHANHOLTZ 4274 42840 CARL JOHNSON 4275 42857 GARY MUSGRAVE 4276 42864 PAMELA TUREK 4277 42871 MATTHEW PATRICK SMITH 4278 42888 GEORGE ZOECKLER 4279 42895 LARRY MCCAFFERTY 4280 42901 DONALD R WILLIAMS 4281 42918 HEINRICK VONGEORGE 4282 42925 THOMAS TUCKER 4283 42932 MARK D THOMPSON 4284 42949 DENNIS WAYNE CAPPS 4285 42956 GREGORY HILL

4286 4287 4288 4289 4290 4291 4292 4293 4294 4295 4296 4297 4298 4299 4300 4301 4302 4303 4304 4305 4306 4307 4308 4309 4310 4311 4312 4313 4314 4315

42963 PAUL R HELPER II 42970 JAMES WOODRUM 42987 RONNIE D MORTON 42994 QUINTIN E SMITH JR 43007 JAMES A SCHEIP III 43014 DONALD BUMFORD 43021 PATRICK JAMES SCHLEICHER 43038 JON JEFFERY RICHARDS 43045 ROBERT R SHOCKEY 43052 JAMES EARL ALIFF 43069 JAYSON HIGGINS 43076 DAVID HAWLEY 43083 SHAUN K CLAYTON 43090 RYAN M JARRETT 43106 ROGER D DAVIS JR 43113 JEREMIAH ROBERT RIGGS 43120 DELL STATON 43137 CLIFF WARD 43144 CHRISTOPHER LANCE WARD 43151 EMERSON K BRANHAM 43168 DANIEL RAYMOND SMITH 43175 JAMES VANHORN 43182 THOMAS AARON KIRWAN 43199 ROGER DALE ADKINS 43212 MICHAEL T SPENCER 43229 MARK EDWARD JONES 43236 ANDREW MICHEAL JOHNSON 43243 SHAWN MICHAEL MOON 43250 CHARLES ATWELL RUSSLER III 43267 DOUGLAS HATFIELD

Company Name 1 PPD INC
CHAMP EXPRESS, INC J & T TRANSFER LLC
WALKER FXG LLC KENNY'S PARCEL SERVICES INC TYE TRUCKING INC
TUCKS INC
R&R DELIVERY INC RKB INC
J W BOWMAN INC COYNE'S TRUCKING LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PAT SMITH INC G Z TRUCKING INC

TOM TUCKEREX CORPORATION WOLF CREEK ENTERPRISES INC

MULE HEAD VENTURES INC; MULE HEAD VENTURES INC DBA FOUR HILLS GROUP INC

J&L DELIVERIES; J&L DELIVERIES INC
DOWN TO EARTH DELIVERIES INC HIGGINS TRUCKING LLC
CLAYTON FREIGHT SERVICE LLC RYAN JARRETT INC

JAKES FREIGHT LLC ROG & TAY TRUCKING, INC
AMJHAULING INC MOON ASSOCIATES OF NC INC

Page 69 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 77 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4316 43274 ROBERT W MYERS JR 4317 43281 PATRICK MCMILLEN CALLEN 4318 43298 SEAN CALLEN 4319 43304 NICHOLAS ANDREW MILLER 4320 43311 JEFFREY THOMPSON 4321 43328 TRAVIS BLAKE BRADLEY 4322 43335 SEAN MCCOMAS 4323 43342 CHAD W THOMAS

4324 43359 CHRISTOPHER ALLAN SIPES 4325 43366 SHANE JOSEPH ROBINSON

4326 4327 4328 4329 4330 4331 4332 4333 4334 4335 4336 4337 4338 4339 4340 4341

43373 FRANKLYN MOONEY 43380 GEOFFREY DUTTON 43397 TERRY FRIEND 43403 HENRY HATFIELD 43410 THOMAS DOAK 43427 HARRY STAGGS 43434 ROBERT NEIL CUTRIGHT 43441 MITCH NAY 43458 RONALD R GEBO JR 43465 DAVID MICHAEL STARKEY 43472 CHARLES ROBERT MILLER 43489 DAVID PAYNE 43496 GREGORY R TYSON 43502 LONNIE COOK 43519 ROLAND KLINGER 43526 BOBBY DALE DAILEY

4342 43533 MICHAEL SHENTON

4343 43540 JAMES ANTHONY SPROUSE 4344 43557 NATHAN TAPLEY

4345 4346 4347 4348 4349 4350 4351 4352 4353 4354 4355 4356 4357 4358 4359 4360 4361

43564 JOHN TAYLOR 43571 BRIAN SCOTT WELSH 43588 DANIEL L STONEBREAKER 43595 BRAD SMITH 43601 JAMES JEFFRIES II 43618 BERNARD J COYNE II 43625 MATTHEW W MEADOWS 43632 BOBBY D MARTIN 43649 GREGORY R BUCKLAND 43656 JAMES MELVIN ALLEN 43663 WALTER HOPWOOD 43670 MICHAEL WILLIAM CSUTOROS 43687 MARK THOMAS 43694 WILLIAM LILLY 43700 DAVID L HOSKINSON 43717 MICHAEL SHANNON WHITE 43724 MARK W BAILEY

4362 4363 4364 4365 4366 4367 4368 4369 4370 4371 4372 4373 4374

43731 JAMES CHILDERS 43748 JOSHUA W BRUNTY 43755 BRANDON SMITH 43762 WILLIAM BROWN 43779 MICHAEL LINKSWILER 43786 RICKY J LEBLANC 43793 FAIRLEY M SPARKS 43809 DON CHILDERS 43816 ADAM L COSTA 43823 DEWAYNE KELLY MCKINNEY 43830 JAMES R ROGERS 43847 MICHAEL KENNEDY LOCKWOOD 43854 ROBERT D WACKER JR

Company Name 1 BROWN DOG TRUCKING INC K/S VISTA INC
CHAD THOMAS LLC SIPES INC ELEVATE PARCEL SERVICE

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

THOMAS TRANSPORTATION INC
ELEVATE PARCEL SERVICE LIBERTY COURIER SERVICES LTD

BOEVAC TRUCKING INC

GR TRANSFER INC

B D DAILEY TRUCKING; B D DAILEY TRUCKING INC MMC ENTERPRISES LLC
JAMES SPROUSE INC NATE-MAN TRUCKING LLC
WELSH PICK-UP & DELIVERY INC

MJS TRUCKING CORPORATION
TAPLEY TRUCKIN INC; TAPLEY TRUCKING INC

BERNARD J COYNE II LLC MB & C INC BFX DELIVERY LLC MO MONEY II INC

A & M TRANSPORTATION INC WILLS P&D INC
MWB INC

RMR DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

BROWN TRUCKING, INC

MVL LLC

Page 70 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 78 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4375 43861 BRUCE DEHAVEN 4376 43878 SAMUEL CLINTON JOHNSON JR 4377 43885 LEWIS J SKIDMORE 4378 43892 BARRY K MATHIS 4379 43908 EDWARD TWEEDY 4380 43915 DENNIS PETTIS 4381 43922 LARRY B DAVENPORT 4382 43939 MICHAEL WADE 4383 43946 DESMOND D GEDDINGS 4384 43953 DAVID GLENN LAIL 4385 43960 EMANUEL MIUDO ROOKS 4386 43977 WILLIAM J BOYD 4387 43984 BRADLEY H SHOOK 4388 43991 LARRY H JOYCE 4389 44004 KELVIN J WILLIAMS 4390 44011 TERRY R CALL 4391 44028 LANIER ENGLAND 4392 44035 BRYON GARRISON 4393 44042 JAMES CHRISTIAN HANSEN 4394 44059 MICHAEL RYAN HUGHES 4395 44066 LARRY TRIVETTE 4396 44073 RICHARD MARK WALLACE 4397 44080 RONALD S SOUTHERN 4398 44097 SCOTT E BERRY 4399 44103 ADAM JORDAN HAMILTON 4400 44110 SCOTT GRIGG 4401 44127 JOHN RICHARD SWENFURTH JR 4402 44134 LEONARD E HUFFSTETLER 4403 44141 LEVI D DIXON JR 4404 44158 RICHARD DENNING 4405 44165 BRIAN HENRY GODFREY 4406 44172 JEFFREY S TURNER 4407 44189 JAMES S GLASCOE 4408 44196 EDDIE JOE WALSH 4409 44202 ORLANDO SMITH 4410 44219 JOHNNY DEAN BROWN 4411 44226 WARREN HINTON 4412 44233 JAMES ALVIN CAPPS JR 4413 44240 JASON HAMILTON 4414 44257 ORLANDO DERAS 4415 44264 CHARLES R DAVIS 4416 44271 JERRY ALLEN MARKUS 4417 44288 COREY TERRY 4418 44295 BYHIA KELLY 4419 44301 MICHAEL MISETIC 4420 44318 TRENT MCGUIRE 4421 44325 CLINTON GUNTER 4422 44332 NICHOLAS WEST 4423 44349 JAMES D BOBBITT 4424 44356 LISA MARIE MOFFITT 4425 44363 HARVEY H HONG 4426 44370 KENNY MORGAN 4427 44387 DAVID MICHAEL LARWA 4428 44394 DICKIE E BUFFKIN 4429 44400 DAVID ROBERSON 4430 44417 CHRISTIAN UCHE 4431 44424 NORMAN LESTER SPAIN 4432 44431 CHARLES E LEE 4433 44448 RICKY PASCHAL 4434 44455 BEN BRASWELL 4435 44462 EDWARD B JOYNER 4436 44479 ROBERT AUTRY 4437 44486 DANIEL ALLEN IDDINGS 4438 44493 KHALID M SHEIKH 4439 44509 GEORGE CONRAD TUDOR

Company Name 1 FREEBIRD ENTERPRISES INC JBREAKS INC BARREBA INC DENNIS PETTIS, INC LARRY DAVENPORT INC
JET C TRUCKING, INC SHOOK EXPRESS, INC K & D ENTERPRISE CALL ENTERPRISES, INC GARRISON CORP HUGHES EXPRESS INC MARKS PARCEL SERVICE INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KELVIN WILLIAMS INC

TAG DELIVERY; TAG DELIVERY LLC
RACE CHASE SERVICES INC JTR XPRESS INC
GO11CAR SENSING-MOFFITT P&D INC HARVEY HONG, INC
CHRISTO HOLDINGS INC BARBEN INC B & S EXPRESS INC SHIINE INC

Page 71 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 79 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4440 44516 GARY W LOCKHART 4441 44523 LARRY G SMITHEY 4442 44530 JERRY BRAMMER 4443 44547 WILLIE LEE HARRIS 4444 44554 DANIEL MARK SCHULTE 4445 44561 CHRIS TAYLOR 4446 44578 BARRY CURTIS 4447 44585 JOSEPH E PRESTON 4448 44592 KENT W RUFTY 4449 44608 RICK GREGORY 4450 44615 MICHAEL STARNES 4451 44622 TONY L COOK 4452 44639 CHARLES MORRISON 4453 44646 TIMOTHY W WOODS 4454 44653 KENNETH BOUVIER ROWE 4455 44660 FRED B CAMPBELL JR 4456 44677 ROBERT CLINTON OASTER SR

4457 4458 4459 4460 4461 4462 4463 4464 4465 4466 4467 4468 4469 4470 4471 4472 4473 4474 4475 4476 4477 4478 4479 4480 4481 4482 4483 4484 4485 4486 4487 4488 4489 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 4501 4502 4503

44684 CHARLES PATTESON 44691 DENNIS R JOHNSON 44707 TERENCE FUNDERBURK 44714 RONNIE BREEDLOVE 44721 UNRAY MICKELE MCCOMBS 44738 JEFFERY A SAMUELS 44745 KEITH ERIC FRISBEE 44752 MONTRELL LEWIS 44769 EDWIN F RENN 44776 IBRAHIM CHOLLOM PAM 44783 JIM LAWING 44790 DANIEL CRAWFORD 44806 MATTHEW P SMITH 44813 TRAVIS SHANE KEITH 44820 VANCE HERRING 44837 PATRICK MIMS 44844 KENNETH W STACK 44851 JOHN CLEVELAND FREEMAN 44868 JEFFREY LYNN ARROWOOD 44875 MONICA B WORLEY 44882 CLYDE O CAIRNES 44899 DANIEL RUBEN WELLS 44905 FREDRICK ALAN HOLMAN 44912 JOSHUA CHARLES JONES 44929 MARK HUGHES 44936 DAVID FREDERICK SCHMITT 44943 LEONARDO A CASTRO 44950 MICHAEL EDWARD PEARCE 44967 JEFF RANES 44974 JIMMY NANCE 44981 KENNETH M COOPER 44998 JON-DAVID EVERHART 45001 DONALD E ORDERS 45018 LARRY WOODRING 45025 NELSON ROCAMORA ABELLA 45032 ERNEST CLAUDE SYKES 45049 GRAHAM ALVIS ALLEN 45056 STEVE WRIGHT 45063 PATRICK E GAYLON 45070 JAMES FOSTER 45087 JERRIE ROBINSON 45094 REDA OUAHIDY 45100 JACKIE BARRETT 45117 DENNIS BEAM 45124 RONALD HILL 45131 ROBERT J SUMNER 45148 ELDORADO WILLIAMS BROWN

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PRESTON PRECEPTS LLC
RAG & SAG INC DOUBLE S EXPRESS, INC METS DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

PRESTON PACKAGES INC

RURAL RUNNERS LLC C & D PATTESON, INC
ADAVAN EXPRESS INC HINT FORD MAC LLC

OASTER ENTERPRISES INC HFM PARTNERS, INC

ED RENN P&D, INC JIM'S COURIER SERVICES INC CRAWFORD ENTERPRISES INC TRAVIS INC
K & L ENTERPRISES I, INC

INFINITE ENTERPRISE INC

FAH LIMITED JONES DELIVERY, INC HUGHES DELIVERY INC

GRANDDADDY`S TRUCKS, INC PSG DISTRIBUTORS INC OUAHIDY INC
IDEAL CAB & DELIVERY, INC

Page 72 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 80 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4504 45155 CHRISTOPHER BASINGER 4505 45162 SAM HINES 4506 45179 FLOYD ALLEN MCMULLEN 4507 45186 WILLIE BACOTE 4508 45193 RUFUS C HARDISON 4509 45209 KRISINA DELANE 4510 45216 CHRISTOPHER TERRILL WILLIAMS 4511 45223 ANDREW CLARK 4512 45230 DONALD SATTERWHITE
4513 45247 JOHN CIAN 4514 45254 TYSON LEON SIMPSON

Company Name 1
HARDISON, INC
SATTERWHITE ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

4515 45261 SANDY MANESS

4516 45278 JEFFREY BAIN MYERS

J&M GROUND, INC

4517 45285 MICHAEL NATHANIEL HENDERSON FARMER

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

TNJ MOTOR AND FREIGHT INC

4518 4519 4520 4521 4522 4523 4524 4525 4526 4527 4528 4529 4530 4531 4532 4533 4534 4535

45292 MARK D LAWRENCE 45308 RON HOWARD 45315 TRACY REID 45322 JEFF ZIMMERMAN 45339 CYNTHIA BATTLE WEBSTER 45346 DAVID S SPIVEY 45353 FRANCES EVANS HAMPTON 45360 CHARLES R ALEXANDER 45377 JONATHAN TYSON 45384 JOHN ALEXANDER SCHRAPPER JR 45391 PAUL F TREES 45407 JAMES ELMOND LEE 45414 JOEY M BARTON 45421 BOBBY CAVINESS 45438 JAMES EDWARD AVENT 45445 THOMAS O OCHIENG 45452 RUFUS SURLES JR 45469 TROY A JONES

4536 4537 4538 4539 4540 4541 4542 4543 4544 4545 4546 4547 4548 4549 4550 4551 4552 4553 4554 4555 4556 4557 4558 4559 4560

45476 KEVIN EUGENE BARNES 45483 MARK GOIN 45490 BRIAN G LANCASTER 45506 JON NIELSEN 45513 SCOTT W FLORENCE 45520 JAMES G HOLLOMAN 45537 VANESSA HARGROVE CALDWELL 45544 BRIAN MATHESON WHITE 45551 LARRY RONALD GARRETT JR 45568 STEVEN W SHAW 45575 GREG BRAME 45582 CEDRIC XEVIER IGUS JR 45599 MICHEAL MEREL PHILBRICK 45605 MICHAEL D SMITH 45612 THOMAS KIRKPATRICK 45629 BRANSON BRUCE 45636 MITCHELL SIMPSON 45643 JOHN G SURRATT III 45650 DALE SPRINKLE 45667 JERRY F BALL 45674 BOBBY RAY HARE 45681 LEROY JONES JR 45698 EDWARD LANE BAKER 45704 JAMES MCLUCAS 45711 ROBERT ALLEN HOWARD

4561 45728 JAN D TIGANILA 4562 45735 RICK PETTUS 4563 45742 WILLIAM RAPER

MAGHAN INC RONNLYNN'S, INC RAIDER EXPRESS, INC
JESSLI LU, INC JT COURIER LLC PAUL TREES LLC BIG JOE INC

ILM SHIPPING INC

BIG COUNTRY TRUCKING LLC
KE BARNES GROUP LLC
LANCORP INC J A NIELSEN UNLIMITED INC S W F ENTERPRISES INC
CALDWELL EXPRESS INC

PROSPERITY TRUCKING INC

TRIANGLE GROUND FORCE, INC P H FUZZYMUTTS INC

BRH EXPRESS INCORPORATED LEE JONES AND ASSOCIATES INC
MCLUCAS CORPORATION HOWARD MOUNTAIN TRUCKING USA INC JAN TIGANILA INC
N C EARLE LLC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 73 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 81 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4564 45759 MANGALA LUFUNGULA 4565 45766 DAVID A FAUST 4566 45773 DANIEL T DOWDY

4567 4568 4569 4570

45780 CHARLES BRYAN 45797 GEORGE RUSSELL HOLLIFIELD 45803 CATHY E STEWART 45810 MARK GOULD

4571 4572 4573 4574 4575 4576 4577 4578 4579 4580 4581 4582 4583 4584 4585 4586 4587 4588 4589 4590 4591 4592 4593 4594 4595 4596 4597 4598 4599 4600 4601 4602 4603 4604 4605

45827 JERRY MAURICE LEATHERS 45834 VERNEN WADELINGTON 45841 KERRY HAWKINS 45858 TERRY F REAVES 45865 ARTHUR GLEN THOMPSON 45872 JEFFREY PEARSON 45889 TRUDY DIANE GOLD 45896 NATHAN CROSBY 45902 EDWARD LEE PRIVOTT 45919 KEITH FISHER INC 45926 STEVE HOOD 45933 DWIGHT E LANCASTER 45940 WENDELL GLOVER 45957 JAMES HILLIARD 45964 GLENDELL MURPHY 45971 CHRISTOPHER A MCRAE 45988 LEON KING 45995 CEDRICK PENN 46008 COREY MARSH 46015 WILLIE ANTHONY GILMORE III 46022 MACK L COXE JR 46039 DARREN B WILLIAMS 46046 DAVID C HULIN 46053 RODNEY PRAYER 46060 BURTON DOSS 46077 JEFFREY WAYNE PHILEMON 46084 SANDRA JACOBS 46091 SHANE HILL 46107 LESTER ONEIL LINDLEY 46114 CLYDE M STIREWALT 46121 BOBBY JORDAN 46138 GARY DWAYNE SHEPPARD 46145 NATHAN HUNT 46152 ANTHONY D WILSON 46169 ROXANN LEATH COX

4606 4607 4608 4609 4610 4611 4612 4613 4614 4615 4616 4617 4618 4619

46176 ROBERT JOHANNES DEJONG 46183 SHEMBO YODI 46190 MARIO MASSEY 46206 KELLY O TANNER 46213 GARY G ANDERSON 46220 DARRELL DONOVAN SCOTT SR 46237 MICHAEL DOUGLAS COLLINS 46244 RICKY ROWLAND 46251 KELLEY L COOKE 46268 MICKEY S COOKE 46275 GERALD MONROE EARNHARDT 46282 JEREMY HART 46299 TONY SMITH 46305 SHERRY LYNN BANKS

4620 4621 4622 4623 4624

46312 MARVIN THOMAS HALL JR 46329 KENNETH T ELLER 46336 FELICIA SCOTT 46343 DONALD MATTHIS 46350 TIMOTHY PATRICK MANION JR

Company Name 1 LAMANNE EXPRESS
DOWDY & ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GOULDS GLORY BOUND EXPRESS INC
JMLEATHERS TRUCKING, INC
DELIVERIES UNLIMITED INC T & K SERVICES, INC
TGOLD, INC NATHANS TRUCK ENTERPRISE CORP PRIVOTT TRUCKING INC KEITH FISHER INC
GLOVER EXPRESS COMPANY INC

LEENIC CORPORATION, INC
W A GILMORE EXPRESS CO D&D DELIVERY INCORPORATED PRAYER ENTERPRISES, INC
JACOBS DISTRIBUTION LLC JESS DELIVERIES INC CLYDCO TRUCKING INC

S & J DISTRIBUTING INC

COX RIGGING INC
P S YODI, INC THE MASSEY MOVEMENT INC K-SWIFT DELIVERY INC GLA, INC

MOUNTAINSIDE DELIVERY, INC

GERALD EARNHARDT INC TGS BOXMAN INC M AND S BANKS INC; MAND S BANKS INC
FDJW ENTERPRISES INC GM DISTRIBUTION, INC

Page 74 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 82 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4625 46367 ROBERT OWENS 4626 46374 JOHN MOSER 4627 46381 DAVE WILLIAMSON 4628 46398 JASPER PITT 4629 46404 TOMMY W MURPHY 4630 46411 MICHAEL G BLACKBURN 4631 46428 GARRY PETTIGREW 4632 46435 HALEY HALL 4633 46442 RICHARD G CULBRETH 4634 46459 MARTY NEWELL MASHBURN 4635 46466 SAMMY PRESTON ROBINSON 4636 46473 WILLIAM RANDALL HERRING 4637 46480 TONY E NORTON 4638 46497 JEFF NAYLOR 4639 46503 TIMOTHY DUFFY 4640 46510 JIMMY WHITLEY 4641 46527 SAMUEL HENKLE 4642 46534 JERRY ROBINSON 4643 46541 CHARLIE RIDER 4644 46558 GENIA FERGUSON 4645 46565 JAMES WALTER MICHAEL 4646 46572 STACY LEE DOWLESS JR 4647 46589 DOUGLAS KENT MCLAMB 4648 46596 DONALD HICKS 4649 46602 CALVIN GILLEY 4650 46619 ALBERT CARR 4651 46626 JAMIE SATTERFIELD 4652 46633 MONTE D BROWN 4653 46640 WILLIAM SIMMONS 4654 46657 BRUCE WAYNE BROWN 4655 46664 MIKE HOBBS 4656 46671 FREDERICK DEMETRUS HINTON 4657 46688 DALE BOLTON 4658 46695 MARTINUS ANTONIO MCCRAY 4659 46701 DENNIS EARL ROBBINS 4660 46718 SHAWN GAITHER 4661 46725 PALACE A WALKER 4662 46732 JAMMIE FAULKNER 4663 46749 MARKHAM BOYD NASSIF 4664 46756 IYAD MAIZAR 4665 46763 DAVID A HAMILTON 4666 46770 PATRICK BARNES 4667 46787 TRENT SCAVIO 4668 46794 TODD A CARLTON 4669 46800 SHAWN EVERETT PENNIX 4670 46817 CHRISTIAN MCLEAN 4671 46824 DEBENNER CAMPBELL 4672 46831 FRED CALDWELL 4673 46848 MICHAEL SCOTT WHALEY 4674 46855 RYAN WAYNE THORN 4675 46862 DAVID WAYNE BISSETTE 4676 46879 JAMES J BOYD 4677 46886 JON DAVID LEE 4678 46893 DANIEL ASHBY 4679 46909 JAMES SMITH 4680 46916 DOUGLAS W MARION 4681 46923 JOHN HAYES 4682 46930 LEONARD MILLSAPS 4683 46947 CARLTON RAY REVELS 4684 46954 ROCKY F ABERNATHY 4685 46961 MICHAEL T LEWIS 4686 46978 JOHN HINSON 4687 46985 KEITH WOODS 4688 46992 JERRY D HARRISON 4689 47005 MICHAEL WEATHERSBE

Company Name 1 J M MOSER, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BLACKBURN HOME DELIVERY INC
7 HALLS INC GEE GEE ENTERPRISES INC MASHBURN INC PRESTON SERVICES, INC
T & D FLEET SERVICES, INC PACKAGES PLUS PACKAGE RUNNER INC WHITLEY TRUCKING, INC KCS ENTERPRISES INC JERVON CORP
FERGUSON TRUCKING INC GROUNDHOG EXPRESS, INC
D K MCLAMB INC

PACKAGES R US, INC

CARR'S COURIER INC MONTE BROWN P&D JJABEZ ENTERPRISE LLC

DB EXPRESS INC MCCRAY EXPRESS INC GROUND EXPRESS INC
PATHWALK COMPANY
MARKBY ENTERPRISE INC MAIZAR INC

CCG OF NC, INC

R & J TRANSPORT OF NC, INC ASHBY DELIVERY INC L MILLSAPS INC
A WOODS SERVICES INC MCKEF, INC

Page 75 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 83 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4690 47012 LARRY K YOUNG 4691 47029 MICHAEL A VAUGHN 4692 47036 THEODORE NIXON JR 4693 47043 DANIEL TAYLOR 4694 47050 BERNARD FAULK 4695 47067 IRA CARROWAY 4696 47074 DALE ALAN SWAIM

4697 4698 4699 4700 4701 4702 4703 4704 4705 4706 4707 4708 4709 4710 4711 4712 4713

47081 TONNY EDWARD TAYLOR 47098 VALERIE PATTERSON 47104 JOHN W COATES 47111 JOHNNIE ANDERSON 47128 GREGORY T MCNEILL 47135 MICHAEL A ECKARD 47142 ANTHONY LYRONE MCNEILL 47159 CARLAS WHITE 47166 GARY SMITH 47173 JAMES A FIGGS 47180 CHRISTOPHER A JONES 47197 MIKE BOLICK 47203 CHRIS GODFREY 47210 JOHN T ROBINSON 47227 RICHARD A THOMPSON 47234 JOHN ROBERT HEATH JR 47241 BRIAN RICHARD DEY

4714 47258 AARON KING 4715 47265 RICHARD BOOZER 4716 47272 TOMMIE WELLS

4717 4718 4719 4720 4721

47289 DOUGLAS DEITZ 47296 VIVIAN A KINGBLUE 47302 DONALD W WILLARD JR 47319 DAVID N COCKMAN II 47326 ETHAN WEBB

4722 4723 4724 4725 4726 4727 4728 4729 4730 4731 4732 4733 4734 4735 4736 4737 4738

47333 JEFFREY C RAMSEUR 47340 DARRIN SAWYER 47357 JEWEL KAREN STOCKTON 47364 ANTONIO THOMPSON 47371 STEPHEN JONES 47388 JON WEBB 47395 GREG FAULKNER 47401 DWAYNE BERNARD HARRINGTON 47418 KENNETH ALLENSON VALENTINE 47425 DUSTIN ANDREW GRIEVE 47432 ROXANNE MAE PRIESTHART 47449 GARY CASE 47456 CLAVOSKI L PEAKS 47463 JONATHON CLUBB 47470 JAMES RICHARD MOORE 47487 MICHAEL OHUOBA 47494 BENJAMIN JOEL HARRISON

4739 4740 4741 4742 4743

47500 MICHAEL J GANTT 47517 ERIC BLAND 47524 MICHAEL EUGENE QUICK 47531 JOHN BRENNAN NORVELL II 47548 MICHAEL J SMITH

4744 4745 4746 4747 4748

47555 MEGAN LEA DAUGHERTY 47562 DWIGHT C THOMAS 47579 DONALD T RIVENBARK 47586 PAUL CLARK 47593 EDWARD KING

Company Name 1 BLT OF NEW BERN INC VAUGHN'S TRUCKING INC
FAULK TRUCKS INC
GREENVOSKI EXPRESS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SMOKY MOUNTAIN LOGISTICS, INC

BOXES R US INC J A FIGGS INC TRUE BLUE 83, INC

J A FIGGS INC

J&T ROBINSON ENTERPRISES INC

DEY DELIVERY LLC
PACKAGES PLUS LLC
DELIVERY CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL INC

B D DEY, INC; DEY DELIVERY INC

INDEPENDENT TRUCKING GROUP INC RAMSEUR ENTERPRISES INC 4TK DELIVERY RAZOR TRANSPORTATION INC CARGO EXPRESS INC DIIK LOGISTICS INC

CNS TRANSPORTATION INC
DICK'S DELIVERY SERVICE
BENJAMIN HARRISON TRANSPORTATION INC

KING SHAI MOTOE FREIGHT CORPORATION

Page 76 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 84 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4749 47609 PETER JOHN HIRONS 4750 47616 STEPHEN MICHAEL WHITLEY SR 4751 47623 BYRON D TRIPLETT 4752 47630 THEODORE LEE JENNINGS 4753 47647 GREGORY JENKINS 4754 47654 DONALD GAY 4755 47661 EMMANUEL AMANKRAH 4756 47678 GREGORY ALAN CRANFILL 4757 47685 STEPHEN DANIELS 4758 47692 DONNIE CHARLES HILL 4759 47708 LONNIE JOHNSON 4760 47715 BOBBY K HOWELL 4761 47722 RAY G HICKMON 4762 47739 ROBERT GINN 4763 47746 VERNON SHERMAN 4764 47753 JIMMIE JUNIOR SURLES

4765 4766 4767 4768 4769 4770 4771 4772

47760 BRENDA FAYE JENKINS 47777 JERRY D MITCHAM 47784 LISA SEEWALD 47791 SHAWN SETZER 47807 DAVID ARNOLD FUQUAY 47814 GARY AVERELL MURPHY 47821 KELVIN BARROW 47838 JOSEPH L MURPHY

4773 4774 4775 4776 4777 4778 4779 4780 4781 4782 4783 4784 4785 4786 4787 4788 4789 4790 4791 4792 4793 4794 4795 4796 4797 4798 4799 4800 4801 4802 4803 4804 4805 4806 4807 4808 4809 4810 4811

47845 DAVID L EDGE 47852 TERESA P MEREDITH 47869 KEITH LAMONT WILKINS 47876 JOEL GRIFFITH 47883 EDWARD OXENDINE 47890 JAMES ARTHUR FOSTER 47906 DON S SETZER 47913 SHERMAN MCCLAIN JR 47920 LEE ROY DANIELS 47937 BARRY WILLIAMS 47944 SCOTT HUGH PARRISH 47951 EDWARD NASSIF 47968 TED MILLER 47982 FREDA WRIGHT 47999 ERIC ALAN AUSTIN 48002 MATTHEW WARDEN 48019 SELWYN NATHANIEL SPENCE 48026 ROBERT A DEMENT 48033 MICHAEL HOUSTON CALDWELL 48040 JOSHUA SCOTT GOSNELL 48057 SHANA HALL 48064 CHRISTOPHER B HENRY 48071 BRYAN CLARK 48088 MICHAEL J SCOTT 48095 MICHAEL GRAHAM 48101 JAMES MICHAEL PEARSON 48118 JOSEPH WALTER FEINDEL 48125 JOSEPH KILE WARREN 48132 JOHN TODT 48149 WILLIAM E PATTERSON 48156 MATTHEW WENDLER DAMERON 48163 WILLIAM C SPIVEY 48170 JEFFREY WAYNE MUTSCHLER 48187 RANDY RICHARDSON 48194 BRIAN CORNELIUS ROBERSON 48200 MICHAEL MORRISON 48217 ROBERT CANADY 48224 SCOTT PITTS 48231 KEISHA HUSKINS

Company Name 1 HIRONS ENTERPRISE INC SM WHITLEY, INC TPDS INC
AMANKRAH & CO INC GRIS INC

Company Name 2 TPDS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JC DELIVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED BJS EXPRESS LLC

BJ EXPRESS, INC

ARNIE'S ARMS INC GSM ENTERPRISES S CORPORATION
MURPH PACKAGING & SHIPPING , CORPORATION

KETK CORP

STONE LOGISTICS INC DELCO DELIVERY SERVICES INC
1 M ENTERPRISE INC B & A TRANSIT COMPANY , INC
EBN ENTERPRISE INC

E A AUSTIN INC

E A AUSTIN INC M K WARDEN ENTERPRISES, INC SPENCE HOME DELIVERY, INC

ISACAR INC

BRYAN CLARK, INC SHEPHERDS GUIDE OF WNC INC DOUBLE O DISTRIBUTION, INC JMC GROUP INC

TODT SHIPPING INC PATTERSONS ENTERPRISE INC P&A DAMERON, INC
MUTSCHLER INC

JFT INC

A & K ENTERPRISES OF WNC, INC

Page 77 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 85 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4812 48248 ROBERT BRIGHT 4813 48255 JAMES A WARNER 4814 48262 KEITH MILLER 4815 48279 DAVID RAY QUEEN

4816 4817 4818 4819 4820 4821

48286 WALTER RUSSELL REID 48293 RODNEY PRICE 48309 CHARLES RICHARDSON 48316 CLARENCE REX CARTER 48323 RICKY BATTS 48330 THOMAS RICKY KEMP

4822 4823 4824 4825 4826 4827 4828 4829 4830 4831 4832 4833 4834 4835 4836 4837 4838 4839 4840 4841 4842 4843 4844 4845 4846 4847 4848 4849 4850 4851 4852 4853 4854 4855 4856 4857 4858 4859 4860 4861 4862 4863 4864 4865 4866 4867 4868 4869 4870 4871 4872 4873 4874

48347 LARRY HOLLIFIELD 48354 SPENCER POWELL 48361 GARY FERREIRA 48378 ROBERT G GARDNER 48385 DANIEL COGDILL 48392 TARRY M FAIRCLOTH 48408 RANDY D SNOW 48415 RICKY L JOHNSON 48422 DAVID E WHITE 48439 JOHN PULLEY 48446 DARRELL JENKINS 48453 JOHN CANNON LOWDER JR 48460 GLENN COFFEY 48477 THOMAS NOSEL 48484 TONY GREEN 48491 MARK ANTHONY NORTON 48507 PAUL CICERO ALEXANDER 48514 FRANK LANEY 48521 JOHN DOERING 48538 MICHAEL WATKINS 48545 CHRISTOPHER DICKENS 48552 JOY E MILLIGAN 48569 CARL ALTON SMITH 48576 DWAYNE T BROWN 48583 GEORGE A DICKSON 48590 GARY AGEE 48606 WAYNE E GREGORY 48613 TODD CONLEY JUSTICE 48620 WALTER SCOTT HARRELL 48637 ROBERT HOUSTON 48644 JAMES STOVALL 48651 AARON ALSTON KNOX 48668 JOYCE EASTMAN SHAFFNER 48675 MICHAEL F MURPHY 48682 CALVIN G LEWIS 48699 CHRISTOPHER DARYL HALL 48705 ROCKY HAYNES 48712 JOEL HARRISON 48729 EVANGOLOS LITSAS II 48736 BLAKE ANTHONY WOFFORD 48743 JEFF L BYERS 48750 DAVID E MILLER 48767 CHRISTOPHER NATHAN PARRISH 48774 LATONYA COLEMAN BETHEA 48781 MELISSA JANET PULLIAM 48798 MICHAEL BIGUSIAK 48804 CHRIS FOSDICK 48811 KENNETH HOLLIFIELD 48828 JERRY JOHNSON 48835 TERRY L CARVER 48842 RALPH BELK 48859 JERRY D SMITH 48866 JOHN P MIKULSKI

Company Name 1
TERRY WARNER & ASSOC LTD RAPID PARCEL SERVICES, INC QUEEN PROPERTIES LLC
12 NOON INC DELIVERY SPECIALIST INC
REX TRANSPORT INC
T R KEMP PACKAGE DELIVERY SERVICE INC
SPENCER POWELL TRUCKING, INC GL FERREIRA INC

Company Name 2
CRESCENT HOLDING COMPANY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RLJ DELIVERY, INC
PULLEY ENTERPRISES LLC D L J TRANSPORT INC

LIBRA DELIVERY, INC DLJ MANAGEMENT CORP

TONY GREEN'S P&D SERVICE INC YMM DELIVERY INC LANEY LOGISTICS INC MICHAEL WATKINS INC
C & C DELIVERY, INC D&D EXPRESS INC AGEE TRUCKING, INC

JES EXPRESS LLC LEWIS & SON FREIGHTLINE INC

GROWLING ROOSTER INC B A WOFFORD INC
MILLER'S GROUND SERVICES INC PARRISH DELIVERY, INC T&A LOGISTICS, INC SALAMANDER EXPRESS INC

MT RIDGERUNNER INC
CARVER EXPRESS DELIVERY INC BCCM EXPRESS LLC

RBCCM EXPRESS, INC

Page 78 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 86 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4875 48880 MARK R SASSEVILLE 4876 48897 TOMIE PATRICK JR 4877 48903 MATTHEW CLARK 4878 48910 CROSBY ALEXANDER BROWN 4879 48927 ANGELA PENNY 4880 48934 ROBERT GLENN SCOTT 4881 48941 MOHAMMED ABDELRAOUF 4882 48958 ROBERT LEE RICHARDSON 4883 48965 ALESSANDRO HENRI WASHINGTON 4884 48972 JOSEPH OKOTH OBAMBO 4885 48989 EURIC MICHAEL EDWARDS 4886 48996 MICHAEL PAYNE 4887 49009 SANDRA WEBER 4888 49016 MARVIN PREMO 4889 49023 JEFF CURTISS 4890 49030 KENNETH LEWIS 4891 49047 JEFFREY L SAFRIT 4892 49054 KENNETH POTTS 4893 49061 CHRISTOPHER LYNN CORRELL 4894 49078 GREGORY M BARTLETT 4895 49085 LATONYA EVETTE STURDIVANT 4896 49092 HARRY HUNTER 4897 49108 LYLE TRUETT WARREN 4898 49115 ANTOINETTE JONES KING

4899 4900 4901 4902 4903 4904 4905 4906 4907

49122 MATTHEW TAD VOGLER 49139 TODD EFIRD 49146 LEWIS RANDALL MCGUIRE 49153 LEE PRITCHARD 49160 ARTHUR ASHWORTH PHELPS 49177 WILLIAM DALE CASSIDA 49184 STEPHANIE ANN NEWTON 49191 CHRISTOPHER C OLKO 49207 STEPHEN J RECCHIA

4908 49214 OWEN L SAYLES

4909 4910 4911 4912 4913 4914 4915 4916 4917 4918 4919 4920 4921 4922 4923 4924 4925 4926 4927 4928 4929 4930 4931 4932 4933 4934 4935

49221 PETER PAUL PETRO 49238 GERALD PEELER 49245 DWAYNE CRANDELL 49252 TONY DELANNIE WRAY 49269 STUART EUGENE MCCLURE 49276 MARCUS CHARLES WILKIE 49283 HSIUCHI LIU 49290 JAMES EDWARD ROBINSON 49306 KELLY KOCH 49313 DAWN CHENAUSKY 49320 CARL A RICHARDS 49337 ERIC SPENCER BURBA 49344 CHARLES G SELF 49351 SHEILA MARIE STCYR 49368 PATRICK BRASWELL 49375 KEVIN LOWE 49382 MICKEY D CAVE 49399 JEFFERY ORA ROTEN 49405 JASON ANTHONY SMITH 49412 JORDAN RAY MCINTOSH 49429 JEFFREY TODD STEVENS 49436 GRANT GUTHRIE EVANS 49443 CLINT DUNN 49450 DALE SCOTT URBANK 49467 JOSEPH P AMATO 49474 RONALD BRANT JESTER 49481 HERBERT LEON BRANCH

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

TH PATRICK TRANSPORTATION INC

PLATINUM LOGISTICS INC

R & M DELIVERY SERVICE INC

TAMARA ENTERPRISE INC

VICTORIA OAKS INC EDWARDS EXPRESS SERVICES , INC MP SQUARE INC

M & M TRANSPORT SERVICES INC BLUE WOOKIE DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MAXTRANS LLC VIP EXPRESS INC

MAXXPRESS CORP

WARREN DELIVERIES, INC EXPRESS HOME DELIVERY SERVICE INC MTV TRUCKING LLC

MTV TRANSPORT INC

GLENWOOD TRANSPORTATION, INC

ARTY PHELPS INC

ENTERPRISE 2019 LLC RECCHIA & ASSOCIATES LLC
OWEN SAYLES INC
PETER PETRO, INC GRP TRUCKING INC

RECCHIA & ASSOCIATES INC OS PACKAGE EXPRESS INC
GRP TRUCKING INC

WILKIE INCORPORATED JOE LIU INC ON PURPOSE TRUCKING INC
CARL RICHARDS INC

P&J TRANSPORT INC

P&J TRANSPORT INC

J&L SMITH ENTERPRISES INC

DING DOCTOR INC

L & H PACKAGE SERVICE LLC

Page 79 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 87 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4936 49498 MICHAEL KINYUA MUTURI 4937 49504 JAMES ROUSE 4938 49511 JAMES DEANS 4939 49528 DOUGLAS KENNETH PRUITT 4940 49535 RICHARD D BREWER 4941 49542 JAY H SHERRILL 4942 49559 BENNY W SMITH 4943 49566 HARVEY MILTON CAMERON

4944 4945 4946 4947 4948 4949 4950 4951

49573 CHRISTOPHER COLLMAN 49580 TERRY WAYNE ATKINS JR 49597 JAN J VANDERLEY 49603 RONNIE L TREXLER 49610 RAY LONG 49627 MERLE MURRAIN 49634 SYLVIA T RIGGSBEE 49641 STEPHEN V HESS

4952 49658 RICKY RICHMOND 4953 49665 RONALD MCDOUGAL 4954 49672 DAVID LEWIS

4955 4956 4957 4958 4959 4960 4961 4962 4963 4964 4965 4966 4967

49689 PATRICIA NORMAN OWENS 49696 EDDIE D LEE 49702 SETH BONSU 49726 WILLIAM J GOSWICK 49733 JAMES BURK 49740 MELISSA FIELDS 49757 JAMES DAVID LOFTIN 49764 DARRYL WAYNE PERRY 49771 HAROLD E HUMBLE 49788 MARK GAGNON 49795 GARY STALEY NICHOLS 49801 JEFFREY R KNIGHT 49818 JEFFREY HUGH HINSON

4968 4969 4970 4971 4972 4973 4974 4975 4976 4977 4978 4979 4980 4981 4982 4983 4984 4985 4986 4987 4988 4989 4990 4991 4992 4993 4994 4995 4996

49825 SPURGEON L WILLIAMS 49832 SPURGEON L WILLIAMS 49849 LARRY STEPHEN PARKS 49856 GREGORY RHYNE 49863 ANTOINE DEMONDS MARTIN 49870 DAVID HERMITTE 49887 TONY AMMONS 49894 RODNEY BUFFKIN 49900 JOHN R ALSTON 49917 DAVID N ROBERTS 49924 DEWAYNE WELDON CHANEY 49931 LOUIS TOMBLIN 49948 WILLIAM EDWARD SHALLIES 49955 PETER FARNSWORTH 49962 BRANDON LANE EGGLESTON 49979 DAVID PARKER 49986 CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS SHOOK 49993 RODNEY LEE LOWMAN 50005 WILLIAM JASON FAUCETTE 50012 PHILIP A WILLIAMS 50029 BRYAN RICHARDSON 50036 ARTHUR L HOPPER 50043 KENNETH WAYNE BAIN 50050 TODRE DEVALLE DANIELS 50067 LANDON MOORE 50074 JONATHAN WALDRON 50081 KEITH MITCHELL HEFNER 50098 PHILLIP ALAN MCCANN 50104 KEVIN TERRELLE DAY

Company Name 1 MUTURI DELIVERIES CORP
DEANS HOME DEL SVCS INC DOUGLAS DELIVERY INC
J&S DELIVERY INC
CAMERON, CRAWFORD & ASSOCIATES
KGA LOGISTICS INC JSCV ASSOCIATES LLC
RHL ENTERPRISES, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

KGA LOGISTICS INC JSCV EAGLES INC

PATHFINDERS OF MEDINA COUNTY INC

DAVID LEWIS TRUCKING V & P OWENS TRUCKING INC

DAVID L LEWIS ENTERPRISES INC

USNOB INC

J B PACKING SERVICE, INC

WINROOT INC PNP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC HUMBLE ROAD INC

JUST DELIVERS, INC HINSON INTERNATIONAL INC

HINSON ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

LSP, INC A AND J'S DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

BUFFKIN INC ALSTON EXPRESS CO DAVID ROBERTS TRUCKING INC STEVENSON FINANCIAL GROUP INC LOUIS TOMBLIN, INC

ALSTON EXPRESS CO

TEAM LOWMAN INC J & S DELIVERY OF NC INC P B LOGISTICS, INC
MADDY INC HEFNER ENTERPRISES, INC

Page 80 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 88 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 4997 50111 NICHOLAS CLARK FERGUSON 4998 50128 NORMAN BROWN 4999 50135 DAVID BLAIR NOBLE 5000 50142 GARY LUCIER 5001 50159 ROBIN PANNETON 5002 50166 JOSH D SHANNON 5003 50173 DORA DANIELS 5004 50180 ELEANOR MOSER 5005 50197 ROBERT W AYERS 5006 50203 DON TAYLOR 5007 50210 JOHN SWARINGEN 5008 50227 ROBERT HAROLD MANGHAM JR 5009 50234 BRENDA L FLOYD 5010 50241 DANIEL GODWIN 5011 50258 JOHN BROWN 5012 50265 FRANK L GILREATH 5013 50272 DONALD CHATFIELD 5014 50289 SAMUEL A MATTISON 5015 50296 DANIEL JAMES STUBBS 5016 50302 MYRON L HOLT 5017 50319 WILLIAM ADAMS 5018 50326 STEVE L LIZAK 5019 50333 RONALD ALEXANDER CROMARTIE 5020 50340 RANDY NICKERSON 5021 50357 MILDRED P ROGERS 5022 50364 DONNA S BRANK 5023 50371 ALLEN E BRIDWELL 5024 50388 ROBERT E COLLINS 5025 50395 ROGER RADFORD 5026 50401 WILLIAM JOHNSON 5027 50418 STANLEY BARNES 5028 50425 MICHAEL BARRINGTON HEATH

5029 5030 5031 5032 5033 5034 5035 5036 5037 5038 5039 5040 5041 5042 5043 5044 5045 5046 5047 5048 5049 5050 5051 5052 5053 5054 5055 5056 5057 5058 5059 5060

50432 NATHAN MCCOLL 50449 GREGORY MIXON 50456 DARRELL GREGG 50463 ERIC LEGETTE 50470 MICHAEL A CAMPBELL 50487 GREGORY ROBINSON 50494 WARREN K HERNDON 50500 JAMES SHAWN JENKINS 50517 BRUCE MURRAY 50524 JOSEPH B PHILLIPS 50531 DEXTER ELLIOTT PINKSTON 50548 THOMAS GLENN COTTINGHAM 50555 SHAWN SANDERS 50562 THOMAS GALE 50579 KIPLEY VICK 50586 RANDALL G BROCK 50593 ARTHUR BELL 50609 JEFFERY C DAVIS 50616 MOSES FORD 50623 JOSEPH CARLTON 50630 OSCAR L JONES 50647 ANTHONY ORR 50654 PHILIP MORKIE BING 50661 SAMUEL HALL DUCK JR 50678 PETE MISTRETTA 50685 THOMAS F DAVENPORT 50692 KEITH KENDELL JONES 50708 TARELL A DAVIS 50715 BERNARD WILLIAMS 50722 SAMUEL DAVID DORNER II 50739 RUSSELL HOLMAN 50746 WILLIE C HOLSTON

Company Name 1 GREEN BEAR ENTERPRISES LLC

Company Name 2

RITE ACROSS PACKAGING LIMITED
D P GODWIN INC
CHATFIELD ENTERPRISES, INC
S L LIZAK ENTERPRISES INC RANDY WAYNE, INC
ROBERT'S PARCEL SERVICE INC BILCO INC MID-SOUTH TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC N MCCOLL, INC TWO BEAGLES TRUCKING INC

ZP ENTERPRISES INC
COTT ENTERPRISES, INC DUCAL ENTERPRISES RANDY'S PACKAGE SERVICE INC
DEPRIS TRUCKING, INC JWC TRUCKING, INC
PMB DELIVERY LLC DUCK ENTERPRISES INC DAVENPORT LOGISTICS, INC TARELL DAVIS TRUCKING, INC DORNER ENTERPRISE INC KEEP IT ROLLIN INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 81 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 89 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5061 50753 MICHAEL S WINSTEAD 5062 50760 MATT SHAW 5063 50777 SWENCYL CRANE UPSON 5064 50784 DANIEL E PORTER 5065 50791 GEREMY HUFF 5066 50807 CHAD LEE DAVENPORT 5067 50814 JASON HOOKER BARR 5068 50821 JUDE ANISON TURNER 5069 50838 DARRYL OWENS 5070 50845 RONALD SAUCIER 5071 50852 DALE LAW 5072 50869 STACEY M CADLE 5073 50876 JOEY JOEL WILLIAMS JR 5074 50883 JUSTIN WAYNE VICK 5075 50890 JEREMY SPIEGEL 5076 50906 RICCARDO B VENTURA 5077 50913 CAMILLE SAAD 5078 50920 EDWARD T GARRETT 5079 50937 EUGENE SMALLS

5080 50944 LOY HAGAN JR 5081 50951 DAVID E LAWSON

5082 5083 5084 5085 5086 5087 5088 5089 5090 5091 5092 5093 5094 5095 5096 5097 5098 5099 5100 5101 5102 5103 5104 5105 5106 5107 5108 5109 5110 5111 5112 5113 5114 5115 5116 5117 5118 5119 5120 5121

50968 BALWINDER S BAHIA 50975 ROBERT DUNHAM 50982 THOMAS WISE 50999 THOMAS E OCAIN 51002 STEWART NILSEN 51019 EMMETTE MCCORMICK JR 51026 STEVE ALAN ATKINSON 51033 MOSES LEE II 51040 KENNETH GARY ROSS 51057 CRAIG FOWLER 51064 ORVICE D ROBINSON 51071 ROBERT L CROSBY 51088 RONALD LEE WIGGINS 51095 CHUCK HATFIELD 51101 NICHOLAS HITT 51118 RAYMOND SULLIVAN 51125 DORSEY SULLIVAN 51132 DWAYNE FITZGERALD BOYCE 51149 EDWARD E LEWIS 51156 ROBERT SADLER 51163 CHRISTOPHER STRATTON 51170 DUSTON PHILLIPS 51187 JAMES BROWN 51194 BRENT BRADLEY 51200 JASON LACONTE DOOLEY 51217 WILBERT GRANT 51224 WILLIAM B WOODAMAN 51231 DORIAN STONE 51248 TREVA MARIE TIMMONS 51255 DANIEL R SMITH 51262 MONICA GRACE CERILLO 51279 WILLIE L BRYANT JR 51286 TYRONE HOLMES 51293 SCOTT M MARSHALL 51309 JAMES PORTER SIMPSON III 51316 CHRISTOPHER T CORLEY 51323 GARY LEE GUFFEE 51330 KEITHAN MCGOWAN 51347 DONALD WILSON 51354 REGINALD L MIDDLETON

5122 51361 RANDY JOHNSON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GLH DELIVERING SERVICES INC DAVENPORT TRUCKING INC JBARR, INC LAST DO INC
DJW GROUP INC

ETG ENTERPRISES INC E SMALLS ENTERPRISE LLC

SMALLS PACKAGE & DELIVERY, INC

UPSTATE INDEPENDENT SERVICES, INC

T E WISE INC O'CAIN ENTERPRISES INC
EM & SONS, INC
LEE EXPRESS INC
CF DELIVERY SERVICES, INC ODR, INC CROSBY & EVANS LLC RON EST INC
SNH DELIVERY INC B KARMILES INC
THIS WAY UP, INC

DOOLEY TRANSPORT LLC

SELECT CONTRACT SERVICES INC CERILLOCO INC WLB, INC T Y HOLMES ENTEPRISES INC
JP III ENTERPRISES INC

KIT CARSON TRUCKING, INC R L MIDDLETON DELIVERY LLC

R L MIDDLETON SERVICE, INC

Page 82 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 90 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5123 51378 TIMOTHY EDMUND BACH 5124 51385 JOHNATHAN HOOKS 5125 51392 WILLIAM HIDALGO 5126 51408 ANTHONY TYRONE GREENE 5127 51415 BENJAMIN SHULER 5128 51422 BRUCE JAMES LONG 5129 51439 RODNEY DEAS 5130 51446 FORREST VANCE DAVES 5131 51453 SHANE TUCKER 5132 51460 BYRON L SWEATT 5133 51477 GARRETT COPELAND 5134 51484 JOSEPH EARL MAYNARD JR 5135 51491 DARRYL CHAPPELL 5136 51507 DANNY FOWLER 5137 51514 KEVIN GRANT 5138 51521 TRAVIS PRICE 5139 51538 JOSEPH GLEN CUNNINGHAM 5140 51545 DENNIS SEAY 5141 51552 JARRED BLAKE STURKIE 5142 51569 JONATHAN ERIC COLE 5143 51576 TRAVIS VENTRELL SULLIVAN 5144 51583 DAVE SHERIFF 5145 51590 LAVONDA SINGLETARY 5146 51606 HUDSON ROCHA ZEFERINO 5147 51613 WILLIAM C BAKER 5148 51620 CHARLES R HUGHES 5149 51637 WILLIAM H HOLLOMAN 5150 51644 CARL JAMES STONEY 5151 51651 WILFORD ODELL AMOS 5152 51668 GENE LOWRY 5153 51675 TONY A NEELY 5154 51682 LEONARD JENKINS 5155 51699 RICHARD H FLOWERS 5156 51705 RICKY PROVEAUX 5157 51712 TERENCE MCCLELLAN 5158 51729 DAVID L SMITH 5159 51736 RAY SCOTT 5160 51743 JONATHAN R LEOPARD 5161 51750 ROBERT BUCKHEISTER 5162 51767 RAY HOLDEN 5163 51774 ROBERT MASSEY 5164 51781 RODNEY G ROBISON 5165 51798 HENRY CULCLEASURE 5166 51804 TIMOTHY E GIVENS 5167 51811 DAVID E MIDDLETON 5168 51828 MARK BRIGGS 5169 51835 WILLIAM T STARKS 5170 51842 MARCUS BLOCKER 5171 51859 TELIS ZECOPOULOS 5172 51866 JON KEVIN COOPER 5173 51873 ALBERT HOPKINS 5174 51880 DAVID DEMERS 5175 51897 MICHAEL KENNELL 5176 51903 ERIC RENELLE BAILEY 5177 51910 JEFFERY DONALD YOUNG 5178 51927 KENNETH WADDY 5179 51934 TYRONE MANIGAULT

5180 5181 5182 5183 5184 5185 5186

51941 CHERYL COOPER 51958 SYLVESTER LINCOLN 51965 KEVIN J DUBOSE 51972 JEROD VINCENT DAVIS 51989 VERDIE MARIE MILLER 51996 HARVEY LEROY SAMUEL 52009 ANTHONY CROSBY

Company Name 1
AJ HOOKS ENTERPRISES, INC
ARIG SPRINT DELIVERY, INC
BBEX LLC TWO N 2 DELIVERY, INC
SHANE'S PARCEL SERVICE LLC ON TIME DELIVERY & MOVING INC COPELAND ENTERPRISE LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

TWO N 2 DELIVERY, INC

FOWLER LOGISTICS, INC L N K ENTERPRISE, INC JOLO TRUCKING

PALMETTO DELIVERY SERVICE, INC JB STURKIE INC JON COLE INC

COLE ENTERPRISE, INC

SHERIFF, INC LAVONDA TRUCKING INC

SCHR, INC JAYBEE INC STONEMAN TRUCKING INC AMOS PACKAGE EXPRESS, INC

L&P LOGISTICS INC FLOWERS P & D SERVICE INC R A PROVEAUX INC
DLS DELIVERIES INC PRESMARLEY DELIVERY, INC J LEOPARD, INC BUCKHEISTER TRUCKING INC

R ROBISON ENTERPRISES LLC

ROADTOP TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

W & A ENTERPRISES INC BLOCKER'S VISION LLC SPARTAN DELIVERY SYSTEMS INC CUSTOMERS 1ST DELIVERY, INC

BVSL, INC

KENNELL ENTERPRISES INC ONE TIME LLC MYENTERPRISESINCOFMARION
T E M HOME DELIVERY, INC MANIGUAL T TYRONE
LINCOLN LOGISTICS LLC K DUBOSE ENTERPRISES INC
V MILLER, INC

ONE TIME ERIC, INC LINCO ENTERPRISES, INC

Page 83 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 91 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5187 52016 DAVID L SMITH 5188 52023 FERYDOUN HEMATYAR 5189 52030 KELVIN ROEBUCK 5190 52047 MICHAEL SEE 5191 52054 JASON K STURKIE 5192 52061 BERNARD LIVINGSTON JR 5193 52078 JACK H TAYLOR 5194 52085 ABDULLA KENTE HICKS 5195 52092 CHRISTOPHER THOMAS 5196 52108 DAVID DRAKE 5197 52115 LAWRENCE A WILSON 5198 52122 TODD O BRICKLE 5199 52139 BRIAN CANTRELL 5200 52146 GREGORY B JORDAN 5201 52153 RYAN C HARBIT 5202 52160 FRANKLIN M BOLAR 5203 52177 WALTER J BROCK 5204 52184 GEORGE BLACKWELL 5205 52191 TERRY CHRIS TURNIPSEED 5206 52207 JOSEPH CAWLEY 5207 52214 ARCHIE W MUCKENFUSS III 5208 52221 CHAD SEXTON 5209 52238 ANTONIO WILLIAMS 5210 52245 JASON PRUITT 5211 52252 CARLOS A BOUKNIGHT 5212 52269 BRIAN K CANTRELL 5213 52276 OTIS DAVIS II 5214 52283 JOHN W SEXTON 5215 52290 ROGER D MARTIN

5216 5217 5218 5219 5220 5221 5222 5223 5224 5225 5226 5227 5228 5229 5230 5231 5232 5233 5234 5235 5236 5237 5238 5239 5240 5241

52306 RANDY WAYNE RINEHART 52313 PETER JOHN BASTIAN JR 52320 EDAVID MCGREGOR 52337 PAUL E GRIMSLEY 52344 HARRY LEGETTE SR 52351 DAVID PRINGLE 52368 ROBERT A WARE 52375 NEDAL ABUJAYYAD 52382 LANCE TUCKER 52399 LELAND D WILLOUGHBY 52405 MICHAEL GLEN HUNTINGTON 52412 EDWARD G ALLEN 52429 GREG MYERS 52436 DALE BROOM 52443 RICHARD A MYERS 52450 DENNIS RICHARD ROBBINS 52467 BRYON K SLOAN 52474 KEITH LEONIDAS DIXON 52481 CHARLES BRAD HENNESSEE 52498 JAMES E BENJAMIN 52504 DARNELL HOLMES 52511 AUBREY R WILLIAMS 52528 HODGES MCLEOD JR 52535 ANTHONY JARINSEN GREENE 52542 BETTY MCELROY 52559 JOHN GREER

5242 5243 5244 5245 5246 5247 5248 5249

52566 WILLIE EDARD RAMSEY 52573 WENDELL K GLENN 52580 SHARI WILLIAMS 52597 ANTHONY DAVIS 52603 AARON ROACH 52610 TINA DAVIS 52627 JAMES FLOYD LANDERS 52634 DONALD LEE OUZTS

Company Name 1 EAGLE TRUCKING INC
GMPS, INC J K STURKIE, INC B & J ASSOCIATES LLC J L TAYLOR, INC

Company Name 2 B & J LEGACY, INC

WIGIT'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC
CANTRELL ENTERPRISES INC RENEGADE TRUCKING CO INC GROUND DELIVERY SERVICE INC FRANKLIN BOLAR, INC HALF FROG JUMPING INC
T&S GROUND SERVICES INC CAWLEY ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JW SEXTON INC MARTIN COMPANY

DALE MARTIN COMPANY, INC

MCGREGOR INCORPORATED H&J CONTRACTOR CORPORATION

D&L WILLOWTREE, INC

RAM EXPRESS INC
BKS SERVICES INC
CB HENNESSEE, INC
AR WILLIAMS & SON, INC ABM TRUCKING, INC
BCM, INC J W GREER & SON EXPRESS TRUCKING, INCORPORATED

JAY LANDERS TRUCKING, INC

Page 84 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 92 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5250 52641 BRADLEY D STRICKLAND 5251 52658 RUSSELL BRYANT 5252 52665 FREDERICK C JONES 5253 52672 WILLIE DAVIS 5254 52689 RANDY GILL 5255 52696 ELIJAH L BENTON 5256 52702 JERMAINE HOLMES 5257 52719 WILLIAM OCEAN 5258 52726 BELINDA ARNOLD 5259 52733 SHAWN TUCKER 5260 52740 KARLOS STONE 5261 52757 AARON BROWN 5262 52764 THOMAS D CHASTAIN 5263 52771 LISA M MARKLEY 5264 52788 ANTHONY BOOKER 5265 52795 PATRICE FELDER 5266 52801 STEVE BULLARD 5267 52818 JAMIE COOKE 5268 52825 KEITH K MULLIS 5269 52832 SHANDON FAIR 5270 52849 EUGENE SMITH 5271 52856 ROBERT JOHNSTON 5272 52863 WALTER WELCH 5273 52870 THOMAS COGSWELL 5274 52887 EDWARD M WHITE

5275 5276 5277 5278 5279 5280 5281 5282 5283

52894 JAMES A BLAIR 52900 GENORIS WILLIAMS 52917 DARRYL BROWN 52924 CHRIS JAMES MANOS 52931 RIPPY GRAHAM 52948 WENDELL KEITH 52955 LAMAR FOXWORTH 52962 KELWIN HACKETT 52979 THERMAN ROBINSON

5284 5285 5286 5287 5288 5289 5290 5291 5292 5293 5294

52986 CHAD N DAVENPORT 52993 KELLY COOPER 53006 JAY MARRA 53013 BOBBY L DUNCAN 53020 ROBERT L BROWN 53037 BILL MCALLISTER 53044 LEROY HEMINGWAY 53051 GEORGE ALSTON 53068 DOUG MACK HAMMER 53075 THOMAS JACKSON 53082 BERNARD GOODWIN

5295 5296 5297 5298 5299 5300 5301 5302 5303 5304 5305 5306 5307 5308 5309 5310 5311

53099 ROY GREEN 53105 KENNETH MONROE MACK 53112 CLARENCE A SPENCER 53129 MARK A LITTLETON 53136 SAM MOORE JR 53143 JAMES BLAIR SHACKELFORD 53150 JASON BURKHALTER 53167 WILLIE LABRAUN STEVENS 53174 HARRY CLINTON MALPHRUS 53181 HERBERT B HENDLEY JR 53198 JEREMY B JONES 53204 TIMOTHY J PERRY 53211 TERENCE EDWARD LARRIMORE 53228 DERRICK CARLOS JOHNSON 53235 ALVIN CLARK 53242 JACQUELINE RIDGEWAY 53259 DARNELL JONES JR

Company Name 1 DARB, INC
DIAMOND KEY INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

LAKELAND VENTURES, INC

JAMIE COOKE INC

HAWNES LOGISTICS, INC
E & R WHITE ENTERPRISES LLC
JEMAC INC NORIS, INC
PRO EX LLC

E WHITE ENTERPRISES, INC
PRO EX , INC

P&T ROBINSON ENTERPRISE INC

P & T ROBINSON ENTERPRISES, INC

B & J DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

GOODWIN ENTERPRISES LLC

B GOODWIN ENTERPRISES INC

K&E ENT OF DILLLON LLC STEVEN'S EXPRESS SHIPPING, INC
TIM PERRY TRUCKING LLC TELCO ENTERPRISES INC JOHNSON-EXPRESS, INC RIDGEWAY EXPRESS, INC

Page 85 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 93 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5312 53266 ROBERT WIGGS 5313 53273 JAMES R POWER III 5314 53280 JIMMY EDWARD DEAN 5315 53297 CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN ROWE 5316 53303 TERRANCE THOMAS 5317 53310 ROBERT D THOMAS 5318 53327 PAUL ADAMS

5319 5320 5321 5322 5323 5324 5325 5326 5327 5328 5329 5330 5331 5332 5333 5334 5335 5336 5337 5338 5339 5340 5341

53334 DAVID DRIGGERS 53341 WILLIE JOE STONE 53358 BOBBY GRIGGS 53365 STACEY LEE BRYANT 53372 WILLIAM COLLIER 53389 CHRISTOPHER EDWARD STEWART 53396 CHRISTOPHER JAMES KINARD 53402 WALTER CLARK FREEMAN JR 53419 RONALD D SHUMAR 53426 EDWARD N COOK 53433 JOSEPH ELLIOTT 53440 BILLY LAMAR HATFIELD 53457 DAVID KING 53464 EDGAR CHRISTOPHER MACK 53471 CORNELIUS BOTHMA 53488 WHIT BYRD 53495 MICHAEL COOLEY 53501 JAMES MIXON 53518 HORACE RICK UMPHRIES 53525 ROY WALDEN 53532 RODNEY EASTON 53549 MILLIE E HOUCK 53556 STEVE WILLIAM SAFFLE

5342 5343 5344 5345 5346 5347 5348 5349 5350

53563 PATRICIA HILL 53570 ISHMEAL GRIER 53587 GREG WALLACE 53594 HERBERT DONALD LANIER JR 53600 RAY STRICKLAND 53617 DEXTER BERNARD BOND 53624 ANDOMARIUAM WILDER 53631 TIMOTHY LUOPA 53648 MELISSA BEARD ROHMAN

5351 5352 5353 5354 5355 5356 5357 5358 5359 5360 5361 5362 5363 5364 5365 5366 5367 5368 5369 5370 5371 5372 5373

53655 ERIC TUCKER 53662 WILLIAM C WHITE 53679 JERRELL MARK CLANTON 53686 JOHN FITZGERALD CLARK 53693 JAMES MICHAEL HAND 53709 CHARLES JASON HILL 53716 JAVARA HILL 53723 MICHAEL GALLOWAY 53730 DENNIS BARLOW 53747 TOMMY LEE DENT JR 53754 STUART PAUL GREEN 53761 CORNELL PRIMUS KING 53778 REGINALD NELSON 53785 JEFFREY RANDALL ELLIS SR 53792 SHAWN PAGE 53808 FELIX MAPP 53815 KYLE CROSBY 53822 JEFFREY PITTS 53839 JONATHAN D GIBSON 53846 BREN STRICKLAND 53853 MICHAEL GEIGER SALTER JR 53860 MASON EVANS 53877 ALIJAH JOSHUA RAND

Company Name 1
CUSTOM SOUTH LOGISTICS INC ZERO INC
THOMAS DELIVERY SERVICE INC PJAC COURIER AND DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CNC STEWART, INC KINARD EXPRESS SERVICE INC DUBBY C FREEMAN INC
SCALE INC

WHIT INC
A & R LOGISTICAL SERVICE QUALITY ENTERPRISES INC

C&W MOUNTAIN ENT LLC
JERMOTT ENTERPRISES, INC G H WALLACE ENTERPRISES INC
BOND'S COURIER SERVICE, INC AWILDER ENTERPRISES INC TLC COURIER SERVICE LLC MELISSA TURN BY TURN INCORPORATED

C & W MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES INC
TIM LUOPA COURIER INC

JELKK INC J HILL TRUCKING, INC JAY FED DELIVERY SERVICE INC
BARLOW EXPRESS INCORPORATED
GREY MOSS INC; GREYMOSS INC
NELSON EXPRESS INC WE SHIP INC; WE SHIP, INC

CATFISH INC BREN INC
JAR INC

Page 86 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 94 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5374 53884 CHARLES INGRAM 5375 53891 JONATHAN STRICKLAND 5376 53907 KELLY E RATLIFF 5377 53914 ERIC CARTER 5378 53921 AARON LOWERY 5379 53938 OLEN WILLIAMS 5380 53945 SAMUEL CAMPBELL 5381 53952 AVERY SMITH 5382 53969 MCARTHUR SCOTT

5383 5384 5385 5386 5387 5388 5389 5390 5391 5392 5393 5394 5395 5396 5397 5398 5399 5400 5401 5402 5403 5404 5405 5406 5407 5408 5409 5410 5411 5412 5413 5414

53976 DAVE ALAN WOFFORD 53983 BARRY E RUSS 53990 CHANGA SOLWAZI 54003 MOYOSORE OKIKIOLU 54010 SHERMAN WRIGHT 54027 BRYANT JAY ROBERSON 54034 ROGER LEE DAVIS 54041 TINA FLEETWOOD 54058 GREGORY MOSS 54065 JAMES BOOZER 54072 TRACY N TOOTHMAN 54089 JASON A POPE 54096 DAVID CUSHMAN 54102 ADAM W BRIDGES 54119 FREDERICK MAPP 54126 DAVID J HILL 54133 LAURENCE LOVETT 54140 KEITH SIMMONS 54157 THOMAS LEE BORDERS 54164 ZANNIE BLACK 54171 RICKY LYNN PRICE JR 54188 WARREN HALL SINGLETARY 54195 MARION B GRESHAM JR 54201 ADAM HART 54218 CAMERON SMITH 54225 TAVARIS LEE ARMOUR 54232 CHRISTOPHER WADE MOORE 54249 TRAVIS RANELL THOMPSON 54256 THOMAS JIMMY DUBBERLY 54263 GARY C HUMPHREY 54270 LISA A DEAL 54287 NORMAN E HOOVER

5415 5416 5417 5418 5419 5420 5421 5422 5423 5424 5425 5426 5427 5428 5429 5430 5431 5432 5433 5434 5435

54294 ANTHONY VAUGHN 54300 EARL D EVANS 54317 STACY OWENS 54324 GEORGE WILLIAM PRINCE III 54331 MARK ANTHONY GODWIN 54348 JONATHAN MILLER 54355 GEORGE ROBINSON 54362 ERNEST KUSI APPIAH 54379 ANN E LANE 54386 DEREK LEE GODFREY 54393 JOHN P WOOD 54409 LORENZO WILLIAMS 54416 KIMBERLEY DIANA SISSON 54423 JON DAVID CAUTHEN 54430 WILLIAM CLANCE 54447 HARVEY J ROBERTS 54454 KEITH GREENWAY 54461 JAMES C BAXTER 54478 EDWARDSCOTT TERRY JONES 54485 RICKY RAYBORN 54492 JOHN FITZGERALD TOWNS

Company Name 1 C INGRAM TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

C G M G & ME TRUCKING, INC
BFJ ENTERPRISES INC CAMPBELL ESTATE LLC
MCARTHUR SCOTT ENTERPRISES LLC MCARTHUR SCOTT ENTERPRISES INC
NEW DIRECTIONS OF HICKORY, INC
FORE-C INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

G N MOSS INC TNT TRUCKING LTD

AMAZON TRANSPORT LLC

AMAZON TRANSPORT LLC

TCCCC DELIVERY COMPANY INC

B & B EXPRESS; B & B EXPRESS, INC

R & W LOGISTICS INC

TRT TRINDON INCORPORATED
SEMINOLE EXPRESS INC LISA'S DELIVERY SERVICE, LLC GOTAPAK4U LLC

GOTAPAK OF SOUTHWEST GEORGIA INC

GEORGE PRINCE ENTERPRISES INC
GEO 2R TRUCKING, INC ANN'S HOME DELIVERY INC

DM CAUTHEN INC KEG ENTERPRISES INC T&T LOGISTICS, INC

T&T LOGISTICS, INC

Page 87 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 95 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5436 54508 MICHAEL L SIMMONS 5437 54515 MARK LEE TEUSCHER 5438 54522 KIM HOLMAN 5439 54539 CHRISTOPER MCGUIRE 5440 54546 GERALD LYNN HODGES 5441 54553 ADMYER FELL JR 5442 54560 LORENZO KIMBREL 5443 54577 TOMMY MORRIS 5444 54584 URBANO F PETRIZZA 5445 54591 DWAYNE JONES 5446 54607 DWIGHT ANTHONY ROSSE 5447 54614 MICHAEL WAYNE MACFARLANE 5448 54621 MELVIN JEFFERSON 5449 54638 CHRISTOPHER RODGERS 5450 54645 BEVERLY J POWELL 5451 54652 GEORGE TAYLOR 5452 54669 HEYWARD WILLIAMS JR 5453 54676 ALTON E JERNIGAN 5454 54683 JERREL KEITH ELLINGTON 5455 54690 STEPHEN MCCLURE 5456 54706 BRADLEY ANDERSON 5457 54713 JEFFREY LEE HOWARD 5458 54720 CHRIS CHRISTOPHER MCKINNEY 5459 54737 WILLIAM CROY 5460 54744 DANIEL HILLEY 5461 54751 REGINALD MORGAN 5462 54768 MICHAEL ANGELO WALKER 5463 54775 MICHAEL STEPHENS 5464 54782 OZIE D ADAMS JR 5465 54799 SANTONIC MCGAY BROWN 5466 54805 RAYMOND BROWN 5467 54812 DAVID WILLIAMSON 5468 54829 KEVIN BAUSHA 5469 54836 LEONARD WILLIS 5470 54843 GARY CRONIN 5471 54850 HENRY LEE LUCKY JR 5472 54867 YUMISHAE PARKS 5473 54874 TIM WEBB 5474 54881 STACEY MAURICE TURNER 5475 54898 JAMES MATTHEW PAYNE 5476 54904 TYRONE DUFFY 5477 54911 ANTHONY HUGHLEY 5478 54928 SHANE HILL 5479 54935 KELVIN BENTLY 5480 54942 MICHAEL B HARRIS 5481 54959 RONALD WALKER 5482 54966 KEITH DONALD FOSTER 5483 54973 DENISE GAGNIER 5484 54980 THOMAS OWEN MUNSON III 5485 54997 SAMMY A FEASTER 5486 55000 NATHAN DENNIS STRICKLAND 5487 55017 MORRIS E MOORE 5488 55024 TOINE D MERRITT 5489 55031 JARROD ANDERSON HARRIS 5490 55048 RAY GRAY 5491 55055 DEAN G THOMAS

5492 5493 5494 5495 5496 5497 5498

55062 TALMADGE LAMAR FUTRAL 55079 ARCHIE DAILEY 55086 CHRISTINA A PALMER 55093 STEPHEN MERRILL BONE 55109 LEE M HUTCHINSON 55116 ALVIN AVILA 55123 JOHNNY BAILEY

Company Name 1 CMAS P&D INC MLTWA, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

SIMMONS CMAS P&D INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

TLM ENTERPRISES INC D-WAY ENTERPRISES INC ROSSE INC
HILLEYGOAT'S EXPRESS LLC
CTA RENTALS INC H & E OF WINDER, INC SJM EXPRESS INC

MENYACORP INC CS & K EXPRESS INC

MORGAN EXPRESS INC

DBW UNLIMITED LLC KMB FREIGHT LLC

LOCKED IN TIGHT EXPRESS
ARPH, INC
MJHH ENTERPRISES INC WALKER EXPRESS INC DELIVERY SOLUTIONS INC MUNSON TRANSPORT INC
M E MOORE ENTERPRISES INC JARROD & JACKIE LLC D & G DELIVERIESINC GEMIRIES TRUCKING, LLC
DAILEY'S TRUCKING INC CAP ADD INC SMB TRUCK-LINE INC BADD PIRATE LLC JAS COURIER SERVICES, INC

LOCKED IN TIGHT INC
JA HARRIS TRUCKING INC GEMIRIES TRANSPORTATION INCORPORATED

Page 88 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 96 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5499 55130 LEROY GREEN 5500 55147 AVERY CLARK 5501 55154 BARRY DEE HENDERSON 5502 55161 JOSE J GONZALEZ 5503 55178 BENJAMIN G MURDOCK 5504 55185 FRED HARRIS JR 5505 55192 DONNIE PERRYMAN 5506 55208 RICKY L COLLINS 5507 55215 RANDY LYNN THOMPSON 5508 55222 ADETOKUNBOH ADEGOKE ALABI 5509 55239 WILLIE G FULLER 5510 55246 ZAMIR Z SABANOVIC 5511 55253 JAMES EDWARD TIDWELL 5512 55260 ANDREW DABWESON

5513 5514 5515 5516 5517 5518 5519 5520 5521 5522 5523 5524 5525 5526 5527 5528 5529 5530 5531 5532 5533 5534 5535 5536 5537 5538 5539 5540 5541 5542

55277 GLENN D PATTERSON 55284 RICHARD CADRIN 55291 DEBORAH LYNN COURSON 55307 WILLIAM COURY 55314 ROBERT C HAND 55321 JEFFREY HARPER BROWN 55338 JAMES SHERMAN 55345 STACEY KENNETH DOMINY 55352 KEVIN FOTSCH 55369 WADE MATHIS 55376 ALVIN PONDER 55383 ROBERT MITCHELL 55390 STANLEY ALLEN CLAYTON 55406 RYAN HERZIG 55413 DAVID ADAMS 55420 JAMIE BRIAN HILL 55437 ADRIAN USHER 55444 JACK O YORK JR 55451 THOMAS CADLE 55468 SHARON TUGGLE 55475 MICHAEL MCCOY 55482 LEWIS BRADFORD HATFIELD 55499 JOE H MCKENZIE III 55505 DARRIN BOWDEN 55512 TOM GARLAND JR 55529 DAVID L HALL 55536 MICHAEL HOLBROOK 55543 TINA LOUISE STOVALL 55550 MITCHELL EDWARD DEEMS 55567 STEVEN WAYNE CAMP

5543 5544 5545 5546 5547 5548 5549 5550 5551 5552 5553 5554 5555 5556 5557 5558 5559 5560 5561

55574 CRAIG R COURTERMARCHE 55581 TORY CLERON THRASH 55598 JAMES GIRTMAN 55604 MAHLON VICTOR JACKSON II 55611 CHRIS RIOUX 55628 CARLOS E PAULK 55635 VERNON BROWN 55642 JOSHUA BARBER 55659 LLOYD WILFONG 55666 MICHAEL CRAIG ALEXANDER 55673 ANTHONY BERNARD WALKER 55680 HERMAN DRAYTON 55697 GEORGE A IBRAHIM 55703 BOBBY RAY SMITH JR 55710 MICHAEL DAVIDSON 55727 WALTER TEMPLETON 55734 STEPHEN P JOHNSON 55741 BRIAN CHRISTOPHER VANDECAR 55758 KEVIN STEWART

Company Name 1
BH HOME DELIVERY INC
MY DUCKS LLC CM HARRIS LLC PERRYMANCO INC

Company Name 2

ZAMIR AND SONS INC

DABWESON TRANSPORATION LLC; DABWESON TRANSPORTATION LLC GDP TRUCKING INC

C & C HOME DELIVERY INC

COURSON, INC

JSJ EXPRESS INC

SAC TRUCKING, INC HEZIG DELIVERY LLC USHER SERVICES INC
D&F EXPRESS INC

DEEMS DELIVERIES, INC DIVINE DELIVERIES ENTERPRISES INC
GOD'S VISION INC
A 1ST CLASS ON-TIME SERVICES, INC BUSINESSMAN INC BRAY LOGISTICS INC
B C V EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 89 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 97 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5562 55765 RICHARD GANNETT 5563 55772 EDDIE T MONCRIEF 5564 55789 ROBERT W DENIO JR 5565 55796 RICHARD GORDON FULLER 5566 55802 BRENTON WRIGHT 5567 55819 DARYL AMOS 5568 55826 ZAC DANIEL HARRIS 5569 55833 MICHAEL TUTT 5570 55840 THOMAS HAYNES 5571 55857 RAYMOND J SIMS 5572 55864 DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS CHANDLER 5573 55871 DENNIS M LAVALLEE

5574 5575 5576 5577 5578 5579 5580 5581 5582 5583 5584

55888 CLAY SEAVER 55895 DENNIS J SLOCUM 55901 ROBERT M MORRIS 55918 FIDELIS K EZENWA 55925 JOHN JOSEPH MULVEY 55932 CYNTHIA UHLHARTLEY 55949 ROBERT PHILLIPS 55956 MICHAEL R LYNCH 55963 GORDON HASWELL YOUNG 55970 RALPH E NEWMAN 55987 DANNY CHAMBLESS

5585 5586 5587 5588 5589 5590 5591 5592 5593

55994 DANIEL CARTER 56007 RALPH CARL VEAL 56014 JOSHUA PAUL GUTHRIE 56021 RILEY CRUMLEY 56038 MICHAEL J PRICHARD 56045 PHILLIP BROOKS 56052 BENJAMIN A STYRON 56069 MICHAEL LAWRENCE 56076 WILLIAM MARCUS MCCALL

5594 56083 DAMON MCKINNEY

5595 5596 5597 5598 5599 5600 5601 5602 5603 5604 5605 5606 5607 5608 5609 5610 5611 5612 5613 5614 5615 5616 5617 5618 5619 5620

56090 MATTHEW KORNN 56106 ERIC BERNARD MOSLEY 56113 TERRELL WAERNER HARLAN 56120 SAM RAMSEY 56137 CLAYTON M POOLE 56144 DONALD K SIMS 56151 PIERRE BOULOGNE 56168 CLAYTON THOMAS KELLY 56175 MICHAEL ANTHONY LETTERMAN 56182 PETER WILLIAM CRONIN 56199 DEAN CHANDLER HODGES 56205 TIMOTHY R BUSH 56212 MICHAEL PERUN 56229 TONY LEE BROWN 56236 MIKE PENFIELD 56243 BRANDON GUEST 56250 EDWARD LOVE BULGER III 56267 JAMES C FELLERS 56274 JACOB JARVIS WINN 56281 MICHAEL DENT 56298 DERRICK BEAUCLAIR 56304 BRIAN JASON MANGHAM 56311 REGINALD ROBINSON 56328 BRIAN LAMAR MOORE 56335 CHRISTOPHER BART BRYANT 56342 GREGORY L HILL

5621 56359 LARRY TRENTON DOBBS

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

TWISTED ARM INC BRENT & MONICA TRUCKING INC
GATOR EXPRESS INCORPORATED

JITES TRANSPORTATION INC LAVALLEE ENTERPRISES INC
SLOCUM LOGISTICS INC

LAVALLEE ENTERPRISES CORP

D & C CHAMBLESS ENTERPRISES INC
VEAL ENTERPRISES INC JP GUTHRIE INC
CC&B COURIER SERVICE INC STYRON INC
M&M ENTERPRISES OF HIGH-POINT, INC MCKINNEY'S INVESTMENT INC; MCKINNEY'S INVESTMENTS GOPHER COURIER SERVICE INC
HARLAN ENTERPRISES, INC SAM RAMSEY ENTERPRISES, INC
D SIMS ENTERPRISES INC

PACKAGE WORLD INC
BULGER TRUCKING INC JARVIS WINN, INC
MANGHAM TRUCKING INC B L MOORE INC BRYANT SERVICES INC GREG SHELBY COBRA TRANSPORTATION INC

XSERVE INC

Page 90 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 98 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5622 56366 JAMES TUCKER 5623 56373 CASEY DALE HERRON 5624 56380 DAVID RAY MURPHY 5625 56397 JADE MICHAEL MAGELUND 5626 56403 RUFUS LAGREE 5627 56410 JOHNNY NEELY III 5628 56427 PAUL OLIVIERI JR 5629 56434 OSCAR L HUDSON 5630 56441 MATTHEW REYNOLDS

5631 5632 5633 5634 5635 5636 5637 5638 5639 5640 5641 5642 5643 5644 5645 5646 5647 5648 5649 5650 5651 5652 5653 5654 5655

56458 SERVOLO FERNANDES 56465 DANNY BOYETTE 56472 ROBERT H HONEYCUTT 56489 WILLIAM FRAPPIER 56496 AZELL DEAN 56502 MATTHEW TEMPESTA 56519 KENNETH SWEATT 56526 JOHN HAMMOND 56533 DONALD E WASHINGTON 56540 ROBERT CONSELYEA 56557 JOHN BOROWSKI 56564 MELISSA HARRIS 56571 DAVID TURNER 56588 JAMES RODERICK HORNSBY SR 56595 ANTHONY HARDY 56601 RENEE LESLIE DUDLEY 56618 RONALD CALLIES 56625 CLARA NUGENT 56632 GARY STANLEY CLARK 56649 MARK TRAMMELL 56656 MARK E STORY 56663 JEFF BREWER 56670 NORMAN ALEX GALLMAN 56687 LARRY WERNER JARRIEL 56694 JOHN SMITH

5656 5657 5658 5659 5660 5661 5662 5663 5664 5665 5666 5667 5668 5669 5670 5671 5672 5673 5674 5675 5676 5677 5678 5679 5680 5681 5682 5683 5684

56700 TERRY ALTON REYNOLDS 56717 WALTER KEITH DAVIS 56724 WADE A ZIPPERER 56731 MARVIN SIMS 56748 CHRISTOPHER C SMITHSON 56755 STANTON JENKINS 56762 SHAUN PATRICK MCGUIRE 56779 J BERNARD TAYLOR 56786 WILLIAM HOPKINSON 56793 DAVID SCOTT WILLIAMS SR 56809 CHRIS BELT 56816 ALVIN LAMAR 56823 WILLIAM D GADDY 56830 VICTOR B BLIGE 56847 JARVIS DEMETRICE HALL 56854 ROY T MCNAIR 56861 DENNIS LAMAR LAND 56878 DANNY VARNADORE JR 56885 LEONARD WRIGHT 56892 RODNEY FRANKLIN ROBERTSON 56908 JAMES R HALL 56915 WILLIAM BRIAN JOY 56922 GREGORY DALE JONES 56939 JEFFREY A FIKE 56946 WILLIAM JEROD TAYLOR 56953 MICHAEL W WILSON 56960 WILLIAM HARRIS 56977 CLAY KICKLIGHTER 56984 AMY CRUMLEY

Company Name 1 GA OVERNIGHT SERVICES INC MAGELUND LLC J NEELY ENTERPRISES, INC

Company Name 2 MAG CORP

MATTHEW REYNOLDS INVESTMENTS, INC

A DEAN CORPORATION

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JR HORNSBY ENTERPRISES INC
REC INC C & R EXPRESS INC MTT INCORPORATED CENTRAL GEORGIA COURIER LLC
LARRY JARRIEL, INC DEAN-SMITH DIVERSIFIED ENTERPRISES, INC
CKB SERVICES INC SIMS TRANSPORTATION INC

MY SONS FUTURE INC
HOME DELIVERY SERVERS, INC
COSMICDAWG, INC
JARVIS&JACKIE, LLC MCNAIR DELIVERIES DENNIS LAND INC
LWJ TRUCKING INC
JOY TRUCKING, INC
J FIKE, INC J&K TAYLOR TRUCKING LLC JEHOVAH-JIREH INC THE MARSAILUS COMPANY

JKT TRUCKING, INC

Page 91 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527C-rRaigL, eMt al.-,Mv. FGedEGExRGISrAoudCnoldasPcsauckmageeSnysttem3, 2Inc7. 9 filed 03/22/19 page 99 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5685 56991 EARNEST A GRAHAM 5686 57004 RICARDO BATTLE 5687 57011 SHAWN A WEST 5688 57028 TYLER ASHLEY WARREN 5689 57035 ROBIN ERIC HUFF JR 5690 57042 COREY SANTEGUS WILLIAMS

5691 5692 5693 5694 5695 5696 5697 5698 5699 5700 5701 5702 5703 5704 5705 5706 5707 5708 5709 5710 5711 5712 5713 5714 5715

57059 NEIL RACKLEY 57066 CLYDE J MOORE 57073 HOWARD COTHRAN 57080 MOMODOU MANNEH 57097 KEITH R ASHLEY 57103 JOHN C JOHNSON 57110 STEVE G BOUTWELL 57127 PHILIP COOPER 57134 JOHNNY ROBINSON 57141 DAVID LOFTEN 57158 GAIL COLEMAN 57165 MARCUS LAKINGALEY DALTON 57172 WENDELL WALKER 57189 MICHAEL LAMAR KENDRICK 57196 ALFRED THOMAS 57202 ANTHONY FLEMISTER 57219 FELICIA M NEELYBUTLER 57226 MICHAEL COLLINS 57233 REGINALD R USHER 57240 COREY REED 57257 FREDA PORCH 57264 KENNETH WAYNE NOLAN 57271 GRIFFIN DANNY TATE 57288 DARRELL JAMES BARLOW 57295 WADE A BURNS

5716 5717 5718 5719 5720 5721 5722 5723 5724 5725 5726

57301 SHANE TYSON 57318 KELVIN J PERKINS 57325 RANDALL HENRY 57332 SHELDON GARRET THRIFT 57349 BRANDI LYNN HOWARD 57356 CHRISTOPHER NELSON FITZPATRICK 57363 DAVID ANTHONY LUNDY 57370 BRIAN L MCMICKENS 57387 BRIAN LUTHER GRIFFIN 57394 JASON NEAL TERRY 57400 TIMOTHY WILLIAM ARENTSEN

5727 5728 5729 5730 5731 5732 5733 5734 5735

57417 BRYAN DAVID BELLEW 57424 ROBERT WESLEY GRAHAM 57431 BENJAMIN OTOBOR 57448 GRANT LEE COBB JR 57455 MICHAEL LETOURNEAU 57462 WILLIAM S BURTZ 57479 KAREN J VITKO 57486 CORY DAVID MORGAN 57493 SCOTTY LAMAR BECK

5736 5737 5738 5739 5740 5741 5742 5743 5744 5745

57509 BRANDON BLOUNT 57516 MATHEW BRENT GREENWAY 57523 LONNIE COPPOCK 57530 SCOTT R TRIPP 57547 MARCUS BIRT 57554 MORGAN CATHERINE READER 57561 HEATHER MCSTAY 57578 MAURICE CAUDELL 57585 MICHAEL ALLEN TURNER 57592 NATHAN ALEX BULLOCK

Company Name 1 ALEPAT INC R BATTLE ENTERPRISES INC SWESTA ENTERPRISES LLC
HUFF TRANSPORTATION INC CHARLES WEBB LLC
4M COURIER SERVICE, INC
LAMEN INC KRA ENTERPRISES INC RIGHT*WAY DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CHARLES WEBB LLC

C V WEBB TRANSPORTATION INC

JROB & SON, INC

NEL & MAC TRANSPORTATION INC
PAK-MULE INC
FLEMISTER INCORPORATED ONE NEELY LADY

EJO TRANSPORT, INC

REED'S CONTRACTING COMPANY

BIG GRIF TRUCKING INC BARLOW'S ON-TIME INC WP BURNS INC

KASNAT INC; WP BURNS INC

TELE EXPRESS INC CNF SERVICES INC

B & J PACKAGE SERVICE INC
ARENTSEN ENTERPRISES INC
BELLEW INC GRAHAM DELIVERY SERVICE, INC BSW EXPRESS INCORPORATED

ARENTSEN ENTERPRISES, INC

EXPRESS GO VITKO INC TRIPLE B ENTERPRISES LLC

TRIPLE BBB ENTERPRISE INC

COPPOCK CONNECTION II, INC

READER FAMILY ENTERPRISES LLC

TURNER UNLIMITED CORPORATION

Page 92 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 100 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5746 57608 MATTHEW MALONE DAWSON 5747 57615 WALTER BARNES 5748 57622 JOSHUA BOOTH 5749 57639 ASEEM B EVANS

5750 5751 5752 5753 5754 5755 5756

57646 SCOTT E FRENCH 57653 JAMES PALMER BROWNE JR 57660 HOWARD OSBOURNE 57677 WILLIS WEEMS 57684 RALPH BROWN 57691 STANLEY ODOM 57707 STEVE L PENNINGTON

5757 5758 5759 5760 5761 5762 5763 5764 5765 5766 5767 5768

57714 YARED DEMISSEW 57721 MARK HOWARD REEVES 57738 OTIS WHITE 57745 ROBERT M HUMBLE 57752 GLENN BONE 57769 ROY HANSON 57776 TERRELL OSBORNE 57783 ERNEST DANIEL FORTNER 57790 WALTER GROBER 57806 CHARLES MCKINNON 57813 TODD MORGAN 57820 JAMES ERIC RHINEHART

5769 5770 5771 5772 5773 5774 5775 5776 5777 5778 5779

57837 BRITTANY NICOLE JARRETT 57844 ADRIAN R COLLINS 57851 RON RICE 57868 HERMAN A MITCHAM 57875 HATTIE MAE HIGHSMITH 57882 MICHAEL KING 57899 CLARENCE THOMPKINS 57905 SUSAN STETZEL 57912 RAY MCARTHUR 57929 PHILIP MARK JONES 57936 DAVID HAYNES II

5780 57943 JAMES MITCHELL 5781 57950 TIM BRAME 5782 57967 KEVIN SHELTON

5783 5784 5785 5786 5787 5788 5789 5790 5791 5792 5793 5794 5795 5796 5797 5798

57974 JODY DRIGGERS 57981 JACQUELINE HOUSTON 57998 MICHAEL THOMAS 58001 RICHARD KIM PHILLIPS 58018 CEDRIC LYNN SWAN 58025 MICHAEL ADAMS 58032 JEFF LAYFIELD 58049 ERIC R FISCHER 58056 SCOTT A ROBERTSON 58063 ANTHONY CHET HOSCH 58070 JAMES A HALL 58087 GARY KEITH LAYSON 58094 CAREY CORBITT DAVIS 58100 RODNEY ROBBINS 58117 CARLTON LEE JOHNSON 58124 WILLIAM BLACKWELL

5799 5800 5801 5802 5803

58131 WILLIAM CLINTON SIMS 58148 JEREMY R PARADICE 58155 ALAN PARKER 58162 DEXTER R STODGHILL 58179 JASON WHITFIELD WYNN

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

ODOMS CONTRACTING SERVICES INC; ODOMS CONTRACTING SVCS INC

EKJ TRANSPORT INC OLE MAN AND A TRUCK INC ODOM ENTERPRISES INC

PENNINGTON PACKAGES INC

PHOENIX SERVICES GROUP INC

TK MORGAN INVESTMENTS, INC DOUBLE R EXPRESS SERVICES INC

RJT DELIVERY SERVICES INC

AC PACKAGE EXPRESS INC

WOODALL' S TRUCKING INC T MAC EXPRESS LLC WYATT AND MCKEE'S INCORPORATED
BRAME TRANSPORTATION INC SHELTON COURIER AND TRANSPORT INC
MICHAEL DEAN THOMAS JR INC
C&S PLUS 3 MARKETING LLC

D4U ENTERPRISES, INC CAREY DAVIS DELIVERY, INC RODNEY'S INC CJ DELIVERY SERVICES, INC BLACKWELL TRUCKING INC
HILL-VIEW INVESTMENTS LLC

BLACKWELL TRUCKING INC

Page 93 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 101 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5804 58186 MARIE A SHIVER 5805 58193 TERRELL COLLIER 5806 58209 KEILAN NILES 5807 58216 JOEY DENISON 5808 58223 JAMES M PITTMAN JR 5809 58230 MARCUS BRANCH 5810 58247 ROBERT LOUIS BROWN JR 5811 58254 KURT LEIF COLLINS 5812 58261 NEWTON C COX 5813 58278 RICHARD DIXON 5814 58285 JEREMY KERCE 5815 58292 BILL L TIDWELL 5816 58308 GRETCHEN ABIGAIL DENIO 5817 58315 VINCENT ALEXANDER 5818 58322 SCOTT HUNDLEY 5819 58339 RONNIE WALTER JOHN NICHOLS JR 5820 58346 JOHNNY WILLIAM LAWS 5821 58353 ALGERNON D CLEMENTS

5822 5823 5824 5825 5826 5827 5828 5829 5830 5831 5832 5833 5834 5835 5836 5837 5838 5839 5840 5841 5842 5843 5844 5845 5846 5847 5848 5849 5850 5851 5852 5853 5854 5855 5856 5857 5858 5859 5860 5861 5862 5863 5864 5865 5866 5867

58360 THOMAS PENDLEY II 58377 DAN FULBRIGHT 58384 BILL LEWIS 58391 DAVID L GAULT 58407 JERRELL MERCER 58414 JOEY STANLEY NIPPER 58421 RODNEY R LOGAN 58438 GARICK ENNIS 58445 ATUL KAPUR 58452 JIM SCOTT 58469 DAVID HEBBERGER 58476 STEVE GOODWIN 58483 RHONDIE BELTON 58490 JOSEPH HARPER 58506 ROBERT W DENIO 58513 JIMMY RAY MCCANNON 58520 BRYANT SHOEMAKER 58537 HAYWARD DAILEY 58544 KWASI A ASANTE 58551 JANET THOMPSON 58568 WILLIE A MELSON 58575 KELLY C TYLER 58582 CHRISTOPHER BLAND WARD 58599 ROBBY FENN 58605 BILLY WALDO JARRIEL JR 58612 ROBERT GORDON DAVIS 58629 JEREMY REDDOCK 58636 TERI DEANN EVERETTE 58643 JOHNNY M HILL 58650 VINSON DAVIS 58667 STANLEY COLEMAN 58674 MARTE B ANDREWS 58681 MICHAEL E PARKER 58698 BOBBY F HALL 58704 STEVEN BACON 58711 WENDY LANDRY 58728 DWAYNE ANTHONY MATHIS 58735 KENNETH L BROWN 58742 JOEY E RYAN 58759 DANA STRINGER 58766 RAPHAEL M WOODS 58773 SCOTT MARTIN CARLISLE 58780 RODNEY A BONE 58797 PHILIP J BONE 58803 FRANKLIN HOLLIS 58810 STEVEN DONNELL HUNTER

Company Name 1 TAC ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2 TAC ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 3

RCD HOME DELIVERY LLC D L K ENTERPRISES, INC
DENIO DELIVERY SERVICE INC AIRAHZ LLC
NICHRON LLC
CLEM & CLEM ENTERPRISES, INC

AIRAHZ, INC

EXPRESS PROFESSIONAL A&L DAY-BY-DAY

TRANSPORT LLC

TRANSPORT INC

GAULT INC NIPPER INC
KAY BROS INTERNATIONAL LLC

DILGAVANAL INC

ISLAND ACCESS PALAUAN STYLE
4 BROTHERS DELIVERY INC
MATHIS EXPRESS TRUCKING INC
R A BONE INC ONE BONEHEAD TRUCKING INC HOLLIS TRANSPORTATION INC STEVEN HUNTER ENTERPRISE, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 94 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 102 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5868 58827 SIGMUND K THOMAS 5869 58834 STEVEN A CHARRON 5870 58841 NATHAN DAROD NASH 5871 58858 KEVIN COPLEY 5872 58865 ROBIN PORTERFIELD 5873 58872 MARTIN C WATTS

5874 5875 5876 5877 5878 5879 5880 5881 5882 5883

58889 DWAYNE GREGORY STOWE 58896 JAMES JOSEPH BRAMBLEY 58902 HARRY LEE HARTLEY JR 58919 RANDALL BRETT GARRETT 58926 CHRISTOPHER TIMMONS 58933 ANTHONY TYRONE BADIE 58940 KEVIN ROBERT SCHMENK 58957 ALAN CHADWICK ELLENBURG 58964 ALBERT LOFTY 58971 LEE ALBERT GONTHIER

5884 5885 5886 5887 5888 5889 5890 5891 5892 5893 5894 5895 5896 5897 5898 5899 5900 5901 5902 5903 5904 5905 5906 5907 5908 5909 5910 5911 5912 5913

58988 MARSHALL JONES 58995 JUSTIN TROY SMITH 59008 RODERIC KERRY MORMAN SR 59015 BRENT SAXON 59022 DEMETRICK MAYS 59039 JAMES ROBERT FOUST 59046 PHILIP ARTHUR ARCHAMBAULT 59053 CLAUDE D PRESTON JR 59060 MARVIN L SINGLETON 59077 WELLINGTON N GAKUU 59084 KEVIN FRANCIS XAVIER QUINN 59091 RANDALL W BASHLOR 59107 TOMMY RIGGINS 59114 RANDAL MILTON JUSTUS 59121 MICHAEL P MISKIEL 59138 MICHAEL MARTIN 59145 JAMES WATSON 59152 DELBERT EARL HURSE 59169 ERIC WAMBSGANS 59176 JENNIFER WREN 59183 CHRISTIAN ALIRO CARVAJAL 59190 SHELDON LAMONTE CLEGG 59206 JOHN ROBINSON 59213 CHARLES RICHARDSON 59220 ROBIN A RAMIREZ 59237 DANIEL KIVLER 59244 DANIEL JEROME GIPSON 59251 CHRISTOPHER LEONARD 59268 RONALD WILSON LANE 59275 JOE WALKER

5914 5915 5916 5917 5918 5919 5920 5921 5922 5923 5924 5925 5926 5927 5928

59282 GREGORY CRUMBLEY 59299 BRIAN GARNER 59305 EARL SCRUGGS 59312 KENNETH EDWARDS 59329 HAROLD R BAKER 59336 JONATHAN THORBS 59343 SCOTT B NAYLOR 59350 GREGORY GEORGE HORST 59367 JOSHUA LEAVITT 59374 KEVIN OLIVER 59381 MICHAEL SHANE MILLS 59398 RALPH JACOBSEN 59404 NORRIS O WORKMAN JR 59411 HERSCHEL MCLEMORE 59428 TIMOTHY LAPOINTE

Company Name 1 BIG SIG DELIVERIES INC
DAROD INC

Company Name 2

WATTS GROUP ENTERPRISES INC; WATTS GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC
J N A TRUCKING INC

WATTS GROUP ENTERPRISE

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GONTHIER & SONS LLC M JONES INC

GRANITE STATE TRUCKING AND PARCEL SERVICES CORP

WELMAR EXPRESS INC BQ EXPRESS INC
T&C DELIVERY INC
M MARTIN INC
ROCK RIDGE UNLIMITED LLC CARVAJAL EXPRESS INC CLEGG, CORP SOLD INC RICHARDSON TRUCKING INC MRZ INC
EBI LLC HERITAGE LOGISTICS GROUP LLC S&W TRUCKING INC; SAW TRUCKING INC

KAMARO ENTERPRISES INC SHADES OF VISION LLC

Page 95 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 103 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5929 59435 CRAIG PAYNE 5930 59442 BRIAN EDWARD DELAHUNTY 5931 59459 ADAM GRIJALVA 5932 59466 GARY WAYNE MCKENZIE 5933 59473 WILLIE POSTELL 5934 59480 MICHAEL KERR 5935 59497 ARTHUR GRIFFIN 5936 59503 MARVIN ALLOTEYE COLEY

5937 5938 5939 5940 5941 5942 5943 5944 5945 5946 5947 5948 5949 5950 5951 5952 5953

59510 NICHOLAS ROBERT SCARCHILLI 59527 JOHN MACGLOAN 59534 ANGELA QUINN 59541 GLENN BOATRIGHT 59558 RAYMOND K HARRIS 59565 DAVID ENGHOLM 59572 JACK MCCOURT 59589 MICHAEL MURPHY 59596 RUSSELL WALKER 59602 GEORGE WRIGHT 59619 JACKIE FULTS 59626 THEODORE SAIA 59633 STEVEN C MCGAHEY 59640 STEVEN G RUBEOR 59657 BARRY OHAGAN 59664 JANET L JOHNSON 59671 ARTHUR EDDY

5954 5955 5956 5957 5958 5959 5960 5961 5962 5963 5964 5965 5966 5967 5968 5969 5970

59688 ROSALIE ERICKSON 59695 BILLY G MORGAN 59701 WILLIAM C THIEL 59718 WALTER L WOODALL 59725 HENRY SZUPEL 59732 CARL JONES 59749 ANDRE BRYANT 59756 TIM STANLEY 59763 TERRENCE HINOTE 59770 JEFFERY D RING 59787 PAUL ATLAS 59794 STEPHEN BOUCHER 59800 GARY SLOAN 59817 JEREMIAH PEDRAZZI 59824 BRENDA K MILLER 59831 ROBERT OWEN PARRY 59848 ROGER JONES

5971 5972 5973 5974 5975 5976 5977 5978 5979 5980 5981 5982 5983 5984 5985 5986

59855 ELBERT STARLING 59862 ROGERS LEE 59879 BOBBY BROGLEN 59886 EUGENE C FIELDS 59893 MICHAEL JOYCE 59909 THOMAS G CERESANI 59916 GARY TERRIO 59923 BARBARA PUHAK 59930 TONY MICHAEL LUNDY 59947 MICHAEL C HAMILTON 59954 HAROLD LEONARD 59961 DREW J LEWIS 59978 HOWARD BURKET 59985 DELANO CLAIR ARNER 59992 WILLIAM NOONE 60004 LAURENCE ANTHONY OUELLETTE

5987 60011 ROBERT TAYLOR 5988 60028 CLINTON FITZGERALD WARD 5989 60035 MARK CLEIN

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

J C ENTERPRISES; JC ENTERPRISES JC ENTERPRISES, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

ALL AMERICAN TRUCKING LLC GIA NY CORP

ALL AMERICAN TRUCKING INC

HARRIS PACKAGE DELIVERY, INC

FULTS COMPANY CROSSROADS P&D, INC

DEBARTNBOYS TRUCKING CO
B G MORGAN ENTERPRISES INC WOODALL' S TRUCKING INC

DEBARTNBOYS TRUCKING DEBARTNBOYS

CO

TRUCKING INC

RING LOGISTICS, INC

HUMMINGBIRD HILL ENTERPRISES LLC

SKH MANAGEMENT, INC LEONARD DELIVERY SERVICE INC DREW LOGISTICS, INC

THE OUTPOST OF ENTERPRISE, INC

DAMARIS TRANSPORT LLC

SEA-HARE TRANSPORT LLC

Page 96 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 104 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 5990 60042 NATASHA MICHELLE QUIMBY 5991 60059 MICHAEL JENKINS 5992 60066 LAURA HARRIS 5993 60073 LEONARD W BERCH 5994 60080 MICHAEL LOTT 5995 60097 MICHAEL PAUL GREENE 5996 60103 DERECK CHAMBLISS 5997 60110 ROY L EAGLE

5998 5999 6000 6001 6002 6003 6004 6005 6006 6007 6008 6009 6010 6011 6012 6013 6014 6015 6016 6017 6018 6019

60127 MICHAEL FINKLE 60134 KURT D FORT 60141 STEVE BOON 60158 THOMAS F RUSTEMIS 60165 VERNITA WALKER 60172 JOEL MEDINA 60189 GARY LAWRENCE 60196 BRUCE M TELHIARD 60202 KIMBERLY JEAN WHITE 60219 KEITH KAY 60226 RICHARD L DYSINGER 60233 JAMES ANTHONY ROLLISON JR 60240 CAROLYN HILLIARD 60257 LINDA ANN CUSATO 60264 SEAN ELKIN 60271 MIKE MILLER 60288 RAFAEL RAMOS 60295 THOMAS E DUKES 60301 GERARD COOPER 60318 CHERYL PARKER 60325 PATRICIA FLAGLER 60332 JEFF SUGGS

6020 6021 6022 6023 6024 6025 6026 6027 6028 6029 6030 6031 6032 6033 6034 6035 6036 6037

60349 WIDNER FRANCOIS 60356 WAYNE ZANDY 60363 GREGORY SOWDER 60370 THOMAS LADAGO 60387 WILLIAM CAMPBELL 60394 GRADY POWELL 60400 DAVID RUTKAY 60417 SCOTT E OCONNELL 60424 GODFREY LEE JR 60431 THOMAS ROBINSON 60448 DANIELLE MARIE CARBONNEAU 60455 MARK J DEPUE 60462 RICKY R PRICE 60479 JOE WALLIS PILCHER 60486 DANIEL RUDOLPH SMITH 60493 CHRISTOPHER MITTON 60509 PAUL ZIMMERMAN 60516 JAMISON E MURTAUGH

6038 6039 6040 6041 6042 6043 6044 6045 6046 6047 6048 6049 6050 6051

60523 BRYON CLINE 60530 LORENZO UY 60547 MARK C ALCAMISI 60554 KENNETH L LODEN 60561 EDMOND VERNON SAMUEL 60578 THOMAS HURST 60585 BRUCE ELLIS GREEN 60592 ALPHONSO HOWARD JOHNSON 60608 OLLIE L JONES 60615 GARY LOUIS LETURMY 60622 DONALD D BRADY 60639 TAMETRIA DUPREE 60646 MARK TOTZ 60653 DANNELLY DAVE

Company Name 1 JVZ LOGISTICS INC

Company Name 2

EAGLE WINGS PACKAGING SERVICE, INC RYDER DWIGHT INC
TOMLIN ENTERPRISES INC
LAWRENCE PACKAGE SERVICE INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PLAC LLC MARIE TRUCKING INC DUKES ENTERPRISES INC CP EXP LLC JEFF SUGGS ENTERPRISES INC

CP EXPRESS INC
JEFFREY SUGGS ENTERPRISES INC

DEP TRANSPORT CO INC JWP DELIVERY, INC DEL-CHER SMITH, INC
JT MURT LLC

J MURT LLC

LODEN UP INC ROSE & BELLE INC
GREEN INC ALIEHS HAWK, INC
BRADY, IMLER AND MCGRATH INC

MURTAUGH VENTURES INC

Page 97 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 105 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6052 60660 RYAN WILSON 6053 60677 RICHARD R HERMAN 6054 60684 CHARLES NIXON 6055 60691 JOSE AGUILAR 6056 60707 SCOTT E HAVICE 6057 60714 JOHN J VALLEY 6058 60721 SHAUNDATE HUGGINS 6059 60738 LISA DAWN STOCKER 6060 60745 EVALDO PORTELA CAMPOS 6061 60752 ANTHONY I BATTLE 6062 60769 LAMATHA K JORDAK 6063 60776 HAL HALL 6064 60783 BRANDON WHITAKER 6065 60790 MICHAEL W BOVEE 6066 60806 DARRELL KRIMINGER 6067 60813 CHAD UPTEGRAFT 6068 60820 KIMBERLY FLETCHER 6069 60837 TERRY JOHNS

6070 6071 6072 6073 6074 6075 6076 6077 6078 6079 6080 6081 6082 6083 6084 6085 6086

60844 JIMMY E BALL 60851 BURT BORK 60868 GEORGE VONDERHAAR 60875 EDGAR WENGER 60882 WAYNE SALLEE 60899 RONALD POOLE RICKS 60905 RICHARD SCOTT WESLEY 60912 DERWIN MORRIS 60929 DAVID NEIFER 60936 JEFFREY J PUTZ 60943 SCOTT C WINTROW 60950 DAVID COLLINS 60967 ROBERT K SMITH 60974 CLINT WATKINS 60981 YASIR A SATI 60998 DOUGLAS ALLEN SMITH 61001 EDWARD E MOORE

6087 6088 6089 6090 6091 6092 6093 6094 6095 6096 6097

61018 VANTSISLAV MASLARSKI 61025 WILLIAM E PRICE 61032 KRISTOPHER STOTZ 61049 WALTER LEON WALLACE 61056 ROBERT SMITH 61063 NATHAN FRESH 61070 JOHN LEONARD HARRISON 61087 DANIEL M STUDNIARZ 61094 TROY SHELBY ERNEST 61100 ANGELA DALTON 61117 BRIAN R REEVES

6098 6099 6100 6101 6102

61124 JOHN CUMMINGS 61131 KEVIN ROACH 61148 JUSTIN O MEDDINGS 61155 JOSEPH MICHAEL WELLS 61162 GEORGE DAMERON

6103 6104 6105 6106 6107 6108

61179 DAVID L STRAUSBAUGH 61186 MICHAEL WALLACE 61193 JACK WILLIAM WILSON II 61209 RICHARD MOKRIS 61216 KIM E MILLER 61223 THOMAS WENZLICK

6109 61230 RITA HODGE 6110 61247 CHARLES R DAUGHERTY 6111 61254 MICHAEL P KOTERBA

Company Name 1 RYAN WILSON DELIVERY INC HERMAN ENTERPRISES LLC CMN DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BATTLE ENTERPRISES LLC
BOVEE SERVICES CO, INC D W KRIMINGER INC HALERA INC LINK DISTRIBUTING INC JOHNS P&D LLC

ECHO BAY LLC BATTLE ENTERPRISES INC
DW KRIMINGER INC JOHNS P&D INCORPORATED

RPOOLE LLC MORRIS TRUCKING INC
SDJC, INC

NTB INC

SMITH X, INC MOORE'S P & D SERVICE, INC
CAS MANAGEMENT, INC

MOORE'S P&D SERVICE

MJ MOORE'S P&D SERVICE INC

DANSTUD, INC ELLA DELIVERY
REEVES DELIVERY GROUP LLC
CUMMINGS EXPRESS CO

REEVES DELIVERY GROUP, INC

JW DELIVERY LLC TRIAD EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE INC MLDLS ENTERPRISES INC

JON-JACOB DELIVERY INC

RAMEX INC
T WENZLICK TRANSPORT; T WENZLICK TRANSPORT INC THE COLT EXPRESS COMPANY CT MORGAN LLC AERO EXPRESS, INC

CT MORGAN INC

Page 98 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 106 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6112 61261 STEPHEN BIALKO 6113 61278 FRANKLIN JACKSON 6114 61285 ROGER ALLEN COLE SR 6115 61292 ART GARVIN 6116 61308 JEFFREY A ANDERSON 6117 61315 JAMES G WELLING II 6118 61322 HOLLY M PERZEL 6119 61339 DANIEL G HECKLER 6120 61346 EDWARD HENRY 6121 61353 KEITH C FREDERICK 6122 61360 DUSTIN R WYSE 6123 61377 PAUL RUSSELL STEVENSON 6124 61384 MARY J MCCARTHY

6125 6126 6127 6128 6129 6130 6131 6132 6133 6134 6135 6136 6137 6138 6139 6140 6141 6142 6143 6144 6145 6146 6147 6148

61391 DEREK JOHN MUMFORD 61407 JOSHUA ALLEN BALL 61414 JEFFREY J JATICH 61421 CRAIG WILLIAMS 61438 DEREK J WEISS 61445 CHRIS EKARIUS 61452 ENGRACIO AWATIN 61469 DOUGLAS TRUMBO 61476 DANIEL PELLETIER 61483 GREG A PELLETIER 61490 WILLIAM KRASSOI 61513 DAVID EPLING 61520 CLYDE MICHAEL BROWN 61537 ARTHUR COSTANZO 61544 DOUGLAS E BAIR 61551 DANIEL CAPPITTE 61568 WALTER CZARNECKI 61575 HAROLD W GERHART 61582 THOMAS ANDREW TECCO 61599 MICHAEL G SWINT 61605 JONATHAN SCHNEIDER 61612 RONNIE WEST 61629 RICHARD WILLIAM STOLDT 61636 DERICK JORDAN

6149 6150 6151 6152 6153 6154 6155 6156 6157 6158

61643 VINCENT J DELORENZO 61650 DAVID DEPEW 61667 DAVID SORG 61674 MICHAEL RAY SMITH 61681 RODNEY ALBERINO 61698 JONATHON L WASHINGTON 61704 WILLIAM GREER 61711 JEFFREY RAY BARTRAM 61728 ROY MOSELY 61735 JASON B LUFF

6159 6160 6161 6162 6163 6164 6165 6166 6167 6168 6169 6170 6171 6172 6173

61742 J PAULO RODRIGUEZ 61759 BILLY M HOWELL 61766 ANTOINE CHRISTOPHER SIMS 61773 NICK PETERSON 61780 SAMUEL J FOULDS 61797 BOBBY ROBERTS 61803 RAY HICKS 61810 PAUL VASKO 61827 SUZANNE M MILLER 61834 SHERMAN KEMP 61841 DANIEL C DEBROSSE 61858 DALE DAVY 61865 CATHY PENCIL 61872 JOEL DRIVER 61889 RICHARD LEE FINLEY

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GARVIN LOGISTICS LLC

GARVIN LOGISTICS INC

HMP, TRANSIT, INC HECKLER ENTERPRISES INC

WYSE GUY LLC PRS EXPRESS INC STOP & DROP INC; STOP AND DROP INC MUMFORD & SON TRUCKING, INC BALL & ELLER LLC

J ALLEN B, INC

WEISS GUY, INC CM DELIVERY INC

KRASSOI TRANSPORT INC EPILEO INC ARTHUR J COSTANZO INC D BAIR CORPORATION STW TRANSPORT LLC TECCO PACKAGE SERVICE INC BAM EXPRESS 5 INC
TUSCON PROJECT LLC DELO INC OPD PROPERTIES LLC OXYRO INC
FIRST GREER SERVICES INC
LUFF TRUCKING LCL

AWM GLOBAL CORPORATION DELO INC
SORG PROPERTIES LLC

DELO INC SORG PROPERTIES INC

BUCKEYE TRANSPORTATION INC

FREMONT GROUND TRUCKING INC SJF CONTRACTORS SERVICES LLC
JACKSON & HICKS ENTERPRISES
CONCERTED MANAGEMENT LLC
D N S TRANSPORTATION INC DAVY TRANSPORTATION, INC PENCIL PACKAGE DELIVERY, INC

Page 99 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 107 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6174 61896 ROGER DALE MEADOWS 6175 61902 LINDA M PUGH 6176 61919 GREG ROE 6177 61926 KENNETH BANKS 6178 61933 WILLIAM ROSS BLACK 6179 61940 JERRY JONES 6180 61957 JACK BAKER 6181 61964 KEVIN GIBSON 6182 61971 JOHN WILLIAM EVANS 6183 61988 RHONDA K MEADOWS 6184 61995 JACK HITE 6185 62008 PHIL WALTER 6186 62015 SHERMAN HARRIEL 6187 62022 RONALD R GETTYS 6188 62039 RON CLARK 6189 62046 STEVE SCHEUTZOW 6190 62053 DAVID DARIO 6191 62060 RENE P CRUZ 6192 62077 CHRISTOPHER NIELSON 6193 62084 STEVEN GENNETTE 6194 62091 STEVEN SCHULTE 6195 62107 ERIC WARD 6196 62114 LORI MILLER 6197 62121 SHAWN CARR 6198 62138 TED BLAISDELL 6199 62145 PATRICK SMITH 6200 62152 ATTILIO A CATANESE 6201 62169 JEFFREY R FULMER 6202 62176 CLIFFORD EUGENE STANLEY 6203 62183 ERIC PIERSON 6204 62190 JOSE MANUEL 6205 62206 HAROLD JR OVERTON 6206 62213 THOMAS J LITTLE 6207 62220 ANDRE L FREEMAN 6208 62237 JESSE HASKINS 6209 62244 JOHN KEY 6210 62251 DONALD LEE FORTUNE 6211 62268 JEROME E NEWBY 6212 62275 JEFF SCOTT MANNING 6213 62282 JAMES A SMITH 6214 62299 PATRICK M ELLIOTT 6215 62305 KENNETH L GREATHOUSE 6216 62312 ERIC LYNCH 6217 62329 MICHAEL STASENKO 6218 62336 MATTHEW K MILLER 6219 62343 BRAD R HARTGER 6220 62350 MARK BUYNAK 6221 62367 AMY BETH KEYSON 6222 62374 CARTER R CLAY 6223 62381 DANIEL REIDER 6224 62398 DAVID J HORNING 6225 62404 PAUL NESBITT 6226 62411 EDWARD SMITH 6227 62428 MARK JOHN LAGODICH 6228 62435 WILLIAM WICKMAN 6229 62442 RONALD WILLIAMS 6230 62459 JEFFERY CURTIS SARCHET 6231 62466 ROBERT LANE MCARTHUR II
6232 62473 GARY S HILL 6233 62480 LARRY YOUNG
6234 62497 DOUGLAS KIDWELL 6235 62503 WAYNE PALK 6236 62510 DAVID A MIDCAP

Company Name 1 RD MEADOWS INC
B A D TRUCKING INC
JERRY JONES & ASSOC INC SJ BAKER INCORPORATED
J EVANS ENTERPRISES INC
HOOCH TRANSPORT INC
SDH DELIVERIES, INC
RON CLARK INC S&H EXPRESS INC L&D TRUCKING, INC
MOTORIZED PEDESTRIANS INC
GIDDY-UP HAULING INC

Company Name 2 MAHONE, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BAILEY MINI-MART INC STANLEY PACKAGE EXPRESS INC
TOM LITTLE, INC ADTE, INC KEY COURIER LETS ROLL OUT LTD JSM COURIERS, INC
YANKO ENTERPRISES INC HARTGER GROUP INC HOBBES LOGISTICS INC

TERRON TRANS, INC DESERT TRANSPORT, LLC
YOUNG TRANSPORTATION LLC

TWIN PALMS DELIVERY, INC
YOUNG TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 100 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 108 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6237 62527 MICHAEL FIKES 6238 62534 DANIEL MARK SMITH 6239 62541 MARK OCKUNZZI 6240 62558 RHONDA LYLES 6241 62565 PETER HOLMES 6242 62572 CHARLES RYAN CONRAD 6243 62589 DARRYL NEAL 6244 62596 JAMES KELLY MCFADDEN 6245 62602 ALAN LOWERY 6246 62619 JANIE CHRISTINE PIPPIN 6247 62626 KATHERINE HOLLIDAY 6248 62633 FELIX MOORE 6249 62640 MICHAEL DAVID FINDLING 6250 62657 ROGER A BOLER 6251 62664 JEFFREY VERNON MILLER JR

6252 6253 6254 6255 6256 6257 6258 6259 6260 6261 6262 6263 6264 6265 6266 6267 6268 6269 6270 6271 6272 6273 6274 6275 6276 6277 6278 6279 6280 6281 6282 6283 6284 6285 6286 6287 6288 6289 6290 6291 6292 6293 6294 6295 6296 6297 6298 6299 6300

62671 RICHARD NEMETH 62688 BRAD EISENMAN 62695 RALPH C DADO 62701 RAYMOND BOWEN 62718 TIMOTHY PILLIFANT 62725 RICHARD SVENSSON 62732 JASON BLAKE 62749 BRIAN J HUSTON 62756 DARNELL HOWARD II 62763 JOHN L SMITH 62770 THOMAS LEGAN 62787 LAWRENCE EDWARD HARVILL 62794 HARRY KNIFFIN 62817 LARRY D KERR 62824 MARK HORIGAN 62831 BONNIE C LAW 62848 WAYNE STUMM 62855 KEITH YODER 62862 GREG MCDOWELL 62879 ROBERT D MILLER 62886 RANDY HAYNIE 62893 RUSSELL GREVIOUS 62909 MIKE NANCE 62916 RODNEY S CARSON 62923 JEFFREY ROBERT MULLIN 62930 TIMOTHY M LUCAS 62947 ANDREW MICHAEL WELSH 62954 NICHOLAS SCOTT 62961 RYAN JAMES BOGENRIFE 62978 JOHN ROBER POCZONTEK 62985 MICHAEL DAVID BROWN 62992 MARK J OROLIN 63005 CHRISTOPHER AMBROSE 63012 RICHARD RAMIREZ 63029 THOMAS L RAFFERTY 63036 ALBERT F CIOFFI 63043 RICHARD ROBERT LETSON 63050 SCOTT D BROWN 63067 ANTHONY CONSTANTINO 63074 MICHAEL J SULLIVAN 63081 DAVID DUNAWAY 63098 KEN BRENNAN 63104 JON W LOVELACE 63111 MICHAEL ROTUNDO 63128 ROBERT ALAN CSONGEI 63135 VERNON LONG 63142 MICHAEL R TWISS 63159 RAY JOHNSON 63166 JACQUELINE LOUISE NEDOLAST

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CJWN INC BACK ALLY ENTERPRISES INC

JVM CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC
SABRATE LLC NCOM PACKAGING LLC TAP P&D, INC
BRIAN HUSTON TRUCKING, INC DEAR HOWARD INC LEGAN TRANSPORT INC

JVM CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC
SABRATE INC NCOM PACKAGING, INC

NANCE TRUCKING
ANDREW WELSH, INC ACTION PACTION INC J & M POCZONTEK, INC MIKE D BROWN INC TAKE DOWN EXPRESS

NANCE TRUCKING INC TAKE DOWN EXPRESS

SDL-TRANSPORTATION
MDE DELIVERY SERVICES, INC DUNAWAY TRUCKING INC BRENNAN TRUCKING INC

Page 101 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 109 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6301 63173 KALLIL ABOUAHMED 6302 63180 KENNETH KILGOUR 6303 63197 JAYNE NOVAK 6304 63203 MARY MYERS 6305 63210 DAVID MARTINEZ 6306 63227 EDWARD T MCCAIN 6307 63234 MICHAEL DEAN SIDLE

6308 6309 6310 6311 6312 6313 6314 6315 6316 6317 6318 6319 6320 6321 6322 6323 6324 6325 6326 6327 6328

63241 MARK ANTHONY FEAGIN 63258 MIKE STRONG 63265 CHRISTOPHER ARMSTRONG 63272 RICHARD ALAN LUEBRECHT 63289 ANTWAN SMITH 63296 QUENTIN BISHOP 63302 TIM SMITH 63319 JOHN ERIC TOTH 63326 SYDNEY M SON 63333 BEVERLY HADAWAY 63340 JEFFREY OMALLEY 63357 HEATHER MICHELLE JONES 63364 PHILIP MORGAN 63371 THOMAS E MIDGLEY 63388 JON BORENSTEIN 63395 JOSEPH E BILLS 63401 STEPHEN RIPLEY 63418 DONALD WOLTER 63425 KEVIN SEAN JENKINS 63432 ELON REVELS 63449 DONNIE A OSBORNE

6329 6330 6331 6332 6333 6334 6335 6336 6337 6338 6339 6340 6341 6342 6343 6344 6345 6346 6347 6348 6349 6350

63456 GEOFFREY BOWEN 63463 NAJA G MOUJABBER 63470 JEFF BAYLIES 63487 RONALD PATRICK WETTERBERG 63494 MICHAEL ORAWE 63500 LARRY BENNETT 63517 LARRY D ANDERSON 63524 JOSE FERNANDES 63531 JOSEPH MCDONALD 63548 THOMAS W ROSS 63555 DALE E JOHNSON 63562 ROBERT GARBER 63579 MARK A HISER 63586 ERIC D BAECKER 63593 SHEILA KRAUTLARGER 63609 RANDY FARMER 63616 BIENVENIDO MOLINA 63623 JAMES R KASERMAN 63630 CHARLES S CRAIG 63647 DINA WATTERS 63654 DEANNA L GALLAHER 63661 JOEY W CARMACK

6351 6352 6353 6354 6355 6356 6357

63678 GILBERT L MELLOTT 63685 DAVID JOSEPH WOLVERTON 63692 MATTHEW HUFFMAN 63708 TIMOTHY DIEHL 63715 TRAVIS BUCHANAN 63722 CURTIS YOUNG 63739 THOMAS L CHRISMAN

6358 6359 6360 6361

63746 DANIEL JAMES PEAKE 63753 YURI JIM SUSLAEV 63760 WILLIAM L STONE 63777 LEAO CELIO

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SIDLE DELIVERY SOLUTIONS LLC
MARL INC STRONG ARM TRUCKING INC GET IT TO YOU LLC OBSIDIAN EXPEDITED SERVICES LTD A & L TRUCK SERVICE, INC KING KID EXPRESS, INC T & D TRANSPORT INC

SIDLE DELIVERY SOLUTIONS INC
GET IT TO YOU INC

MICAH'S TRANSPORT RIPLEY'S TRUCKING LLC WOOGIE CARGO LLC
REVELS EXPRESS DELIVERY INC D & T OSBORNE TRANSPORT SERVICES INC
STAR OF THE SEA RESTAURANT INC
GMR TRUCKING INC

AIR 99 INC "E" EXPRESS INC

KASERMAN MORGAN INC SCOVIK INC

JOE CARMACK TRANSPORTATION INC

PREMIERE DELIVERIES INC MATMAN EXPRESS INC TABE TRUCKING INC T&L BUCHANAN LLC
T CHRISMAN TRUCKING LLC

T CHRISMAN TRUCKING INC

WILLIAM STONE INC CIQUEIRA TRANSPORT

Page 102 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 110 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6362 63784 JOHN MAXWELL 6363 63791 GORDON VOJTECH 6364 63807 JAMES D SOLOMON 6365 63814 CARL HAMILTON 6366 63821 ANDREW JACOBS 6367 63845 LEANDRO BAEZ 6368 63852 SCOTT COLLINS 6369 63869 JJETHEL PERRY WARE

6370 6371 6372 6373 6374 6375 6376 6377 6378 6379 6380 6381 6382 6383 6384 6385 6386 6387 6388

63876 MICHAEL OUTZS 63883 MUHAMMAD SHAZRILL JOHANNI 63890 MARK BOLLENBACHER 63906 BRUCE LAWRENCE CUTCHER 63913 POLLY LOWERY-ALVAREZ 63920 BENNY H TAYLOR 63937 JOHN T STEVENSON 63944 RIMOK KIM 63951 DAVID A ANDERS 63968 STEPHEN C LEVITT II 63975 KEVIN A GARRISON 63982 THOMAS TURNIPSEED 63999 MICHAEL HERMENSKY 64002 BRAD A HAYS 64019 MIKE MARTIN 64026 SHESLEI SOUZA 64033 WILLIAM WEST 64040 KEVIN FECK 64057 BRANDON T BLACKFORD

6389 6390 6391 6392 6393 6394 6395 6396 6397 6398 6399 6400 6401 6402 6403 6404 6405 6406 6407 6408 6409 6410 6411 6412 6413 6414 6415 6416 6417 6418 6419 6420 6421 6422 6423 6424

64064 KIRCK D KERR 64071 ROBERT W BLAKE 64088 DALE BROWN 64095 CLIFFORD THORP 64101 PAUL BARNHART JR 64118 JAMES MCGOVERN 64125 ALBERT VASCO 64132 WILLIAM KELLER 64149 KEVIN HISCOX 64156 JAMES H STEINER 64163 PHILIP WASSIL 64170 TIMOTHY GILPIN 64187 MARTIN MOORE 64194 JEFF JAMES 64200 JEFFREY BARGERSTOCK 64217 PAULO A DEOLIVEIRA 64224 VERN STEVENS 64231 STEPHANIE LENTZ 64248 DAVID WICKLINE 64255 ALAN MARTIN NOONAN 64262 DANIEL JACKSON 64279 FRED WIGGINS 64286 BRIAN SEIBERT 64293 NATHAN R ZAPPOLA 64309 MIKE SCHWEITZER 64316 TRACY CANTRELL 64323 JIM PETRILLI 64330 JEFF DITTRICH 64347 JOHN C ADAMS JR 64354 MAURICE BURNS 64361 JOHNNY JOSEPH MANOCCHIA 64378 GEORGE LONG 64385 DAVID HAROLD EMERSON 64392 STEVEN CURTIS FLOYD 64408 ROBERT SHIVELY 64415 MICHAEL E JIMISON

Company Name 1 JDMAP INC
A JACOBS INC EN COURIER SERVICE LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

EN COURIER AND DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

JAE ENTERPRISES LLC
D&K ENTERPRISES OF OHIO INC SCL LOGISTICS INC

ZEBAR ENTERPRISES, INC

MICHAEL MARTIN DISTRIBUTING, INC
W D WEST INC
CROSSROADS TRUCKING & DELIVERY INC KERR PACKAGING INC

SOUTH SHORE SPECIALTIES, INC P & D INC MN & K, INC AFV DELIVERIES INC
DELIVERIES & STUFF INC JHCA INVESTMENTS LLC WASSIL VALLEY SERVICE LIMITED GILPINS HOME DELIVERY
JTKS LTD J C BARG INC HP TRANSPORTATION JBS ENTERPRISES INC

GILPIN DELIVERY, INC JTKS, INC
JBS ENTERPRISES INC

F&T EXPRESS INC BCKCS CORP DELUXE DELIVERIES INC MWS COURIER SERVICE LLC TRACY CANTRELL, INC

FW CARRIERS INC

SCHOONER EXPEDITING INC

Page 103 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 111 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6425 64422 DENNIS P BASTON 6426 64439 TOM DANDO 6427 64446 NICOLE HUFFMAN 6428 64453 JOSEPH TULENKO 6429 64460 MARK GREEN 6430 64477 RICHARD BRUCH 6431 64484 MICHAEL BUCK 6432 64491 RAY L ARNOLD 6433 64507 NOAH CHARLES KEEFE 6434 64514 JEFFREY R CROLL 6435 64521 REGINA A VERNON 6436 64538 KEITH ANTHONY BARNWELL 6437 64545 DARREN GOFORTH 6438 64552 SCOTT PARKER 6439 64569 BRIAN BASS 6440 64576 KIJANA STEWART

6441 6442 6443 6444 6445 6446 6447 6448 6449 6450 6451 6452 6453 6454 6455 6456 6457 6458 6459 6460 6461 6462 6463 6464 6465 6466 6467 6468 6469 6470 6471 6472 6473 6474 6475 6476 6477 6478 6479 6480 6481 6482 6483 6484 6485 6486 6487 6488

64583 ANTHONY ROMELLE SHAW 64590 ANTONIO LUCE 64606 JEFFREY D HEISLER 64613 JENNIFER LYNN SULLIVAN 64620 JEFFREY GADZALA 64637 SULTAN MUSTAFA ABUMATHKOUR 64644 GILBERT ABISALLOUM 64651 MICHELLE LYNN SOUCY 64668 JOSEPH G PORTER 64675 GARY FREEMAN 64682 KENT K EMMERS 64699 GERALD T MILLER 64705 JAMES ALLEN MILLER 64712 DARWIN BRUCE RHODEN 64729 ROBERT BOWMAN 64736 MARTIN KEELY 64743 TIM DEGER 64750 DONALD WHITMORE 64767 WAYNE E YOUNG 64774 TERENCE A FOX 64781 MATTHEW J SIFFER 64798 BRAD SMITH 64804 RONALD J GLASSER 64811 KARL WILLIAMS 64828 BRIAN RENNER 64835 BLAKE KROMER 64842 LUFTI ABUHAMDA 64859 JAMES BEAVERS 64866 JEREMY VANCE 64873 SCOTT RICHARDS 64880 TODD ALLEN 64897 CHRISTOPHER JOHN WEISS 64903 DAVE MCDUFFIE 64910 SHANE J BOLLEN 64927 DAN L CRAMER 64934 CHARLES E KESSINGER 64941 MARK FORD 64958 AKMAL M DIXON 64965 MARCO A JOSEPIN 64972 STANLEY F WILCOX 64989 LARRY REINHART 64996 WALTER P MILLER 65009 WALTER J PHILLIPS 65016 WILLIAM MCCLELLAND 65023 MARK ADKINS 65030 JOHN COLWELL DECICCO 65047 CLAUD FARRELL MEYERS 65054 MIKE DUNCAN

Company Name 1 INTEGRA LOGISTICS INC A R HUFFMAN INC
B & L DELIVERY INC ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BUGLY SERVICES LLC A R SHAW, INC MUSTANG SALLY LLC MALAK DELIVERY INC GARFIELD PROPERTIES J & K EXPRESS, INC ARCHER DELIVERY INC

NEED CASH NOW TITLE PAWN INC

SIFFER INC GLASSER FAMILY INC CRUISER LOGISTICS GROUP INC
LUTFI & ASSOCIATES CORP
TAYRA LLC COREZONE INVESTMENTS LLC MCDUFFIE, INC SJ BOLLEN INC
FORDS DELIVERY SERVICE A O Y INC MARLO INC

LUTFI EXPRESS LLC BST FREIGHT INC

FIFTH ELEMENT ENTERPRISE INC DUNCAN ENTERPRISES NEOH LLC

Page 104 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 112 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6489 65061 TIMOTHY ROBINSON 6490 65078 MICHAEL DENNIS LESHER 6491 65085 DAVID SCOTT POLEN 6492 65092 JESSE D SNOWDEN 6493 65108 CARMINE PETRILLO 6494 65115 BRENT A MELLOTT 6495 65122 DANIEL RUMINSKI 6496 65139 NEIL ARTHUR MUNIZ 6497 65146 RONALD CASTLE 6498 65153 MICHAEL MCAFEE 6499 65160 CHARLES PATE III 6500 65177 RICHARD GRIFFITHS 6501 65184 KYLE WESTHOVEN 6502 65191 JAMES EARL PATTERSON 6503 65207 ALAN MARTIN BRAKER JR 6504 65214 JOHN LOCKWOOD 6505 65221 RONALD W GUNTHER 6506 65238 MICHAEL RIKE 6507 65245 JERRY FLAX 6508 65252 RONALD L DEAN 6509 65269 DAVID TAYLOR 6510 65276 JUDY SNYDER 6511 65283 CHARLES M IKER 6512 65290 DON SAGER 6513 65306 RUSSELL JACKSON 6514 65313 MARK BODEY 6515 65320 RICHARD JOHNSON 6516 65337 TIMMY BUTLER-WION 6517 65344 GERALD HOLLIS

6518 6519 6520 6521 6522 6523 6524 6525 6526 6527 6528 6529 6530 6531 6532 6533 6534 6535 6536 6537 6538 6539 6540 6541 6542

65351 ERICK WILSON 65368 DAVID DEITRICK 65375 MICHAEL SWANSON 65382 GREGORY BRITTON 65399 STEVEN PHIPPS 65405 DAVID HOWARD LEMMON 65412 CHRISTOPHER BOYD 65429 DONALD A SUMNER 65436 STEVEN M SUMNER 65443 BRENT KASH 65450 STEVEN TOWNSEND 65467 TIM LINDSEY 65474 DANIEL R GRAHAM 65481 FRAN DUTTON 65498 FREDERICK L SEIBERT 65504 ROBERT BRUCE MCKAY 65511 GEORGE MACAUDA 65528 LEE H FIRLIK 65535 STEVE URBANSKI 65542 JOSEPH SPRENGER 65559 MARLENE A KLUESENER 65566 MICHAEL D BOSTIC SR 65573 DENNIS GRAU 65580 LARRY FAMBRO SR 65597 JOSEPH ANIA

6543 6544 6545 6546 6547 6548 6549 6550 6551

65603 STEVEN W DUENNE 65610 GREGORY PHILLIP COMBS 65627 DOUG CURTIS 65634 MICHAEL DENNO 65641 BRETT A SHOWALTER 65658 LEO F BURNHAM 65665 ERIC J COVEN 65672 KEN COWAN 65689 ADAM DUANE ARNOLD

Company Name 1
RACE HORSE EXPRESS INC FREEDOM DELIVERIES LTD SNOWDEN, INC
PLM CARGO INC
NAM FARMS, INC

Company Name 2

PATE PROPERTY & TRUCKING INC BUSY BEAVER TRUCKING INC
JAMES E PATTERSON LLC SAAR, INC J & J PARCEL EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

IKER TRUCKING INC DLS CAPITAL INC STONEWALL JACKSON INC M A BODEY INC
HOLLIS AND SON TRANSPORTATION NETWORK INC WILSON PACKAGE DELIVERY INC
SWANSON DELIVERY SERVICE INC BRIT'S TRUCKING INC
DAVID H LEMMON ENTERPRISES, INC
D L D S TRUCKING, INC

F L S EXPRESS INC
GEORGE MACAUDA & SON INC LHFIRLIK P&D SERVICES INC
SUNSET WAY INC M D BOSTIC, INC
GROUND HOG DELIVERY INC JSA TRANSPORT; JSA TRANSPORT INC

WIRENET INC BUCKEYE EXPRESS CORPORATION

Page 105 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 113 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6552 65696 THOMAS GARDNER 6553 65702 RAY SANCHEZ 6554 65719 RANDY KYSER 6555 65726 STEPHEN HUDOCK 6556 65733 MICHAEL DAVIS 6557 65740 DENNIS NAUGLE 6558 65757 SCOTT A DAILEY 6559 65764 JOSHUA HIMES 6560 65771 JEFFERY SIMMONS 6561 65788 NICHOLAS MICHAEL LARSON 6562 65795 ROB S SPITZER 6563 65801 WILLIAM LIND 6564 65825 JEREMY DILLON 6565 65832 WILLIAM REARDON 6566 65849 GARY JAY 6567 65856 WILLIAM AICHER 6568 65863 ROBERT WIEBELL 6569 65870 MICHAEL EDWARD WINROD 6570 65887 GLENN AYERS 6571 65894 TODD RADY 6572 65900 WILLIAM BARDELANG 6573 65917 ROBBIE K SMYTHE 6574 65924 MICHAEL D PETTY 6575 65931 DANIEL J BARTOK 6576 65948 WAYNE MCGAHA 6577 65955 ANDREW JAMES HEINZE 6578 65962 STEVEN S FOREMAN 6579 65979 BRION K BUTTERBAUGH

6580 6581 6582 6583 6584 6585 6586 6587 6588 6589 6590 6591 6592 6593 6594 6595

65986 PATRICIA GROSS 65993 ADELBERT CORDELL LAWRENCE 66006 RICHARD A SINGLETON 66013 JEFFREY MAJOR 66020 KYLE FREDRIKS 66037 DAVID ALDER 66044 CHARLES N DYE 66051 ERIC HANSON 66068 LARRY HARRISON 66075 RONNAL COLVIN 66082 JASON EDWARD BIEN 66099 JEFFREY J WALKOWSKI 66105 KENNETH FORTUNATO 66112 DEREK W COOPER SR 66129 SHANNON M COLLINS 66136 DALE LEWIS MEADOWS

6596 66143 DEREK MCMILLAN ADAMS

6597 6598 6599 6600 6601 6602 6603 6604 6605 6606 6607 6608 6609 6610 6611 6612 6613

66150 ERIC SHARP 66167 TIMOTHY GODIN 66174 PAUL RICHARD KERR 66181 JOSEPH FORGITANO 66198 KENNETH BAER 66204 GUY W CROSBY 66211 KERRY CALAHAN 66228 JAMES PARKS 66235 HOLLY ANN BITTERMAN 66242 CHRISTOPHER REEDY 66259 GARY D BATTLE 66266 PHILIP BURL SCHAFFER 66273 JAMES MARTIN 66280 TODD ALAN TERAMO 66297 WILLIAM JOHNSON 66303 DONALD MAURICE GARNER 66310 DANA FORAKER

Company Name 1 T GARD COURIERS LTD
KYSCO LLC C&S FREIGHT INC
BONE DADDY EXPRESS CORP

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

LN&M EXPRESS INC RTS INC
JNK SERVICES INC
JAY'S R P S INC
BAR TOO INC M WINROD INC

GLOBAL DRIVER RESOURCES INC SMYTHE ENTERPRISES LLC
D&A BARTOK LLC

D&A BARTOK INC

VICAS LOGISTICS INC

FOREMAN FREIGHT INC SPECIALIZED RURAL TRANSPORTATION INC
WORKHORSE LLC SAR TRUCKING INC MAJOR GROUND EXPRESS CORP

AL LOGISTICS INC ANURIAH TRUCKING, INC

LD HARRISON INC
RJB EXPRESS LLC
FORTUNATO INCORPORATED DCOOP INC C O D LLC MEADOWS CONTRACTING LLC
DEREK M ADAMS LLC/LONDON ENTERPRISE
PAULIN INC
HOOCHIE MAMA INC SAMMY - BRAND TRUCKING INC

RJB EXPRESS INC
LWA TRUCKING, INC MEADOWS CONTRACTING INC GATE FIVE INC

ANS INC JAMES MARTIN TRUCKING INC TODD A ENTERPRISES LLC

TODD A ENTERPRISES INC JNT SERVICES INC

Page 106 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 114 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6614 66327 CHRISTIAN WILSON 6615 66334 STEPHEN THOMAS LISTON 6616 66341 MATT SCHERLER 6617 66358 SCOTT EDWARD STEELE 6618 66365 JESSE J HILL

6619 6620 6621 6622 6623 6624 6625 6626 6627 6628 6629 6630 6631 6632 6633 6634 6635 6636

66372 NICOLE D HUFFMAN 66389 LOI VAN HUYNH 66396 SCOTT A CHISLER 66402 TAYLOR SCOTT WYAN 66419 KEVIN ROWE 66426 TAREK MADKOUR 66433 ANTHONY PREZIOSI 66440 MICHAEL HAYES 66457 DAVID JOHN ARAMBURU 66464 THOMAS R TERRELL 66471 MATT OPPEL 66488 ALBERT E SALT 66495 JACK KITZMILLER 66501 PHYLLIS A CATTERSON 66518 JAMES CZECH 66525 KAREN KING 66532 JAMES W BARNETT JR 66549 ROBERT BEN ADDINGTON

6637 6638 6639 6640 6641 6642 6643 6644 6645

66556 JAN R BALLENGER 66563 KENNETH KUNTZE 66570 DAVID CICHRA 66587 PHILLIP B HAFER 66594 ROGER DEAN MILLER 66600 GREGORY W ROBERTS 66617 JEREMIAH ARCHER 66624 KARTINELL HOLLINS 66631 BRETT GRIMES

6646 6647 6648 6649 6650 6651 6652 6653 6654 6655 6656 6657 6658 6659 6660 6661 6662 6663 6664 6665 6666 6667 6668 6669 6670 6671 6672

66648 JOHN R BOWMAN 66655 RICHARD TEVES ALBERNAZ 66662 JULIE BABCOCK 66679 TIMOTHY WESLEY 66686 TRACY MORRIS 66693 DOUGLAS J BECK 66709 LESLIE DWAIN ANGLE 66716 KEVIN A ANTHONY 66723 ROY MACDONALD 66730 STEVEN MICHAEL ECKER 66747 SHAWN SCHILLING 66754 WESLEY YOUNG 66761 TIMOTHY GRIFFITHS 66778 DAVID OBERHELMAN 66785 RICHARD LAWHUN 66792 BILL PLUES 66808 DALE E TURNER 66815 BRUCE LEE ELLIS 66822 DANIEL L THIELMAN 66839 RICHARD STEVEN VOLKERT 66846 GARY GRAY 66853 WILLIAM E ANDERSON 66860 MAX EUGENE THIERRY 66877 PAUL J BITNER 66884 ROBERT ALLEN 66891 CHAD BLAIR 66907 TIMOTHY A GADD

Company Name 1 TURBO TRUCKING INC
MOVING FORWARD CLEVELAND A R HUFFMAN INC
JAVA INVESTMENTS LLC NEHMEH INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

MOVING FORWARD CLEVELAND INC
JAVA INVESTMENTS INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

T TERR TRUCKING INC
TAYLORTOWN TRUCKING, INC
CHX INC
ADDINGTON ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED J R B DELIVERY SERVICES, INC KM KUNTZE INCORPORATED DAVE CICHRA INCORPORATED PH SHIPPING, INC R D MILLER & SONS

110% SERVICE INC

B G GRIMES ENTERPRISES, INC; BRETT GRIMES TRANSPORT; BRETT GRIMES TRANSPORT INC

T MORR DELIVERIES INC D&J TRANSFER INC

STEVEN ECKER TRANSPORT INC SCHILLING INC WES COAS INC SCUBA STEVE TRUCKING INC

TURNER TRANSPORTATION SANDY FEET INC RAPID TRANSIT LLC TLJ EXPRESS
ROBERT ALLEN TRUCKING INC B & L ENTERPRISES LLC

BAJA TRANSPORT, INC TLJ TRUCKING INC

Page 107 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 115 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6673 66914 ROBERT EUGENE RICHARDS JR 6674 66921 DEAN G JOHNSON 6675 66938 JAMES MCCONKEY 6676 66945 WILLIAM T FREEMAN 6677 66952 JAY D CASS 6678 66969 MIKE THRASH 6679 66976 DAVID BEATTY 6680 66983 MARITZA CRUZ 6681 66990 JASON D WAID 6682 67003 STEVEN MORGAN 6683 67010 JOHN A HAMILTON 6684 67027 JAMES CERMAK 6685 67034 GLYN ROBERT 6686 67041 ADAM J MURRAY 6687 67058 THOMAS J P HANNON 6688 67065 MICHAEL JOHAI 6689 67072 MICHAEL ROMAN 6690 67089 KENNETH C BUNTING 6691 67096 STEPHEN SCOTT NEELY 6692 67102 JAMES EDER 6693 67119 ABRAHAM CERRATO 6694 67126 DALE CLINE 6695 67140 JOEL JIMENEZ 6696 67157 ROSS ARTHUR KENNEDY III 6697 67164 LARRY ADLER 6698 67171 ART PALIOBEIS 6699 67188 ERICA T RESPRESS 6700 67195 RONALD CARPENTER 6701 67201 JEFFREY H WILSON 6702 67218 DARRELL AUSTIN STEED 6703 67225 JOE POTOK 6704 67232 SCOTT WELLS 6705 67249 DAVID L SMITH 6706 67256 STEVE DAVIS 6707 67263 JASON L WISE

6708 6709 6710 6711 6712 6713 6714 6715 6716 6717 6718 6719 6720 6721 6722 6723 6724 6725 6726 6727 6728 6729 6730 6731 6732

67270 JUSTIN L MILLER 67287 CHRIS WILLIAMS 67294 SHAWN TYLER LEGG 67300 DAVID STACY 67317 TIMOTHY FRITSCH 67324 BRIAN CARTER 67331 CARL FLEISHOUR 67348 JAMES W FLEMING 67355 ROBERT SCHMIDT 67362 DAVID P JOHN 67379 JASON ROMANS 67386 RODEL PAGKANLUNGAN MUPAS 67393 GEORGE MUNCY 67409 REBECCA LOUISE MARCONETT 67416 PAUL KELLY 67423 DARIN WATSON 67430 JEFF RICE 67447 BRIAN KEITH MILLER 67454 UDOM PROMARIN 67461 ROBERT WARREN EVERETT 67478 STEVEN BOCKELMAN 67485 DAVID AARON ARCHER 67492 THOMAS M BLOOM 67508 WELDON LEE KREIS 67515 CARL WINKLER

6733 67522 SHERMAN EDMONDS JR 6734 67539 IRVIN JESS HENARY 6735 67546 MARK J STOVICEK

Company Name 1 DGJ FREIGHT, INC FREEMAN EXPRESS INC
BEATTY EXPRESS INC JDW PARCEL DELIVERY INC
CERMAK INC SIBERIAN EXPRESS LLC AIDERRA TRANSPORTATION INC RELIABLE DELIVERY

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

M A S K EXPEDITED, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CLINE DELIVERY SERVICE LTD JOEL'S TRUCKING INC
AD PALCO INC
J H WILSON INC

DAVIS DELIVERY CONCEPTS INC JLW TRANSPORT LLC

BLACK DIAMOND LOGISTICS, INC

SHELLBRICAR TRUCKING INC CHFJ ENTERPRISES INC
SCHMIDT - EX, INC

GTM EXPRESS LLC

RICE TRANSPORT INC

RYAN SYSTEMS LLC AMERICORP ENTERPRISES LLC

RYAN SYSTEMS INC

WINKLER INDEPENDENT SERVICE PROVIDER, INC J & S TRANSPORT LTD JESCON LLC M J STOVICEK, INC

Page 108 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 116 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6736 67553 MICHAEL ACCORDINO 6737 67560 ROBERT LEE PASKEY 6738 67577 JESUS G VEGA 6739 67584 KENNETH H ACHAUER 6740 67591 DRUCELLA L FLEISHOUR 6741 67607 MICHAEL P MCNICHOLAS 6742 67614 BERNARD A JONES 6743 67621 STEVEN RUEF 6744 67638 GARRY WHITE 6745 67645 STEVEN C KILEY 6746 67652 EDWIN NEWMAN 6747 67669 GREG HAAS 6748 67676 JUSTIN FOGALL 6749 67683 BARRY A GILL 6750 67690 RALPH G KALEY 6751 67706 TORIANO BAILEY 6752 67713 TODD C BALSLEY 6753 67720 TODD MCCORT 6754 67737 PATRICK HINES 6755 67744 SHANE ROBERT HARRIS

6756 67751 STANLEY SOKOLOWSKI 6757 67768 DAVID W HABURN

6758 6759 6760 6761 6762 6763 6764 6765 6766 6767 6768 6769 6770 6771 6772 6773 6774 6775 6776 6777 6778 6779 6780 6781 6782 6783 6784 6785 6786 6787 6788 6789 6790 6791 6792 6793 6794 6795 6796 6797

67775 RICHARD COPP 67782 DAVID DORST 67799 TIMOTHY MCFARLAND 67805 MICHAEL J PARR 67812 KIMBERLY KEITH 67829 JEFF S CHARLTON 67836 MARK MORRIS 67843 NEAL DWAIN STOCKER 67850 JOSEPH VENTRESCO 67867 THOMAS CZELUSNIAK 67874 CHRIS A HAMILTON 67881 TIMOTHY HARBISON 67898 CHRISTOPHER GIVENS 67904 PHILIP TEETER 67911 MICHAEL T FLETCHER 67928 RICHARD J THOMPSON 67935 BRUCE KEVIN SPELLS 67942 JIMMY DOW ADKINS 67959 MARIO IVAN MANKAS 67966 DEAN KANKIEWICZ 67973 CHARLES R AMSTUTZ 67980 NAROS KIM 67997 SHAUN RANSOM 68000 GRANT VASS 68017 DOUGLAS RAY SMATHERS 68024 RAYMOND PETERITIS 68031 JUSTIN CANTRELL 68048 TODD GIERKE 68055 ALEX L HAMILTON 68062 ROBERT MCVETY 68079 DAN GREUNKE 68086 ROY MICHEAL ROGERS 68093 MICHAEL S HOLLOWNICZKY 68109 TOM CORRELL 68116 MICHAEL R BARCIKOWSKI 68123 STEVEN HARRER 68130 DANIEL M THARP 68147 DANIEL JARED TENNANT 68154 DAVID FREDERICK CONSTANT 68161 STEPHEN CICAK

Company Name 1 MACC ENTERPRISES INC SIMONDOG INC
CHFJ ENTERPRISES INC
RUEF INC S E I INC
GW HAAS LTD JUSTIN, INC BAG ENTERPRISES INC
T & S EXPRESS INC BALSLEY, INC TODDS EXPRESS INC R S TRUCKING INC JTH TRUCKING LLC
SVE LOGISTICS INC HABURN ENTERPRISES INC
DORST ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RUEF INC

J T H TRUCKING INCORPORATED
DAVID HABURN ENTERPRISES INC

J&G COURIER INC CELUZ DELIVERY INC
HARBISON DELIVERY, INC
MMA CREW LLC R J TINGLER, INC SPELLS EXPRESS INC J AND M TRUCKING INC
CDK RANCH INC C R AMSTUTZ INC KLMN INC

J CANTRELL ENTERPRISES INC GIERKE INC
MCVETY, INC

MRB DELIVERY, INC HARRER'S TRUCKING INC
DT DELIVERY LLC
CICAK PARCEL DELIVERY SERVICE

DT DELIVERY, INC
CICAK PARCEL DELIVERY SERVICE INC

Page 109 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 117 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6798 68178 ERIC SCOTT PALMER 6799 68185 NICHOLAS EARLY 6800 68192 RICHARD R WITZBERGER 6801 68208 CHRISTOPHER ANDREW DAMIS

6802 6803 6804 6805 6806 6807 6808 6809

68215 JON SIMONS 68222 CARSON TODD SMART 68239 TODD DUQUETTE 68246 RICHARD T STRATTON 68253 BOBBY RUNYON 68260 QUENTIN L VANBIBBER 68277 JOHN M WOLF 68284 COLE BARKER

6810 6811 6812 6813 6814 6815 6816 6817 6818 6819 6820 6821 6822 6823 6824 6825 6826 6827 6828 6829 6830

68291 ROBERT BUTLER 68307 JOSEPH LEE KINNEAR 68314 DAVE BROCK 68321 JAMES MORGAN 68338 BRIAN C BIVINS 68345 SHAWN NEAL 68352 JORDY BLAINE MITCHELL 68369 ROB V FORMAN 68376 ADAM DAVID DENNIS 68383 FRANK STEWART 68390 JAMES BANAS 68406 EDWARD MANSUY 68413 EDWARD MONGENEL 68420 MICHAEL C ANDERSON 68437 A LEROY COX 68444 WILLIAM S BEATTIE 68451 JOE M FERRONE 68468 JEFFREY S LOEDE 68475 ERIC SINGELL 68482 GENE R SCOTT 68499 JOSEPH PAUL FRITZ

6831 6832 6833 6834 6835 6836 6837 6838 6839 6840 6841 6842 6843 6844 6845 6846 6847 6848 6849 6850 6851 6852 6853 6854 6855 6856 6857 6858 6859

68505 DENNIS GREEN 68512 RICHARD J MASH 68529 PHIL MCCARTY 68536 STEPHEN P MOWATT 68543 TERRY WINGETT 68550 DANA ANSON MITCHELL 68567 JOSEPH DESARO 68574 ANTHONY ALLEN JURINA 68581 BRYAN SCOTT COWDERY 68598 GREGORY DALE KERSTEN 68604 APRIL PIEPER 68611 OGECHI CHINEDUM NWOSU 68628 STEVEN D MCALISTER 68635 JAMES F POWERS 68642 MATTHEW HALL 68659 JASON WOLFE 68666 MARC A WEYRICK 68673 BRADLEY ALLEN ARNOLD 68680 JOHN R SHINNICK 68697 DAVID A RAYMOND 68703 EDWARD R RUCINSKI 68710 JERRY SHAFER 68727 LOUIS NYARI 68734 CLARENCE YOUNGER 68741 JUDITH THOMAS 68758 CHRISTIAN BONTEA 68765 KENNETH J STUCKEY 68772 THOMAS J STUPI 68789 JOE SAMIDE

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

H 2 H DELIVERY SYSTEMS LLC
J SIMONS ONE INC CARSON SMART TRUCKING INC

WESTSIDE DELIVERIES, INC JMS ONE LOGISTICS INC

DAWG LOGISTICS INC

PRONTO DELIVERY CO POINT-TO-POINT SHIPPING INC
COLE BARKER'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC

BROCK TRANSPORT INC BIV ENTERPRISES LLC

BIV ENTERPRISES INC

SHOOTER TRUCKING LLC

ED MONGENEL GEN CON INC M C ANDERSON INC
GALT TRANSPORTATION INC

UNLIMITED CONTRACTING, INC J FRITZ LLC
KING KID INC R J MASH TRUCKING INC PLM ENTERPRISES, INC MOWATT TRANSPORT
E & T TRANSPORT, INC
BRYAN COWDERY INC

IRELAND EXPRESS CORPORATION

HSH LOGISTICS LTD

LRH ENT INC

RUCINSKI INC LOU NYARI'S TRUCKING CO
TOM STUPI AGENCY INC

TS AGENCY INC

Page 110 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 118 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6860 68796 TODD WALTERS 6861 68802 ROBERT GAINES 6862 68819 DAVID JOSEPH BUTLER 6863 68826 ART TURPIN 6864 68833 BOBBY SEXTON 6865 68840 DAWN R TANIER 6866 68857 RYAN HALL 6867 68864 ROBERT CARPENTER 6868 68871 ANGEL BONILLA 6869 68888 GARY A FERRO 6870 68895 MICHAEL P FLANNERY 6871 68901 MICHAEL J SHOEMAKER 6872 68918 EDWIN SNYDER 6873 68925 JAMES EDWARD KEETON 6874 68932 BRUCE COSGRAY 6875 68949 ROBERT FAECHER 6876 68956 RICHARD THOMAS KEITH 6877 68963 DAVID MARK STANICK 6878 68970 ROBERT LEO NIEMET 6879 68987 JASON POLITO 6880 68994 CHRISTOPHER MAXWELL 6881 69007 ALBERT HAGUE 6882 69014 DAVID EDWARD WARFIELD 6883 69021 GREG SHEARER 6884 69038 LAURIE ACUFF 6885 69045 BRIAN EDWARDS 6886 69052 WILLIAM PALMER 6887 69069 VINCENT LOUIS LAURINO 6888 69076 JEFFREY DAVIS 6889 69083 CHARLES FLEMING 6890 69090 EUAL DALTON 6891 69106 WILLIAM MORYL 6892 69113 JOSEPH ANTHONY BADACZEWSKI 6893 69120 MARSHA LYNN FITZGERALD 6894 69137 MARCUS LEE MCDONALD IV 6895 69144 DAVID E PAYNTER 6896 69151 RICHARD BERT HITZEL JR 6897 69168 BARRY SCHROEDER 6898 69175 DANIEL WORKMAN 6899 69182 SANDY MILLS 6900 69199 DARRELL FOSTER 6901 69205 ROBERT MARK SCHIEBER

6902 6903 6904 6905 6906 6907 6908 6909 6910 6911 6912 6913 6914 6915 6916 6917 6918 6919 6920 6921 6922

69212 JAMES K MCGUIRE 69229 BARRY QUINN 69236 PATRICK A CANNON 69243 SCOTT HOUSEHOLDER 69250 JAN THOMPKINS 69267 JOHN D PRUNER 69274 MARC HAYNES 69281 FLOYD CORNELIUS MCCARVER 69298 TIMOTHY ALLEN COTTON 69304 JAMES DATKULIAK 69311 JAMES MULLENNIEX 69328 STEPHEN BYRD 69335 ADAM JAMES ROACH 69342 TONY CHITTUM 69359 JUSTIN PERRY 69366 DERRICK STOUDEMIRE 69373 PAT LEONARD 69380 STEVEN MCNABB 69397 THOMAS ARTHUR CARPENTER 69403 WALKER HAGLOCK 69410 FLAVIANO LUCAS GONCALVES OLIVEIRA

Company Name 1 TODD WALTERS INC

Company Name 2

AMBASSADOR EXPRESS INC
NORTH WEST DELIVERY ADDISON TRANSPORTATION INC NIEMO INCORPORATED
TAJJ INC GREG'S INDEP CONTRACTING CORP JEMCO EXPRESS INC

J A B GROUND CREW INC STAR EXPRESS INC

AA & C HOME DELIVERY LTD INC SCHROEDER ENTERPRISES, INC
SOLOMVP INC
RMS DELIVERY LLC
J&A DELIVERIES INC QKH EXPRESS INC CAN DO INC HOUSEHOLDER ENTERPRISES INC

B & T DELIVERIES 1 INC
AWESOME DRIVE! DELIVERY INC

HAYNES TRUCKING INC

PENGUIN'S PARCEL EXPRESS LLC
D&S EXPRESS INC
PSMAC LTD CARPENTER EXPRESS INC
EAGLE EYE LLC

EAGLE EYE INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 111 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 119 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6923 69427 RICHARD FRAZIER

6924 6925 6926 6927 6928 6929 6930 6931 6932 6933 6934 6935 6936 6937 6938 6939 6940 6941 6942 6943 6944 6945 6946 6947 6948 6949 6950 6951 6952 6953 6954 6955 6956 6957 6958 6959 6960 6961 6962 6963 6964 6965 6966 6967 6968 6969 6970 6971 6972 6973 6974 6975

69434 THOMAS GROSSMAN 69441 JOHN CHANEY 69458 LONNIE DEAN GEYER 69465 BRADLEY G ALLIE 69472 BRAD RICHARDSON 69489 PATRICK OKEEFE 69496 MARSHALL GOODWIN 69502 RONNEL PACE 69519 CLIFFORD SHUART 69526 TRAVIS GORSUCH 69533 DARRYL WILLIAMS 69540 JAMES BRYAN LARGE 69557 GAVIN B DAVIS 69564 FLORENCE PRESTON 69571 MICHAEL ANTHONY NEMAN 69588 DUSTIN KYLE SANBORN 69595 LUIS F TABORDA 69601 RICHARD MOHAMMED 69618 MICHAEL MCMILLEN 69625 KENNETH MILLER 69632 MICHAEL D MASON 69649 PAMELA WEBB 69656 TODD MICHAEL HUTCHESON 69663 RONALD T POINDEXTER 69670 RANDY HOLMER 69687 DAVID JEFFRIES 69694 RANDY HARTZLER 69700 TIMOTHY GIBBONS 69717 SCOTT C WILSON 69724 DAVID J POLLARD 69731 AMY SORKIN 69748 CHRIS ARVAY 69755 RICHARD CHARLES MANNA 69762 WILLIAM L BRIGGS 69779 TIMOTHY KNAUFF 69786 KENNETH A MORGAN 69793 JACK ANDREW GOODWILL OIKERHE 69809 ROBERT B BARON 69816 JEFFREY FLOWERS 69823 RICK ADAM WOODS 69830 JUSTIN FLOWERS 69847 KASSEL ANDREW BAKER 69854 SMAIL BENCHEIKH 69861 NICK MONTAGNER 69878 RONALD K MOORE 69885 CHRISTOPHER BABEL 69892 EUGEN IVENCO 69908 PAULO STASIAK DASILVA 69915 JOHN E SANDSTROM 69922 DOUGLAS FOREST 69939 WILLIAM L JAMIESON 69946 MICHAEL E CAMBONI

6976 6977 6978 6979 6980 6981 6982 6983 6984 6985

69953 JAMES STOKES 69960 PHYLLIS HYLTON 69977 ANTHONY J CULBREATH 69984 JOSEPH BILYEW 69991 JOE M PALOMBI 70003 J MICHAEL EULETT 70010 LUCAS HENRIQUE XAVIER 70027 MITCHELL F JAMES 70034 DAVID HAMMOCK 70041 ROY SAMUEL BROWN

Company Name 1 FRAZIER PACKAGE EXPRESS COMPANY CHANEY ENTERPRISES INC
PCOK ENTERPRISES LLC M J GOODWIN INC

Company Name 2

LOAN N GO TRANSPORT INC
B&B OF OHIO INC
DNT INC LUFETA INC
M MCMILLEN INC
MDM ENTERPRISES, INC A & W QUALITY PRODUCTS LLC BGRA ENTERPRISES INC
HOLMER ENTERPRISES INC

THREE D ENTERPRISES DELIVERY CONCEPTS INC STERJ LLC
DELIVERED 182 INC GOLDEN EXPRESS BLACK SQUIRREL DELIVERY INC JEFFREY FLOWERS INC RW & AW INC DOUBLE K EXPRESS , INC
CHRIS BABEL, INC
SANDSTROM INCORPORATED
M E CAMBONI DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

SOUTH BOUND INC
HIDDEN ARROW INC RBZ ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 112 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 120 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 6986 70058 LORENZO TERENCE LEWIS 6987 70065 BLAKE BERRY 6988 70072 MICHAEL BRANCIFORT 6989 70089 DAVID MADSEN 6990 70096 GLENN HAROLD WILLIAMSIII 6991 70102 MICHAEL L AIELLO 6992 70119 BRIAN ALBRIGHT 6993 70126 JUSTIN RYAN VANBUSKIRK

6994 6995 6996 6997 6998 6999

70133 CHRISTOPHER SLANE 70140 DUSTIN W COPAS 70157 GARY STEVENS 70164 CHARLEY L ADKINS 70171 TRAVIS MATTHEW SOOY 70188 DEBBE KEATON

7000 7001 7002 7003 7004 7005 7006 7007 7008 7009 7010 7011 7012 7013 7014 7015 7016 7017 7018 7019 7020 7021 7022 7023 7024

70195 PAUL FRANKIE PREVOT 70201 CHRISTOPHER J WILLIAMS 70218 ROBERT R SOSBE 70225 DAVID WELLS 70232 DOUGLAS HEMINGWAY 70249 ROB SALYERS 70256 RONALD VAUGHN 70263 JERRY LAWSON 70270 MARK J PICKETT 70287 JON HOOD DURICHKO 70294 RAND SAYLOR 70300 ERIC BARTON 70317 JOANN CLARK 70324 GARY JOSEPH 70331 BARRY SECREST 70348 BRADLEY SHOEMAKER 70355 BRIAN BONNER 70362 BOBBY HESKETT 70379 BRAD VERNON 70386 JOSEPH A MILLER 70393 TODD LAUGHLIN 70409 ROGER A TREGO 70416 THOMAS C REARDON 70423 ROBERT KENNARD 70430 VINCENT C TISONE

7025 7026 7027 7028

70447 JAMES L HOY 70454 NATHAN DOSS 70461 DAVID TRAVIS 70478 JOSHUA A CHRISMAN

7029 7030 7031 7032 7033 7034

70485 ANDREW CHRISMAN 70492 CHAD BRADLEY ZOLMAN 70508 BYRON SMITH 70515 PAMELA EPPS 70522 GIACOMO CATALANO 70539 GARY L SWANK

7035 7036 7037 7038 7039 7040 7041

70546 GORDON STARKEY 70553 MICHAEL GILL 70560 TONY J HAUCK 70577 MICHAEL FARLEY 70584 ROBERT BIEN 70591 JOHN D MAHONE 70607 CRAIG S COLOMBO

7042 70614 RICHARD A ELLIOTT 7043 70621 THOMAS MCKNIGHT 7044 70638 JOHN POAST

Company Name 1 LEWIS TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JRV TRANSPORTATION LLC 5 C INC

JRV TRANSPORTATION, INC

T S SERVICES INC BUCKEYE EXPRESS HOME DELIVERY INC

WELLS TRUCKING LLC
SALYERS TRANSPORT INC
JSL INC PICKETT TRANSPORT LLC NORTHCOAST EXPRESS SVCS INC
JKI TRUCKING LLC
GJ TRANSPORT USA LLC

WELLS TRUCKING, INC

HH TRANSPORT INC

PICKETT TRANSPORT INC JD XPRESS, INC
JKI TRUCKING INC

J & S LOGISTICS INC TREGO INCORPORATED

VCT TRANSPORT INC; VCT TRANSPORT, INC

TRAVIS TRANSPORT INC J CHRISMAN TRUCKING LLC
ZOLMAN TRUCKING CO INC

J CHRISMAN TRUCKING INC

AGMC ENT; AGMC ENTERPRISES MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE TRUCKING INC STARKEYS DELIVERY SERVICE INC

RJB EXPRESS LLC

JDM LLC

MAHONE, INC

TYMAC OF STRASBURG LTD

TYMAC OF STRASBURG

INC

RICHARD A ELLIOTT TRANSPORT, INC

Page 113 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 121 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7045 70645 JAMES HITE 7046 70652 RICHARD MATNEY 7047 70669 GILBERT SNYDER 7048 70676 SEAN DUNMIRE 7049 70683 EARL DEAN SANDERS 7050 70690 EMMANUAL VOGT 7051 70706 MICHAEL KRESOWATY 7052 70713 PAUL EDWARD SHORT 7053 70720 RUSSELL A GLAUB 7054 70737 TODD MATTHEW BOWMAN 7055 70744 VICKI CRAIG 7056 70751 DAVID KLINE 7057 70768 JERRY L WARNER 7058 70775 STEVEN M STRAIT 7059 70782 LARRY WILLIAMS 7060 70799 DAVID KOENIGSEKER 7061 70805 JACK E RYAN 7062 70812 RUSSELL MILLER 7063 70829 CHARLES E CAMPBELL 7064 70836 DAVID WARREN HEIMBACH 7065 70843 CHARLES BUNTING 7066 70850 WILLIAM R VAUGHAN 7067 70867 RALPH F WITTIG 7068 70874 HARRY A HARTMAN 7069 70881 JOHN ZEHENDNER 7070 70898 CHRISTOPHER CICCONE 7071 70904 ALAN D FOLKERT 7072 70911 CHARLES ANDREW BELL 7073 70928 TIMOTHY LAYMAN 7074 70935 DAVID H DERAN

7075 7076 7077 7078 7079 7080 7081 7082 7083 7084 7085 7086 7087 7088 7089 7090 7091 7092 7093 7094 7095 7096 7097 7098 7099 7100 7101 7102 7103 7104 7105

70942 BENJAMIN GODFREY 70959 JAMES FARRELL 70966 CHAD A GERTLER 70973 DAVID DILLIE 70980 GREENVILLE BUCK BURTON 70997 RONALD B RABOLD 71000 JEFFREY KEMMERLING 71017 FRED C POINAR 71024 DAVID PERRY 71031 TIMOTHY A DANCH 71048 JACK COMPSON 71055 BRUCE DAVIS 71062 CHRIS MERSHON 71079 BENJAMIN TUCKER 71086 TIMOTHY OMALLEY 71093 DAVID JOSEPH DANKO 71109 THEODORE R KOBUS 71116 THAD E SMITH 71123 TERRY E CALL 71130 TROY LEDFORD 71147 CHRISTOPHER M BOGDANSKI 71154 DUSTIN N CLAYPOOL 71161 MATTHEW G COLSON 71178 ANTHONY JAMES SVEDA 71185 MADELEINE CASON 71192 BOB BENSON 71208 BYRON MARSH 71215 DAVID HICKENBOTTOM 71222 MICHAEL DOUGLAS WYNN 71239 GREGORY MCGEE 71246 RICKY L FOOR

Company Name 1 JBH TRUCKING INC MATNEY ENTERPRISES INC
SEAN DUN 4 LLC

Company Name 2 SEAN DUN 4 INC

MOVING FORWARD CLEVELAND INC GLAUB INC

J L WARNER TRUCKING INC S & L TRUCKING OF IRONTON INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

HARTMAN TRUCKING LLC J&Z CORP C J CICCONE INCORPORATED
NEW WORLD DISTRIBUTING LLC
RRREPAIR CO

HARTMAN TRUCKING, INC

XJ12 REPAIR INC

XJ12 LEASING LLC

DHS ENTERPRISES; DHS ENTERPRISES 1 LLC

R&D EXPRESS LLC
BYRON TRANSPORTATION, INC CASH TRANSPORT, INC BLACKBELT EXPRESS, INC

DKD EXPRESS INC

TUCKER TRUCKING INC

TZ LOGISTICS INC

DNC ENTERPRISES INC ADEVS CO BENSON LOGISTICS

WYNN'S DELIVERY INCORPORATED RICKY L FOOR CO

RICKY L FOOR COMPANY

Page 114 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 122 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7106 71253 PETER PERGINS 7107 71260 TONY YOUNG 7108 71277 MARRIANNE GROCHOWSKI 7109 71284 DAVID W INGRAM 7110 71291 ROBERT VELO 7111 71307 JEREMY ALLWOOD 7112 71314 BRET V SULLINS 7113 71321 GEORGE HUTCHESON 7114 71338 BRET ALAN MASNEY 7115 71345 JOHN M HAMMON 7116 71352 STEVE L TOMCSAK 7117 71369 ROBERT GRIMM 7118 71376 DANIEL DOUGLAS BROWN 7119 71383 JEFFREY L FISHER 7120 71390 PAUL HAFER 7121 71406 SANDRA JONES 7122 71413 STEVEN NAZAROVECH 7123 71420 KIM CARTER 7124 71437 TONY DAVID CANALE 7125 71444 MARC JOSEPH HOEFLER 7126 71451 JAMES B GERTZ JR 7127 71468 JAMES M PATONAI 7128 71475 RONALD G BOZZI 7129 71482 JAMES POWERS 7130 71499 JAMES DUGGAN 7131 71505 PAUL R BEAUDREAU 7132 71512 KENNETH LISSEY 7133 71529 FLOYD L GIBSON SR 7134 71536 DAVID W WHIRLEDGE 7135 71543 RICHARD H ROTHWELL 7136 71550 WILLIAM GORSKY 7137 71567 RANDALL WILSON 7138 71574 DANIEL E COTTER 7139 71581 MICHAEL E WIRT 7140 71598 DANIEL GRAVER 7141 71604 CHRIS MUHLENKAMP 7142 71611 DONALD CYKOWSKI 7143 71628 RICHARD NICKERSON 7144 71635 ANDREW E PENDER 7145 71642 MARK MEDEIROS 7146 71659 WILLIAM IRWIN 7147 71666 RANDAL REGO 7148 71673 PAUL JACOB KORTENHOEVEN 7149 71680 RICHARD WAYNE COLLIER 7150 71697 RICHARD M FALDA 7151 71703 STEPHEN LASLEY 7152 71727 SUZANNE ANDRADE 7153 71734 WAYNE CURRAN 7154 71741 GEORGE E LAMBERT 7155 71758 ARLYNN S HENDERSON 7156 71765 CRAIG J BOUVIN 7157 71772 TERRY CHATMAN 7158 71789 GLENN IRVING GRAVES 7159 71796 PAUL VIRUET JR 7160 71802 CHESTER S MANN 7161 71819 NORMAN DRAPEAU 7162 71826 DANIEL JOSEPH INDINGARO 7163 71833 KEITH BOWEN JEWELL 7164 71840 TIMOTHY M MAGERA 7165 71857 JOHN DAVID STEVENS 7166 71864 FREDERICK JAMES LOE 7167 71871 CHARLES STUART WOLFE 7168 71888 DANIEL J LYONS 7169 71895 SEAN C DUPEE 7170 71901 WILLIAM EUGENE TUCKER

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RV EXPRESS LLC T&L DELIVERY INC

VELO ENTERPRISES INC

MARK HAMMON DELIVERY INC ST COURIER INC
DANIEL BROWN INCORPORATED

SDJ DELIVERIES LLC

TONY CANALE LTD MJ LOGISTICS INC
BIG BLUE DELIVERY SERVICE INC

WILDCAT TRUCKING INC

MAUR, INC

WHIRLY RIG CORPORATION ROTHWELL INC
A J LIMITED CO

DLC EXPRESS, INC

H&M DELIVERY LLC
STEPHEN L LASLEY INC
DAVENUT ENTERPRISES INC LAMBERT EXPRESS, INC ASH ENTERPRISES INC

DRAPEAU'S INC TIMO ENTERPRISES LLC
SCD EXPRESS INC

TIMO ENTERPRISES LLC

Page 115 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 123 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7171 71918 ROBERT TAYLOR 7172 71925 JERRY G OWENS 7173 71932 DENNIS BATES 7174 71949 CATHY ANN COLE 7175 71956 KRISTINE MARIE MICHAUD 7176 71963 LANDRUM WHEELER 7177 71970 ANDREW C JOHNSON 7178 71987 MARK THOMPSON 7179 71994 ERNEST COLLINS 7180 72007 SHIRLEY BAKER 7181 72014 BRIAN ADAM BERGER 7182 72021 MICHAEL MCKEON 7183 72038 LUCAS R MCCOY 7184 72045 ALI SOUMAILA DJIBO 7185 72052 JAMES MBURU NGANGA 7186 72069 DAVID JOSEPH DUVAL 7187 72076 ROB JAREST 7188 72083 JIMMY C GARRISON 7189 72106 KEVIN COLE 7190 72113 JAMES BULLARD 7191 72120 THOMAS E ULLO JR 7192 72137 GREGORY EUGENE RAY 7193 72144 BOB M BOHANNON 7194 72151 RICK COOPER 7195 72168 SHAWN PAUL JONES 7196 72175 MARIO C RUSSO 7197 72182 JEAN R BRUNACHE 7198 72199 RICHARD WOODKA 7199 72205 PLACIDO OCHOA 7200 72212 THOMAS W HOUSE 7201 72229 FRED GEAN 7202 72236 TONY COOPER 7203 72243 MARK F PALMER 7204 72250 JESSIE CHANDLER 7205 72267 DEWAYNE STEPHENS 7206 72274 SCOTT E BAKER 7207 72281 JEFFERY STEWART 7208 72298 JERRY STEVENS 7209 72304 AARON RICHARDSON 7210 72311 ERNEST WAYNE CARROLL 7211 72328 JOSEPH PAUL PEARSON 7212 72335 JEFFERY PHILLLIP SELF JR 7213 72342 ARY SILVA FUCHS 7214 72359 LESLEY SIMMS FELTS 7215 72366 GLEN STROUD 7216 72373 JOHN PUDLO 7217 72380 JEFFERY CHANDLER 7218 72397 WILLIE D CLAY 7219 72403 BRIAN ANDREW ALFORD 7220 72410 DAVID H DINGER 7221 72427 SUKHTUGS SAMBUU 7222 72434 ROBERT LAYNE 7223 72441 KENTON JUERGENS 7224 72458 DAVID J ALLISON 7225 72465 JEFF PRICE 7226 72472 JOSHUA TREY BAILEY 7227 72489 BRIAN WHITE 7228 72496 MYRON LEIST 7229 72502 JAMES WATSON 7230 72519 KEITH KERSHNER 7231 72526 GLEN PENDELL 7232 72533 KENNETH DEARING 7233 72540 MICHAEL RYKER 7234 72557 RICHARD RYMERS 7235 72564 ROBERT KEARNEY

Company Name 1 BATES SERVICES INC JOHNS AC TRUCKING

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

AKB, INC

NEWPORT GROUP LLC ALI DJIBO INC MERRIMART INTERNATIONAL LLC

COOPER3 LLC

COOPER3 INC

TC VENTURES LLC LEMIK CORPORATION BAKER PARCEL SERVICE INC
AVINRIC DELIVERY INC PEARSON EXPRESS INC

COOPER, INCORPORATED

TWIN PEAKS DISTRIBUTION, INC
ALFORD INC MARTY EXPRESS INC
K JUERGENS, INCORPORATED DJ ALLISON ENTERPRISES INC
UPPER FORK DISTRIBUTING CO TO YOUR DOOR DELIVERY LLC

RYMERS DIST CO; RYMERS DIST INC KEARNEY'S P&D INC

Page 116 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 124 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7236 72571 DENNIS E SOLTIS 7237 72588 DANIEL L MOLNAR 7238 72595 BARRY S KATZMAN 7239 72601 SCOTT B STEPHENS 7240 72618 ANDREW ROGERS 7241 72625 JOHNNY BYRD 7242 72632 DAVID HAYES 7243 72649 ROBERT JAMES SANGERMAN 7244 72656 PATRICK DEMPSEY 7245 72663 JOHN CARROLL 7246 72670 JOSE MANZO 7247 72687 JOHN D FERREL 7248 72694 MYERS SPEIKES 7249 72700 JAMES GEIGER 7250 72717 MARK EWALD

7251 7252 7253 7254 7255 7256 7257 7258 7259 7260 7261 7262 7263 7264 7265 7266 7267 7268 7269 7270 7271 7272 7273 7274 7275 7276

72724 BRUCE SNYDER 72731 WILLIAM JEFFERSON GROVES 72748 DANETTE BEASLEY 72755 ABABACAR SAMB 72762 WINTHROP ARMS 72779 DAVID PAGE 72786 JAMES ROACH 72793 JOEY CAMPBELL 72809 WILLIAM JAMES JR 72816 PAUL E PETRO JR 72823 BRUCE EUGENE EUCCE 72830 TIMOTHY M TRAVIS 72847 EDWARD R SURPRENANT 72854 TERRY WARREN 72861 JOHN SLAVEN 72878 DEREK THOMAS TURNER 72885 DENNIS J COWGER SR 72892 YACOUB IBRAHIM 72908 LAMBERTO RAMOS ESPIRITU JR 72915 JOHN SKORUPSKI 72922 KEITH EDWARD NELSON 72939 JOHN PAPPAS 72946 JOHN R COLBY 72953 RICHARD SYREK 72960 PAUL MASON 72977 REX D JARRETT

7277 7278 7279 7280 7281 7282 7283 7284 7285 7286 7287 7288 7289 7290 7291 7292 7293 7294 7295 7296 7297 7298

72984 JACK HUTTINGER 72991 FERNANDO DEMELO 73004 BARRY LLOYD 73011 ANGELO COULIS 73028 DENNIS DEAN DAUGHERTY 73035 TED SAYLORS 73042 PAUL MILLBROOK 73059 LOWELL SANDERS 73066 ERIC E ELKINS 73073 RONALD P FORTIN 73080 MARK GILLEY 73097 LOU MATHER 73103 JOHN WILLIAM OGG 73110 THOMAS W MCLAUGHLIN 73127 STEVE PUDER 73134 RANDALL LYLE CASE 73141 MARK R HERMAN 73158 WILLIAM ROLLIN CARROTHERS JR 73165 DAVE HITCH SPICER 73172 MICHAEL EDWARD MCCARTHY 73189 EDDIE J KOWALSKI 73196 TERRY D BYERS

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

DENNIS E SOLTIS ENTERPRISES INC

ON THE DOUBLE EXPRESS INC SCOTIA COURIER & EXPEDITE INC

PACK MAN DELIVERY

HAYES DELIVERY SYS & ENT INC RJS DELIVERIES INC

JJ & L EXPRESS LLC

J P CARROLL COMPANY JJ & L TRUCKING INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MRE ENTERPRISES; MRE ENTERPRISES INC
GROVES TRUCKING LTD

PETRO TRUCKING INC BRUCE EUCCE TRANSPORTATION TLT EXPRESS INC RISING SUN PACKAGE SERVICE INC THE TERRY WARREN GROUP, INC

DBLOCK INC T & D ENTERPRISES LLC

3 GUYS P&D INC

NELSON INVESTMENTS NW INC

RTJ INVESTMENTS LLC
GREENER PASTURES INC LDJ INC
ERIC ELKINS LLC

JARRETT INVESTMENTS, INC
ERIC ELKINS INC

TWALMAC INC

DIAMOND MCQUADE COURIER IN
EAGLE DELIVERY SERVICE INC TGBEYERS SPEC INC

T G B SPECIALTIES LLC

Page 117 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 125 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7299 73202 MARVIN LEE TERRY 7300 73219 RETNON CHETTY 7301 73226 RICHARD TOPACHO 7302 73233 KIM MARIE HAMILL 7303 73240 CHRISTIAN MACFARLAND 7304 73257 SAMUEL A PARKER 7305 73264 DAVE SMITH 7306 73271 JOHN PHILLIPPI 7307 73288 JORGE ASCENCIO 7308 73295 LINDA CROOK 7309 73301 GREGORY THORSKY 7310 73318 MIKE B KRYSTYN 7311 73325 DEBRA LYNNE BURNS 7312 73332 KEVIN ALLEN WILLIAMS 7313 73349 PAUL WEER 7314 73356 RYAN ERIC PROCTOR 7315 73363 GREG WUNDER 7316 73370 KENNETH A TWOMBLY 7317 73387 WALLACE B ROSEMBERG 7318 73394 RYAN JAMES GAGNE 7319 73400 NECASTY VILNAIGRE 7320 73417 DANIEL MIHOC 7321 73424 DALE PUTERBAUGH 7322 73431 MICHAEL GOETZ 7323 73448 BENJAMIN WOODS 7324 73455 BARRON LANE 7325 73462 DOUGLAS RAYMOND BUTT 7326 73479 JOHN E HUFFAKER 7327 73486 DALE JACOBSON 7328 73493 GEORGE HERBERT SCHWEITZER IV 7329 73509 KENNETH EDWARD BREWER 7330 73516 JEROMIE WILLIAM WESTERGAARD 7331 73523 SCOTT P HOSKINS SR 7332 73530 JOSEPH BOGGESS 7333 73547 JOSE SOTO FLORES 7334 73554 RICHARD J KOBAL 7335 73561 MARY A ALLEY 7336 73578 RALPH DUANE SMITH 7337 73585 HENRY J SIERGIEJ 7338 73592 DAVID WAYNE BROWN 7339 73608 STEPHEN P DICKERSON 7340 73615 JAMES BURKS 7341 73622 JAMES A HAMM 7342 73639 JORGE BERNAL 7343 73646 VICTOR FLECHA 7344 73653 ANTHONY P GUERRIERI 7345 73660 MICHAEL SCARO 7346 73677 SCOTT IAN GULLIFORD 7347 73684 PEDRO ZAVALA 7348 73691 CHARLES E WILLIAMSON 7349 73707 RICH FIKEJS 7350 73714 LACY NEACE 7351 73721 JEFF A LAYTON 7352 73738 RANDALL HAYS MOSS

7353 7354 7355 7356 7357 7358 7359 7360 7361 7362

73745 JAMEY L JOHNSON 73752 MATTHEW SMITH 73769 LIAD SHLOMO 73776 DAMIAN ISKREV 73783 DORA MINKOVA 73790 JOSEPH MASTRANGELO 73806 JAMES J MCGUIGAN 73813 GLENN MATKOVICH 73820 THOMAS FOKKENS 73837 JESSE L SMITH

Company Name 1
EARTHBOUND INC S&S ENTERPRISES

Company Name 2

KRYSCORP INC
PS SHIPPING INC WUNDER TRANSPORTATION, INC

YOBAR INC

RDS DELIVERY INC

RDS DELIVERY INC

E & J BURKS INC HAMM ENTERPRISES INC
GUERRIERI TRUCKING SYSTEMS INC SCARO-PARMAR CORP SCOTT GULLIFORD INC
BIG E DELIVEREE INC RICH TRUCKING INC
LAYTON SERVICES INC ROYAL IRON MAMMOTH CORPORATION JLJ DELIVERY SERVICE INC DOUBLE DIAMOND DELIVERY INC AA SPEED DELIVERY INC DMX ENTERPRISES INC D&D DELIVERY SERVICE INC
MACLOR ONY EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 118 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 126 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7363 73844 GREGORY THOMAS ROEPKE 7364 73851 BRUCE STAGGERS 7365 73868 RALPH JEROME STEPHENS 7366 73875 STEVEN ACREE 7367 73882 JASON LOUGH 7368 73899 JASON NORRIS 7369 73905 ANTHONY OSTENDORF 7370 73912 DAVID HUBINEK 7371 73929 HECTOR OCAMPO 7372 73936 LAWRENCE ONEILL 7373 73943 RICKY GRIMES 7374 73950 SINISA PETROVIC 7375 73967 BOYAN S ATANASOV 7376 73974 DANIEL JOEL WILLIAMS JR 7377 73981 CHARLES R PETRAITIS 7378 73998 MICHAEL SCOTT CEBULSKI 7379 74001 BARRY KRULEWITCH 7380 74018 PHILLIP MCCOY 7381 74025 ROBIN ARMSTRONG 7382 74032 DALE FLUEGEL 7383 74049 JAMES EARNISSE 7384 74056 RONALD L KINNEY 7385 74063 JULIO CINTRON 7386 74070 BRETT MATZENBACHER 7387 74087 BROCK JASON ANDERSON

7388 7389 7390 7391 7392 7393 7394 7395 7396 7397 7398 7399

74094 VASSIL I TCHIRPANEIEV 74100 MILTON ARANGO 74117 SOLAIMAN HANDOKO 74124 JOSE I RIVERA 74131 WALKER LOPES ALMEIDA 74148 WILLIAM E CHLADEK 74155 SHANE MCGINNIS 74162 JAMES FLEMING 74179 ROBERT WELLMAN 74186 TABITHA SPEARS 74193 DARRYL ANTHONY BELL 74209 WILLIAM F BENSON

7400 7401 7402 7403 7404 7405 7406 7407 7408 7409 7410 7411 7412 7413 7414 7415 7416 7417 7418 7419 7420 7421 7422 7423 7424

74216 ANTHONY GARNELLO 74223 BALDO VELEZ 74230 SEAN P JONES 74247 KYLE STEVEN CAMPBELL 74254 PIOTR MUSZYNSKI 74261 DIAN NIKOLOV 74278 STEPHEN D CLEMONS 74285 ROBERT J GREEN 74292 ROBERT HANSEN 74308 ART MRAZ 74315 GARY F FORSHALL 74322 STEVE TABERT 74339 STEVE CRAIG SCHROEDER 74346 MICHAEL W WOJNOWSKI 74353 ROBERT JAMES STANDARD 74360 RITA BROWN 74377 TOM BUCKLEY 74384 DIANA SNARSKI 74391 ANTHONY PERRY 74407 JEFFERY MCCOLLUM 74414 DAMIR BASIC 74421 RICHARD BITTLE 74438 GEORGE NELLESSEN 74452 CHARLES BAILEY 74469 RONALD CARR

Company Name 1 ROEPKE TRUCKING INC RJC 57 INCORPORATED JLOUGH INC
DJ DELIVERY INC
SINISA PETROVIC INC J&T ENTERPRISES INC MSC-EXP INC CORNYS DOG HOUSE INC
FLUEGEL LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KAYCEE ENTERPRISES

ANDERSON TRANSPORTATION, LLC YMV EXPRESS; YMV EXPRESS, INC

ANDERSON TRANSPORTATION, LLC

DJOEN TRANSP INC

WCM DELIVERY INC

ROYAL TRANSPORT INC

FHD BOB INC

HB DELIVERY SERVICES LLC BENSON FAST & ACCURATE DELIVERY INC; BENSON'S FAST AND ACCURATE DELIVERIES INC ANTHONYS EXPRESS SERVICE INC VELFO ENTERPRISES INC

DZIDA TRUCKING INC STEVE WORKS INC

MRAZ ENTERPRISES LTD TABERT ENTERPRISES INC

LITTLE MACS INC DAMIR EXPRESS INC
NELLESSENS EXPRESS INC

Page 119 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 127 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7425 74476 JACK GRABLE 7426 74483 JAY T BENDER 7427 74490 THERESA NIXON 7428 74506 FRED J DAMMONS 7429 74513 JOHN ANTON HESS

7430 7431 7432 7433 7434 7435 7436 7437 7438 7439 7440 7441 7442 7443 7444 7445 7446 7447 7448 7449 7450 7451 7452

74520 MICHAEL TEWELL 74537 GARY L BOWLING II 74544 ROLANDO THOMAS 74551 TRACY RAE MARY HANSEN 74568 ANTOINE KING 74575 PAUL JAKSCHIK 74582 TRACEY J LAND 74599 JORDAN FRAILEY 74605 JOSE LOPEZ 74612 LESLIE BUCKNER 74629 TRAVIS BUNNELL 74636 RICHARD ROBERT TOWNES 74643 WILLIAM R GARDNER JR 74650 ROBERT E WILLIS 74667 WILLIAM G SHEA 74674 JOSEPH PASQUALE 74681 AMY SUE ZIMMER 74698 ROBERT SALAZAR 74704 THOMAS OBRIEN 74711 THOMAS M SMITH 74728 CHARLENE E PRICE-BROWN 74735 DAYLE GOODMAN 74742 PAUL BELMORE

7453 7454 7455 7456 7457 7458

74759 CHRIS ZELLER 74766 ROBERTO GOMEZ 74773 THOMAS SIMON 74780 DAVID BARRETT 74797 CHRISTOPHER BEDOIAN 74803 JOEL GONZALEZ JR

7459 7460 7461 7462 7463 7464 7465 7466 7467

74810 OSCAR GAMEZ 74827 RON DUBEK 74834 CATHERINE MARIE HERMAN 74841 MANISH B PATEL 74858 ROBERT FRANCIONE 74865 STEPHEN MCSHEA 74872 JOEL GRIMM 74889 THOMAS J SCHMIDT 74896 DANIEL DELONG

7468 7469 7470 7471

74902 DENNIS BARBER 74919 RICHARD M PASIERBOWICZ 74926 STEVE HANSEN 74933 ROBERT ROHLFS

7472 7473 7474 7475 7476 7477

74940 DENNIS M HUNT 74957 BRUCE HENNING 74964 DAVID M PLATT 74971 CHRIS FLACH 74988 TED DETERS 74995 RICHARD BERNARD BROWN

7478 75008 JAMES E MOORE 7479 75015 JOSEPH PAUL JUZKIW 7480 75022 MICHAEL BOLER

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

HESS TRANSPORTATION LLC
BOWLING CONTRACTING INC THOMAS COMPANY LLC DAHM DELIVERY SERVICE, INC D TRANSIT SYSTEMS INC TOPSPEED INC M&M LAND DELIVERY INC

HESS TRANSPORTATION, INC

BMC LOGISTICS INC

PAUL & CHRIS BELMORE INC ROGUE CORPORATION

PAUL & CHRIS BELMORE INC

GONZALEZ SHIPPING AND HANDLING, INC

PATEX DELIVERY INC
GRIMM EXPRESS INC DELONG TRUCKING; DELONG TRUCKING INC PASIER TRANSPORT INC FIREPLUGS TRANSPORT INC G & B TRUCKING ENT INC; G & B TRUCKING ENTERPRISES INC D L N N INC HENNING TRUCKING INC D P 3 ENTERPRISES INC DETERS DELIVERY SERVICE INC RB EXPRESS LLC
MCCOOK DELIVERY GROUP INC

HENNING TRUCKING INC D P 3 ENTERPRISES INC
BROWN TRANSPORATATION CORPORATION; BROWN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION

Page 120 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 128 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7481 75039 DAVID ALAN KESSINGER 7482 75046 MARQUITA SHERELL WALSON 7483 75053 MARQUES ANTWOIN SAFFOLD 7484 75060 ROBERT THOMAS 7485 75077 JEROME PHELPS 7486 75084 ERIC SCOTT BENJAMIN 7487 75091 YONG D KANG

7488 7489 7490 7491 7492 7493 7494 7495 7496 7497 7498 7499 7500 7501 7502 7503 7504 7505 7506 7507 7508 7509 7510 7511 7512 7513 7514

75107 DAVID WALSH 75114 STEVE P TINCH 75121 ROGER LEWIS 75138 ROBERT J HINTZE 75145 EVERICK DWAYNE YORK 75152 RAUL NAVARRO 75169 MICHAEL LYLES 75176 BARVIM DEMIROVSKI 75183 PEDRO GONZALEZ 75190 ERIN MURPHY 75206 GLEN FISHER 75213 DANIEL JUNGWIRTH 75220 DOREEN FRANCES GOMES 75237 PAUL ANDREW KORZENKO 75244 JEFFREY S CURTIS 75251 JEFFERY H DAVIDSON 75268 JAMES KICH 75275 DEBORAH J VOELKEL 75282 JOSEPH SMITH 75299 OWEN PAULSMEYER 75305 TODD A JESTER 75312 CHONG I CHOI 75329 BRIAN JUSTIN WIESMAN 75336 DANIEL MARTINEZ 75343 LENNON SHIELDS 75350 KELLY NEEL 75367 JEFFREY HEMINGWAY

7515 7516 7517 7518 7519 7520 7521 7522 7523 7524 7525 7526 7527

75374 RODOLFO GONZALEZ 75381 ROBERT STEINMEIER 75398 JACQUELYN CATCOTT 75404 KEN LIBERTY 75411 ROY GOBCZYNSKI 75428 JULIE B DIETRICH 75435 GARY DEAN BURDICK 75442 RICHARD W STEFANSKI 75459 DAVID RAY CRIPPS 75466 JOHN MILES 75473 STEVEN HAUGE 75480 CHRISTOPHER WATKINS 75497 DARIAN EUBANKS

7528 7529 7530 7531 7532 7533 7534 7535 7536 7537 7538 7539 7540 7541

75503 KEVIN CONKLIN 75510 KEVIN MIKKEL FLOYD 75527 ADESHINA ADEROGBA 75534 JOSEPH E DELONG 75541 ROBERT C LICKLIDER 75558 ERIC SCHAFER 75565 LUIS RIVERA 75572 AARON THOMAS 75589 JEFFREY AMUNDSEN 75596 AKASH PAL 75602 SANJEEV PAL 75619 GILBERT ENRIQUEZ 75626 DANIEL LEITE 75633 NOUREDDINE LAHYANI

Company Name 1 D&T KESSINGER INCORPORATED MARJO TRUCKING COMPANY KWEST INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

NW COLUMBIA VENTURES, LLC
K&S SHIPPING; K&S SHIPPING INC TYLER DISTRIBUTION INC

NW COLUMBIA VENTURES, INC

BSE TRUCKING INC

SOFT PAW OF MINNESOTA INC MEANINGLESS DELIVERY CORP
KICH TRUCKING INC VOELKEL, INC THE PACKAGEMAN INC O P EXPRESS INC
THREE WEISMAN INC

HEMINGWAY COURIERS LLC
ROGLEZ FREIGHT INC
LJC ENTERPRISES LTD LIBERTY EX INC DEPENDABLE DELIVERY SERV INC
AIRPARK LOGISTICS LLC R A S R DELIVERY INC
MILES INC
WATKINS INC EUBANKS COURIERS

HEMINGWAY COURIERS INC

AIRPARK LOGISTICS II, INC

EUBANKS COURIERS LLC EUBANKS COURIERS LLC

EUBANKS COURIER SERVICES, INC

ALL ABOUT YOU TRUCKING INC CROWN SERVICES INC

SCHAFER BROS INC RIVERAS COM COURIER SVC INC
BOXJAMMER TRANSPORT INC

YAN & GILL ENTERPRISES INC US GROUP TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 121 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 129 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7542 75640 SAMUEL KIANGONYO MWANIKI 7543 75657 ROBERT E MCQUEEN 7544 75664 WILLIAM SCHLEDER 7545 75671 BRENDA J POLK 7546 75688 WILLIAM J PARRA 7547 75695 ERIC SETTY 7548 75701 DOMINGO HERNANDEZ 7549 75718 JEROME BUTLER 7550 75725 GEORGE LORION RHOADES 7551 75732 FEDERICO LAGUNAS 7552 75749 ROBERT CLARK 7553 75756 VALENTIN ARELLANO 7554 75763 MICHAEL SMITH 7555 75770 TERRENC EUGENE HUDSON 7556 75787 ANTHONY VERDEYEN 7557 75794 JODIE MURRAY 7558 75800 ANDY J HOUSER 7559 75817 CHRIS LES WEBB 7560 75824 JAVIER LAZARO 7561 75831 FABIAN LEMA 7562 75848 YASSIR RUSTOM 7563 75855 KRZYSZTOF PONIKIEWSKI 7564 75862 VEDRAN KRNETA 7565 75879 LYLE JOHNSON 7566 75886 RICHARD FRANCIS POKORNY JR 7567 75893 STEPHEN G BRODIEN 7568 75916 MARK PHILLIPS 7569 75923 DAVID K VIPOND 7570 75930 YAVUZ TASAN 7571 75947 JOHN W WHITE 7572 75954 CLAIR HUDDLESTON 7573 75961 DANIEL RUIZ 7574 75978 JOHN MOORE 7575 75985 JACOB BAIKAUSHAS 7576 75992 DAVID SMEDLEY 7577 76005 ZACHARY THOMPKINS 7578 76012 TODD BORACA 7579 76029 KEVIN MORGAN 7580 76036 ARNOLD CARDENAS 7581 76043 ROBERT ADAMS 7582 76050 JAMES DAREN TAYLOR 7583 76067 ADRIAN GERLAK 7584 76074 OLEKSANDR BURSAKOVSKIY 7585 76081 GABRIEL GAONA 7586 76098 LEONARD KUPRESAK 7587 76104 MINDAUGAS PALAIMA 7588 76111 RICHARD Y ALBEE 7589 76128 TERRY FORBES 7590 76135 ROBERT WHITTEN 7591 76142 MATTHEW R WARNER 7592 76159 PHILIP LEON GRAMLEY 7593 76166 KENNETH LANG 7594 76173 IVAN ROMAN 7595 76180 ROBERT DEAN BARNES 7596 76197 THOMAS STEWART 7597 76203 THOMAS BAUER 7598 76210 ROBERT A WOOD 7599 76227 DARRIN EGUCHI

7600 7601 7602 7603 7604 7605

76234 JIM MARKELONIS 76241 KEVIN L POUR 76258 SHANNON C HOUSMAH 76265 JILL HITCHCOCK 76272 LARRY D BANKS 76289 OSCAR MALDONADO

Company Name 1
BRANLAU INC PARRA & ASSOCIATES INC COTTAGE HILL COURIER C&T EXPRESS INC LAGUNAS INC; LAGUNAS, INC
STEAMER INC HUDSON EXPRESS STARGATE SERVICES INC AMTB DELIVERY INC
FABIAN'S SERVICES

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PARRA & ASSOCIATES INC

FCR ENTERPRISES INC

NORTHERN STAR TRUCKING INC
VIPOND TRUCKING, INC
C HUD TRANSPORTATION D RUIZ INC RED GRIZZLY EXPRESS INC
PURPLE CAT CONTRACTORS, INC TROIS K&D INC A-LINE LOGISTICS INC REDBIRD DELIVERY INC
LK INC PM EXPRESS INC M R EXPRESS INC CARDINAL DELIVERY SERVICE MRW DELIVERY INC

TOM BAUER TRUCKING LLC

EGUCHI INC

DEWW DELIVERS INCORPATED

K POUR INC CHRIS AND CORTEZ INCORPORATED

Page 122 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 130 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7606 76296 RYAN HARTWELL 7607 76302 JAIME OLIVA 7608 76319 WARREN DALE KLEINFALL 7609 76326 TIMOTHY D SULLIVAN 7610 76333 GREGORY W JONES 7611 76340 STEPHEN R MONGE 7612 76357 ROGER J DAHM 7613 76364 DOUG NEWTON 7614 76371 JAMIE GOSS 7615 76388 MATHEW HARBAUGH 7616 76395 JOHN VINCI 7617 76401 BLAKE GOWANS 7618 76418 ROBERT GENTRY BRYANT 7619 76425 WILLIAM SCOTT REYNOLDS 7620 76432 MICHAEL D REILLY 7621 76449 RODNEY A FAIR 7622 76456 KEVIN BERRY 7623 76463 JOHN FRASIK 7624 76470 LUKE FEJES 7625 76487 JOSHUA OBREGON 7626 76494 RAMON D HELEODORO 7627 76500 DONALD MEYER 7628 76517 ROBERT MOLINA 7629 76524 JAMES ARDZECK 7630 76531 LOWELL SONNE 7631 76548 MARIO NUNEZ 7632 76555 ROBERT J MCGINLEY 7633 76562 DENNIS MHOONVENABLE 7634 76579 MARK BROUGHTON 7635 76586 PATRICK FOLEY 7636 76593 JOSEPH RAGUSA 7637 76609 SCOTT R CRAVENS 7638 76616 JAMES LAHUCIK 7639 76623 GREGORY ANDERSON 7640 76630 MONROE BROWN 7641 76647 STEVEN SCHAUER 7642 76654 MIROSLAV BRIESTENSKY

7643 7644 7645 7646 7647 7648 7649 7650 7651 7652 7653 7654 7655 7656 7657 7658 7659

76661 MARTIN VANDERVAART 76678 CHRISTOPHER HOPPA 76685 JOHN SAYAPHET 76692 MORAD ABDEL-HADI 76708 JAMES GOODEN 76715 JACEK DEREDOWSKI 76722 STEPHEN BRANKIN 76739 JOSEPH C BILLS SR 76746 IVAN G BATAKLIEV 76753 KLESSIO LIRA RODRIGUES 76760 HUSEYIN EMRE AKMAN 76777 MARCIO QUEIROZ 76784 EDWARD M RIZZUTO SR 76791 ROBERT S HOOCK 76807 ROBERT JOSEPH SHROKA 76814 ROBERT NELSON 76821 BLAKE JOSEPH REED

7660 7661 7662 7663 7664 7665 7666

76838 TONELLI NEIL JR 76845 CHARLES HELMICK JR 76852 BRYANT ALEXANDER WRIGHT 76869 DARYL PERKINS 76876 RYAN M CROWELL 76883 JAMIE BOLDUC 76890 RONALD RICCIARDI

Company Name 1 J T A DELIVERIES INC
TD SULLIVAN INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DP NEWTON INC

PRACTICAL LOGISTICS SOLUTN INC GENTRY DELIVERY INC
REILLY TRANSPORTATION LLC FAIR CONNECTION GOOMBA INC
FEJES FREIGHT EXPRESS INC

HARMONY SERVICES LLC

HARMONY EXPRESS, INC

MHOONDRIED INC AMAZING GRACE INC
RAGUSA TRANSPORT INC
ORIGINAL 6 INC
S C S TRANSPORTATION INC GET IT THERE YESTERDAY DELIVERIES INC CHIRPS INC LAKESHORE CONTRACTORS INC
GOODEN TRUCKING INC
BIG GUY INDUSTRIES LLC BILLS & SONS TRANSPORTATION INC
KLR SERVICE TRANSPORTATION INC AKMANS EXPRESS INC

JUST BOXES PLEASE INC NELSON TRUCKING LTD BLAKE REED DELIVERY SERVICE LLC; BLAKE REED DELIVERY BLAKE REED DELIVERY SERVICE, INC SERVICE, INC

BLAKE REED DELIVERY SERVICE INC; BLAKE REED DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

CANAM TRANSPORT INC GOD IS FAITHFUL INC RYAN CROWELL LTD J L BOLDUC TRUCKING INC

Page 123 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 131 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7667 76906 KENNETH G ERTEL 7668 76913 WAYNE R PRESCOTT 7669 76920 RALPH BEAULIEU 7670 76937 MICHAEL KALAUS 7671 76944 MARK MCDONOUGH 7672 76951 WILLIAM REAGAN 7673 76968 BRIAN WILLIAM CARLIN 7674 76975 GORDON L STUMP 7675 76982 DARWIN RUNYON

7676 7677 7678 7679 7680 7681 7682 7683 7684 7685 7686 7687 7688 7689 7690

76999 LARRY HARTIG 77002 MARK ANDERSEN 77019 AARON HINTON 77026 RICHARD S PAGELS 77033 CHRISTI J SHEEHAN 77040 WILLIAM SIDEBOTHAM 77057 DOUG WHITEHURST 77064 DENNIS R BASSIMER 77071 CHARLES J MILLER 77088 MARK PHILLIPS 77095 RONALD WARD 77101 KEVIN LOW 77118 IRA PERELMUTTER 77125 MICHAEL FIORELLO 77132 GEORGE RUSSELL

7691 77156 STEVE M TOTH

7692 7693 7694 7695 7696 7697 7698 7699 7700 7701 7702 7703 7704

77163 JONATHAN THURSTON 77170 JASON A ZILANIS 77187 VICTOR ZEVALLOS 77194 JUAN VEGA JR 77200 PHIL CURRANT 77217 ZINET DURMIC 77224 LUIZ FERREIRA JARDIM JR 77231 WILLIAM MEEHAN 77248 EDWARD K PLUMMER 77255 BRIAN MACDONALD 77262 LYNDEN D SARVER 77279 FRITZ PADY 77286 JAMES K MANOUKIAN JR

7705 7706 7707 7708 7709 7710 7711 7712 7713 7714 7715 7716

77293 BRAD WARREN 77309 JERRY JONES 77316 JAMES FRAGAKIS 77323 WAYNE HUBERDEAU 77330 RICHARD ROBERT SCHAEFER 77347 MICHAEL GENE MONKS 77354 MICHAEL VOSBEIN 77361 IRA WILLIAMS 77378 CEDRIC SILER 77385 ARTHUR R LANG 77392 ANDREW G WEDER 77408 GARY M LAIR

7717 7718 7719 7720 7721 7722 7723 7724 7725

77415 RANDALL J KIRKPATRICK 77422 HASAN MCGOWAN 77439 MARCUS BROCATO 77446 JAMES A VOLPENTESTA 77453 JAMES MCKEE 77460 JAMES COOPER 77477 GARY REHBERG 77484 ANDREW D BUDD 77491 DAVID MICHAEL HENDRICKSON

Company Name 1 AVKP COMPANY

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GORDON CARTAGE INC JUSTIL DELIVERY INC

JUSTIL PARCEL DELIVERY INC

PAGELS ENTERPRISES INC FINALLY THE 1, INC

MARK PHILLIPS DELIVERY INC
LOW ENTERPRISES INC SJD TRUCKING
GEORGE A RUSSELL NATIONAL TRANSPORT LLC STEVE TOTH CORP; STEVE TOTH CORPORATION

STING RAY EXPRESS INC
STEVE TOTH CORPORATION

LUCKY LUCIANO'S LOGISTICS INC PCURR INC NADIA TRANSPORT INC
WFM TRUCKING INC

SPAZ DELIVERY CORP

J & L PACKAGING SYSTEMS LLC; J&L PACKAGING SYSTEMS LLC
BRADLEY R WARREN INC

J & L PACKAGING SYSTEMS LLC; J&L PACKAGING SYSTEMS LLC

TLC EXPRESS LLC MEVCO EXPRESS
A-HOME BUSINESS NETWORK CORP A R LANG ENTERPRISES INC
LAIR'S TRUCKING INC; LAIRS TRUCKING
JAMR INC BRANDON MATTHEW INC E&R SERVICES JFM CONTRACTOR LLC JMC DELIVERY SERVICE INC REHBERG DELIVERS INC

Page 124 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 132 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7726 77507 STEVE SNELLEN 7727 77514 TRAVIS ARNOLD 7728 77521 KAREN T HAY 7729 77538 ABDON ABRIL 7730 77545 CRAIG E KNOWLTON

7731 7732 7733 7734 7735 7736 7737 7738 7739 7740 7741 7742 7743 7744 7745 7746 7747 7748 7749

77552 MARK ELISIO 77569 KAMPEN EGESA 77576 IRENEUSZ MIERZEJEWSKI 77583 ZORAN PILJAGIC 77590 DOUGLAS SCHMELING 77606 RONALD DENIS 77613 DWIGHT P HOLLIE 77620 GERRY LEEWAYNE SMITH 77637 PAUL SIBENALLER 77644 DEBRA RANIERI 77651 PATRICK SCOTT 77668 THOMAS D POWER 77675 ED LINKE 77682 CLINTON ABERNATHY 77699 DIANE YVONNE GORDAN 77705 RICHARD COMSTOCK 77712 DAVID NELSON CORNER 77729 BEKI MALANGA 77736 LELAND JAY PEARSON

7750 77743 DANIEL PARK

7751 7752 7753 7754 7755 7756 7757 7758 7759 7760 7761 7762 7763 7764 7765 7766 7767 7768 7769 7770 7771 7772 7773 7774 7775 7776 7777 7778 7779 7780 7781 7782 7783 7784 7785 7786

77750 JOEL LECHUGA 77767 MAREK IGNARSKI 77774 DARIUSZ WITEK 77781 MIKE BISSON 77798 LUCIANO ALVES BATISTA 77804 PAULO DASILVA 77811 JOHN E RYDER 77828 LAWRENCE W GAZDA 77835 JIM L DENNISTON 77842 THOMAS ONEILL 77859 THOMAS E BARTLETT 77866 WENDELL MCGEE 77873 MICHAEL L GULCZYNSKI 77880 TIM HENSEL 77897 CHARLENE DIESEL 77903 MELVIN WALLACE 77910 SCOT E JOHANNES 77927 VON A MILLER 77934 MARK RANDALL CARLSON 77941 STEVE OQUINN 77958 DEMISHA MIFTARI 77965 JAMES STAMPLEY 77972 STEVE BUCHANAN 77989 CHAD SAWYER 77996 MICHAEL KELLY 78009 JOSEPH DIVAGNO 78016 MAXIMO ABAY 78023 JAMES M DIFIGLIO 78030 STEVEN HENGELS 78047 NATHAN CLARKE 78054 JOHN HYLAND MEANY 78061 DOUGLAS DUMELLE 78085 JEFFERY W MILLS 78092 EDWARD C RINGLER 78108 ANASTAS ASSENOV GUELEV 78115 ALEXANDER H POPOV

Company Name 1 ILMU 33, INC T R ARNOLD INC KAREN'S PARCEL DELIVERY INC
C R G K TRUCKING INC; CRGK TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DENIS COURIER INC
DEBONY ENTERPRISES INC TD POWER EXPRESS PEGASUS PARCEL SERVICE LTD

POCONO COURIER SERVICES INC L & J PEARSON ENTERPRISE INC; L&J PEARSON ENTERPRISES INC SHIBAH GROUP CORP

MOOL ENTERPRISES CORP

JOVEY'S EXPRESS INC M I TRUCKING INC

FAMCO INC THOMAS BARTLETT INC MIKE'S PARCEL SERVICE INC
K I B ENTERPRISE LIMITED KARLSSSON DELIVERY INC

BUCHUNTER TRANSPORT INC TYLER EXPRESS INC
GOLDEN RULE TRUCKING, INC AD STUDIO DVE CO ALPIMEX INC

TYLER EXPRESS INC

Page 125 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 133 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7787 78122 ARLINDO MARCIO MORAES

7788 7789 7790 7791 7792 7793 7794 7795 7796 7797 7798 7799 7800

78139 BRANDO M SIMANDJUNTAK 78146 JAMES MILLER 78153 DIMAS CALIXNUNEZ 78160 RONALD EUGENE MEYER 78177 ROBERT J KANDL 78184 BARAN ST MICHAELS 78191 MICHAEL G LUSSNIG 78207 BRUCE PAGE 78214 JERRY LEMMEL 78221 MICHAEL LEONARD MANSEAU 78238 DOUGLAS ANTRIM 78245 ROBERT D SPANIOL 78252 JAMES CLARK WHITESIDE

7801 7802 7803 7804 7805 7806 7807 7808 7809 7810 7811 7812 7813 7814 7815 7816 7817 7818 7819 7820 7821 7822 7823

78269 TED W BARABAS 78276 JAMES MICHAEL CAPONI 78283 JEREMIAH BENSON 78290 SHAUN J CHAMBERLAIN 78306 KRIS R MEDLEY 78313 GERALD PEGUES 78320 ANTANAS SIPAVICIUS 78337 WILLIAM JOSEPH BAER JR 78344 FERDINAND GUSTAFSON 78351 JEROME OMARA 78368 MARK DELORDO 78375 VINCE KOMPERDA 78382 MARK EVANS HAMMOND 78399 BRADLEY MICHAEL ASKEGAARD 78405 SULTAN A RAHIM 78412 JOSEF CABAJ 78429 ACHMAD K DJAELANI 78436 GENTIAN NACI 78443 DAVID SENESE 78450 GEORGE W FREEMAN 78467 VITO VIVIANO 78474 MICHAEL BIEBEL 78481 RANDY KENT COPELAND

7824 7825 7826 7827 7828

78498 BRAD D HARVEY 78504 MICHAEL KRAUSE 78511 PAUL P STACKOWICZ 78528 PEDRO SIERRA 78535 GERALD F YOUNG JR

7829 7830 7831 7832 7833 7834 7835

78542 MARTY STRANDBERG 78559 RAYNARD JONES 78566 SCOTT C JOHNSON 78573 BETTE JEAN LYBARGER 78580 KEITH ADAMS 78597 STEVE DOMRES 78603 KEITH E LEBEAU

7836 7837 7838 7839 7840 7841 7842 7843 7844 7845 7846

78610 HEATH STEINMETZ 78627 JOHN SOLORIO 78634 ERICA S REED 78641 JAN MARIAN WATYCHOWICZ 78658 THOMAS VONOESEN 78665 RONALD PANNETON 78672 JAMES LYNN STOLDT 78689 EDMOND ISWEKOWA 78696 FRANK FOY 78702 DAVID FOSS 78719 THOMAS W LAUER

Company Name 1 PRECISION AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR INC

Company Name 2

KANDL TRANSPORT INC ALPHA GENESIS COMPANY INC
NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTORS INC ANTRIM TRUCKING INC
SILVER FOX TRUCKING INCORPORATED T C VIEWPOINT INC JMC LOGISTICS, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

ONYXEWA TRUCKING INC DELORDO INC

DNF INC VIVIANO'S INC RAN-D TRUCKING INC; RAN-DTRUCKING INC MLK X2 INC
HAIR ON FIRE INC STRANDBERG DELIVERY INC
BJ LYBARGER TRUCKING INC
LEBEAU ENTERPRISES LLC STEINMETZ TRUCKING INC L&J TRANSPORT LTD BASJCON INC VON OESEN ENTERPRISES
EWI INC FOY ENTERPRISES INC

MESSENGERS IN MOTION INC
LEBEAU ENTERPRISES 100 INC

Page 126 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 134 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7847 78726 JAMES A BLUETT 7848 78733 DENNIS CAMPBELL 7849 78740 GERALD LOUIS COOPER 7850 78757 BRUCE CAMPBELL 7851 78764 VANESSA A SCOTT 7852 78771 PHILIP DAMIAN LEDOUX

7853 7854 7855 7856 7857

78788 GREGORY DALE YARGER 78795 GENE SOLLIS 78801 GARY E BITTER 78818 JOHN R PETERSON 78825 KERRY PETIT

7858 7859 7860 7861 7862 7863 7864 7865 7866 7867 7868 7869 7870 7871 7872 7873 7874 7875 7876 7877 7878 7879 7880 7881 7882 7883 7884 7885 7886 7887 7888 7889 7890 7891 7892 7893 7894 7895 7896 7897 7898 7899 7900 7901 7902 7903 7904 7905 7906 7907 7908 7909

78832 JARVIS PATRICK 78849 ALLEN PERCY MIGGINS 78856 JOHN ADASKA 78863 BRIAN HICKEY 78870 PETER MCDONALD 78887 RICK L ADDIS 78894 CLAUS SCHROEDER 78900 DEREK LEE WILSON 78917 RACHEL DANIEL 78924 JOSEPH VALLADAY 78931 ALEJANDRO VELAZQUEZ 78948 MARCUS HOLMES 78955 CRISTINA M ABLAZA 78962 ASMIR MUJAGIC 78979 LUIZFERNANDO S COELHO 78986 HARINDER RANA II 78993 AJAMES FOLEY 79006 TERRANCE HERBERT 79013 GEORGE J REPSOLD 79020 JOSEPH F ROBERTS 79037 DAVID BLIGHT 79044 DONALD B ELLIOTT 79051 MARK A MITCHELL 79068 THOMAS ROGERS 79075 DAVID P MEYER 79082 CHARLES KADLEC 79099 CALVIN STENNIS 79105 ANTHONY R KING 79112 DAVID M HEINZ 79129 ANNAMARIE HANDZEL 79136 CHARLES A HAMPTON 79143 BARRY LEAVELL 79150 JOHN H PARK 79167 GREG SCOTT BOXELL 79174 ROBERT EDWARD BRIGHT 79181 STEPHEN DOUGLAS BRADY 79198 CODY W NELSON 79204 MICHAEL SCHWENDEMAN 79211 IAKIM MITREV 79228 RICK BAILEY 79235 ROBERT J JOHNSON 79242 DAVID DECHART 79259 MOISES SEVILLA 79266 EDWARD MILTKO 79273 SLAWOMIR MARCIN SZPAK 79280 VALERI DIMITROV 79297 PAUL LEVAN 79303 DOROTHY A QUINN 79310 VALERI DIMITROV 79327 MIGUEL RAMIREZ 79334 SAMUEL JOSE PINTO 79341 BRADLEY HARRIS

Company Name 1
BLACK SHEEP TRUCKING INC
LEDOUX ENTERPRISES LLC YARGER'S DELIVERY INC GMKC SERVICES INC
KERRY A PETIT LTD
MIG'S TRUCKING INC
JUST DO IT DELIVERIES, INC CS DISTRIBUTION INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

LEDOUX ENTERPRISES CORPORATON
KERRY A PETIT TRANS LLC

GABRIEL'S DELIVERY INC HOLMES ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED HK EXPRESS INC
NATIONAL TRUCKING CO

KEEP ON TRUCKING INC HANDZON ENTERPRISE INC DELIVERY SOLUTIONS INC

BRIGHT TRANSPORT LLC
RELIANT INC SCHWENDEMAN ENTERPRISES INC

REB TRANSPORT INC

RDJ TRUCKING INC DAVID DECHART TRANSPORT INC MEISY LOGISTICS INC
SZPAK INC
SWANK ENTERPRISES INC AGAINST THE WIND COURIERS

Page 127 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 135 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7910 79358 DAVE PORTSCHELLAR 7911 79372 DOUGLAS COLLINS 7912 79389 ROBERT WIERZBICKI 7913 79396 KEVIN R LAU 7914 79402 MICHAEL FITZGERALD 7915 79419 JAMES G WEATHERFORD 7916 79426 ROY WAKEFIELD 7917 79433 JOHN M TIETHOFF 7918 79440 NORMAN LEE DIGGS 7919 79457 LYSANDER WALTER SPRUELL 7920 79464 TRANZA CAMPBELL 7921 79471 STEVEN KACMAR 7922 79488 RODNEY EARL FANNING 7923 79495 SHAUN GILLESPIE 7924 79501 TIMOTHY M HANNON

7925 7926 7927 7928 7929 7930 7931 7932 7933 7934 7935 7936 7937 7938 7939

79518 JOSHUA J KOLB 79525 BARTOLO ROA 79532 SIBI M KURUVILLA 79549 ILE SOLAJA 79556 KENNETH SCHARWATH 79563 JAMES M VIEIRA 79570 LEE PETERSON 79587 BRAD CARL SAMUELSON 79594 DANIEL WILLIAMSON 79600 STARR DENISE BLANCHARD 79617 THOMAS RODERICK 79624 STEPHEN MICHAEL HAYES 79631 LAMONTE Q HOPSON 79648 DAVID MARTINEZ 79655 ELLERY HOPSON

7940 7941 7942 7943 7944 7945 7946 7947

79662 DURRELL DANIELS 79679 XOUA YANG 79686 LAWRENCE DANIELS 79693 ANTONIO FRANKLIN 79709 LAWRENCE M ABNEY 79716 RICHARD BRIEN 79723 JORDAN A WEXLER 79730 TODD A SCHARWATH

7948 7949 7950 7951 7952 7953 7954 7955 7956 7957 7958 7959 7960 7961 7962 7963 7964 7965 7966 7967

79747 AHMAD NASRA 79754 WILLIAM JOSEPH TIBERT III 79761 HASIM ABDIC 79778 KIMBALL PARKER RICE 79785 TERENCE TODD KNIHNICKI 79792 JOSEPH IADONISI 79808 KEN PARNELL 79815 PATRICK BRADLEY FISHER 79822 GARY BOZLINSKI 79839 MICHAEL SCHECK 79846 GREGORY A CRANE 79853 MICHAEL ANDRZEJEWSKI 79860 MARK FREEMAN 79877 CHARLES D APPL 79884 JAMES TRADER 79891 HENRY F STINSON JR 79907 JOE GRAY 79914 MARK FREEZE 79921 EDUARDO CHUA 79938 GARY D SMITH

7968 79945 DARRELL KREBS 7969 79952 BENJAMIN MARION KAZANECKI 7970 79969 KERRY SEGHERS

Company Name 1 PORTER ENTERPRISES INC
WIERZBICKI DELIVERY, INC
M T F TRUCKING INC IVEND LIMITED
JLT TRANSFER INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

5 R CREW EXPRESS INC DD SERVICE INC
MOUNT ZION ENTERPRISES INC ILE INC
L & G MOTOR SPORTS INC SAMUELSON ENTERPRISES INC
T-ROD TRANSPORT INC L MONT ENTERPRISES INC DMAR INC JANJAL & SON INC
HMONG TRANSPORT INC
ABNEY TRANSPORT INC
SNL LLC

HANNON-CUNNINGHAM ENTERPRISES, INC

NEW VISION DELIVERY SERVICE INC

SCHARWATH INC

DROSECITY INC

ABDIC EXPRESS INC KNICK"S INC
B&B P&D INC ANTLERS ENTERPRISES INC

FLAGWEST GROUND SERVICE INC

CDMJ INC MY 2K'S INC
GS ON TIME TRANSPORTATION CORP
KREBS CORP; KREBS INC

MASON'S FLEET SERVICES INC

Page 128 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 136 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 7971 79976 ROBERT LEE 7972 79983 THOMAS LEE SKUNDRICH JR 7973 79990 GREGORY S MORAN 7974 80002 JAMES EDWARD BROOKS 7975 80019 DANIEL LYNDELL PAYNE 7976 80026 SEAN P STEINER 7977 80033 DAVID SULARZ 7978 80040 STEVE VERCANDE 7979 80057 KEVIN MEYER 7980 80064 MICHAEL J DONAHOE 7981 80071 JERAMY DAVID BEACH 7982 80088 FREDRICK NATHAN ARJAY EDMONDS 7983 80095 DANIEL R PANGANIBAN 7984 80101 JOEL BOISVERT 7985 80118 ANDRZEJ TWARDOWSKI 7986 80125 ENRIQUE TORRES 7987 80132 ANDRES FELIPE ISAZA 7988 80149 ANDREY DETELINOV VASILEV 7989 80156 AUDEY YARDLEY ANWAR SJOFJAN 7990 80163 ROBERT C CONLON 7991 80170 RICHARD ADELSON 7992 80187 RANDALL J SEXTON 7993 80194 BRIAN PARSE 7994 80200 MARK BERRYHILL 7995 80217 JOHN JOSEPH HARRINGTON 7996 80224 HAROLD BOON 7997 80231 CLARENCE KELLY 7998 80248 PAUL D HURD 7999 80255 SYLVESTER POWELL 8000 80262 KENNETH WADMAN 8001 80279 STEPHEN E WELLS 8002 80286 JIM E MARKS 8003 80293 RICHARD WILTSE 8004 80309 JAMES K RILEY

8005 8006 8007 8008 8009 8010 8011 8012 8013 8014 8015 8016 8017 8018 8019 8020 8021 8022 8023 8024 8025 8026 8027 8028 8029 8030 8031 8032 8033 8034

80316 DAVID STEARLEY 80323 MICHAEL MASCOW 80330 MATHEW WAYNE ANDREWS 80347 JEFFRY PAUL GRAVES 80354 JAMES RYAN 80361 RAYMOND RUIZ 80378 COLIN MCCLENAHAN 80385 REGINALD B BURKE 80392 DARIUS PIETRZAK 80408 GERALD S BLOOM 80415 MICHELE MARIE VERSTRAETE 80422 LOUIS MARTIN EMLUND 80439 EDWARD A ODIANOSE 80446 ANITA PUSKARZ 80453 MICHAEL ROONEY 80460 COURTNEY D TURNER 80477 MICHAEL RIPLEY 80484 JUSTIN JAMES SIBILIA 80491 RICHARD DUNAWAY 80507 JEFF DUVALL 80514 SCOTT KUEBRICH 80521 MICHAEL COLGROVE 80538 JEFFERY HINES 80545 CYNTHIA D MARTIN 80552 WILLARD PAYNE 80569 DONALD DURAND 80576 BILLY L HOOPINGARNER 80583 STACEY DURANT STENSON 80590 ROBERT REISEN 80606 JOHN MCCORKLE

Company Name 1 SCORPION ENTERPRISES, INC
BAD IDEA INC KEVIN G MEYER INC
DIJ ENTERPRISES TWARDOWSKI ENTERPRISE INC PIPE'S DELIVERY CORP PUSHO INC
PMTKE INC TRANS ONE INCORPORATED KEN WADMAN INC ELEMBE TRUCKING INC RILEY TRANSPORT; RILEY TRANSPORT INC STEARLEY, INC
JACK RABBIT EXPRESS INC TURNER DELIVERY INC MJR DELIVERY INC J J SIBILIA ENTERPRISES, INC TONY SCOTT INC BLUE COLLAR INC CDM TRANSPORTATION INC 3 DOG EXPRESS INC 007 MACK TRUCKING INC REISEN DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

J & DRE SERVICE INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 129 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 137 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8035 80613 JOHN MARTINEZ 8036 80620 DAN JASSO 8037 80637 MARK VACEL 8038 80644 LANCE CAGLE 8039 80651 JOSEPH A DUBE III 8040 80668 ADAM TALBOT 8041 80675 BRIAN PETER CHOUINARD 8042 80682 NEDELTCHO ODJAKOV 8043 80699 AMIR KHAN 8044 80705 JASON TREANNIE 8045 80712 GERALD HERNANDEZ 8046 80729 SEBASTIAO LIUTTI PIGNATON 8047 80736 MAURIECE RAY DEBRACKELEIRE 8048 80743 R PATRICK ADAMS 8049 80750 ALAN BEAMS 8050 80767 DAVID MARSHALL 8051 80774 TYRONE ALEXANDER 8052 80781 PAUL GASKA 8053 80798 DANIEL M HODAPP 8054 80804 DON FRAWLEY 8055 80811 RONALD A CAFFEY 8056 80828 ROBBIN L KRUTSINGER 8057 80835 WILLIAM HARMON 8058 80842 PAT REVORD 8059 80859 SHAHRAM TABIBIAN 8060 80866 BOBBY BROWN 8061 80873 JALAL ALI 8062 80880 VARREN BROWN 8063 80897 SIMON KIHOON CHOI 8064 80903 JOHN M FRANZEN

8065 8066 8067 8068 8069 8070 8071 8072 8073 8074 8075 8076 8077 8078 8079 8080 8081 8082 8083 8084 8085 8086 8087 8088 8089 8090 8091 8092 8093 8094 8095 8096 8097 8098

80910 DAVID HABDAS 80927 JOSEPH DORRE 80934 PARESH PATEL 80941 VISNJA SABLJIC 80958 MICHAEL GUERTLER 80965 WILLIAM L NORTON 80972 DOUG MARSTELLER 80989 JAMES SINCLAIR SMITH 80996 GILBERT VELASQUEZ 81009 SERGIO FLORES 81016 SCOTT G SINCLAIR 81023 BRUCE JOHNSON 81030 RICHARD H PARRISH 81047 ANGEL ADAMS 81054 BRENO O MARTINSDEOLIVEIRA 81061 WILLIAM KAROMO MUNGAI 81078 CRAIG DOUGLAS COOPER 81085 JOHN MCGUIRE 81092 BLAKE MCDONALD 81108 SCOTT LAURENT LEVESQUE 81115 LANCE DEAR 81122 LUIS A RAMOS 81139 JOHN J GREEN 81146 BRUCE MARK GIROUARD 81153 JULIUS MEDEZ 81160 ANGEL PINEDA 81177 STANIMIR NIKIFOROV STANIMIROV 81184 WAYNE H WIERSEMA 81191 GARY RASMUSSEN 81207 PATRICK KENNEDY 81214 ERNEST CONNER 81221 SCOTT ALAN YOUNGBLOOD 81238 DOUGLAS J DALUGA 81245 GERARD BAUM

Company Name 1 DANMI INC C&A TRANSPORTATION INC
YAZMIN TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SILVER LINING LTD HODEE EXPRESS INC D & A TRANSPORT INC

ROBBIN'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC WM HARMON INC KILDAY INC SHAHRAM INC

SHAIDA INC

JALAI ALI INC

S&E EXPRESS INC FRANZEN PROPERTY & FREIGHT LLC FRANZEN PROPERTY &
FREIGHT INC

BRIDGE EXPRESS, INC WEST SUBURBAN EXPRESS INC NORTON TRANSPORT INC ID MARS INC
GMV TRUCKING LLC

GO TEX TRUCKING INC

DSEE, INC L & M DELIVERY INC
PINVAL DELIVERY INC DILOM INCOPORATED R ENTERPRISES
GBAUM INC

Page 130 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 138 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8099 81252 CHRISTOPHER HOAGLAND 8100 81269 MARVIN HARRELL 8101 81276 ARROW OSBORNE 8102 81283 KEN E ALLEN 8103 81290 CATHLEEN ANN MAZUR 8104 81306 STEVEN E CARROLL 8105 81313 THOMAS LEWIS MOORE 8106 81320 ALFRED MONTOYA 8107 81337 CARLOS GERARDO ROCHA 8108 81344 TOM COLEY 8109 81351 ARTHUR VAUGHN 8110 81368 MIKE MENOLASINO 8111 81375 BRIAN S MCDANIEL 8112 81382 MARK CREGHIN 8113 81399 QUENTIN L GRAY 8114 81405 JULIE ANN STECKLER 8115 81412 ROLANDO DOLATRE 8116 81429 BORISLAV TCHONOV 8117 81436 MICHAEL ANTHONY CROSS 8118 81443 LAURENCE W WALES 8119 81450 ROBERT SHEPPARD 8120 81467 THOMAS R HARRIS

8121 8122 8123 8124 8125 8126 8127 8128 8129 8130 8131 8132 8133 8134 8135 8136 8137 8138 8139 8140 8141 8142 8143 8144 8145 8146 8147 8148 8149 8150 8151 8152 8153 8154 8155 8156 8157 8158 8159 8160 8161 8162

81474 RUSTY TORMAN 81481 JOHN SLOBODNIK 81498 DAN CHANDLER 81504 WAYNE A WENDT 81511 BILLY RAY PATTERSON 81528 JEFF PARKS 81535 BERNARD TAYLOR 81542 ILYAS JEELANI 81559 MARK ALAN GUTEL 81566 JASON P THORN 81573 SAMUEL WAYNE VARTANIAN 81580 DARREN L WILLIAMS 81597 JESSE RAY KENDALL II 81603 CLIFTON BALL 81610 YONG HONG 81627 ARTURO MELENDEZ 81634 WILLIAM HYNES 81641 WESLEY MCGOWAN 81658 STEVE DEVRIES 81665 DANIEL SUCHTA 81672 ANDRES F ALVAREZ 81689 ERLAN C PORTO 81696 EMIL ENCHEV 81702 ALVARO FERNANDO CARVALHO 81719 MARK I LANE 81726 GEORGE FISHER 81733 DONALD HARRIS 81740 GEORGE ALBERTSEN 81757 JAMES R KELLY 81764 TOM SCHMERSE 81771 ROSITA CLAUDIO 81788 KEN HUDACEK 81795 STEVEN M MEDINA 81801 MICHAEL C BUNGA 81818 SCOTT EGLY 81825 GEORGE CHAMBERS 81832 JOSEPH E ABBOTT 81849 JAMES REYNOLDS 81856 ALUNE ALLEN 81863 JIM ROWLAND 81870 DAVID DOUGLAS ENGEL 81887 ABRAHAM MATIAS

Company Name 1 HARRELL SHIPPING INC
MOVING FREIGHT LTD ZACK-MAN INC ARIZE 11 INC T COLEY TRUCKING INC
PAC-BY-MAC INCORPORATED CJC DISTRIBUTORS LTD

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PALOS HOLDINGS, INC RS SHEPPARD LIMITED INC HARRIS LOGISTICS INC
J P S ENTERPRISES INC DANCO TRUCKING INC
JLP DELIVERY INC JEELANI ENTERPRISES, INC GUTEL TRUCKING INC 3-WOOD TRUCKING CO KENDALL SERVICES INC HONG INC

SECOND PLACE TRUCKING INC
G & A TRUCKING

MBA TRANSPORT LTD

MK LANE INC HHD INC JIM KELLY TRANSPORTATION INC

KT HUDACEK INC MC BUNGA LLC

MCB DELIVERY INC

SAZA, INC JIMMEL CORPORATION AL'S & SON TRUCKING INC
YABBA DABBA DOO, INC

TRIPLE X TRANSPORT INC

Page 131 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 139 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8163 81894 PEDRO F PEREZ JR 8164 81900 JOHN HOFFENKAMP 8165 81917 ROBERT WILLIAM HARRIS 8166 81924 ADAM NEALON 8167 81931 CHRISTOPHER OLIVER WYATT 8168 81948 GILROY CRUZ 8169 81955 MARIE B LAROCHE 8170 81962 CHRISTIAN CASSEL

8171 8172 8173 8174 8175 8176 8177 8178 8179 8180 8181 8182 8183 8184 8185 8186

81979 DOUGLAS WEBER 81986 EDWARD ESCARENO 81993 MARK DORKO 82006 MICHAEL J ARENTSEN 82013 RANDY JOE LINTHICUM 82020 KURT A LUECKE 82037 WILLIAM WOODS 82044 SAJU JOHNSON 82051 STACEY DURBIN 82068 PATRICK WILLIAMS 82075 STEVEN C BRADY 82082 MATTHEW JASON MEYER 82099 KEWANEE GLAZE 82105 GREGORY ALLEN SMITH 82112 JESSE DENMAN 82129 JASON TONGATE

8187 8188 8189 8190 8191 8192 8193 8194 8195 8196 8197 8198 8199 8200 8201 8202 8203 8204 8205 8206 8207 8208 8209 8210 8211 8212 8213 8214 8215 8216 8217 8218 8219 8220 8221 8222 8223 8224

82136 EADIE EMANUEL 82143 WILLIAM J LUCHSINGER 82150 ALFREDO ESPINOSA 82167 JOSEPH TIERNEY 82174 MIKE MIKSANIK 82181 STEVEN A JENKINS 82198 MICHAEL CRAIG CUNNINGHAM 82204 ROBERT J CLINTON 82211 RAYMOND ESTES 82228 DAVID VOLK 82235 DANIEL ROBIN POST 82242 ANTONIO DIAZ 82259 KENNETH PAETSCHOW 82266 MICHEAL SPECKMAN 82273 WILLIAM STEINER 82280 HOWARD TRUDO 82297 TARON BROWN 82303 MARCUS DEVON WATTS 82310 ARMANDO VALDEZ 82327 BETH A GIDDINGS 82334 SHEILA MARIE HESSION 82341 DEANAIL MITCHELL 82358 MICHAEL VISSERING 82365 VICTOR GALVEZ 82372 FERNANDO A GODOY 82389 GREGORI TREYSMAN 82396 HADI TRESNA 82402 JOSE DIAZ 82419 MATTHEW J HAWKINS 82426 ROBERT LONIGRO 82433 GUY LEON 82440 JERRY WILEY 82457 DONALD LIMA 82464 KIRK JOSEPH KAPOUN 82471 STEVE RANDALL SWARTWOUT 82488 LAWRENCE MOUNTAIN 82495 MARK ALLISON 82501 ANTONIO J GOULART

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SOCIAL

CHRYSHEL LLC

D WEBER TRANSPORT INC ED EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE

C&G DELIVERY SERVICE INC

RJL TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC KAL INC

CASTAWAY CONTRACTING INC BLN LOGISTICS INC FREEJAMMIN, INC
INTEGRITY PACKAGE SERVICES INC
INEFFABLE TRINITY ENTERPRISES, INC
STRIKE THE BOX INC

MIKSA HAUL, INC
ABJS INC PRECISE TRANSPORTATION INC ESTES DELIVERY SERVICE INC

DIAZ TRANSPORTATION M&D TRANSPORT INC

T D BROWN TRUCKING INC MAC SERVICES LLC VELOX INC

MAC SERVICES, INC

MSF EXPRESS INC G TREYSMAN INC
DIAZ TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC

KAPOUN EXPRESS
M & A TRUCKING SERVICES INC A J GOULART INC

A&S TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 132 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 140 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8225 82518 KEVIN SOMMER 8226 82525 ANTHONY HERNANDEZ 8227 82532 JOHN A SANTOS 8228 82549 JOHN JOSEPH GILLESPIE 8229 82556 MICHAEL RAITANO 8230 82563 STEVE CONNER 8231 82570 MICHAEL NIXON 8232 82587 STEPHEN METTE 8233 82594 CRAIG SIMMONS 8234 82600 WILLIAM BAUMAN 8235 82617 BAYOAN PEDRO DEJESUS 8236 82624 RACK LEE 8237 82631 KATHY A REYNOLDS 8238 82648 JEFFREY D LAKE 8239 82655 JOYE COURNOYER 8240 82662 REDOUANE SOUSSI 8241 82679 DUSKO MILJIC 8242 82686 SAMMY J FARLAND 8243 82693 JOHN B MOURAO 8244 82709 LUTHER THOMPSON JR 8245 82716 DANNY WRIGHT 8246 82723 THOMAS G CLUTTER 8247 82730 DAVID BORDERS 8248 82754 ANDREW RACHAL 8249 82761 MARK ELLIOTT HARRIS 8250 82778 MICHAEL V WEST 8251 82785 GREG A PRUETT

8252 8253 8254 8255 8256 8257 8258

82792 NANCY J HEATH 82808 AARON D RISINGER 82815 CHRISTOPHER J SIMON 82822 TERRY WILSON 82839 CARMELO A SOTO 82846 LUIS A VAZQUEZ 82853 MANUEL E CALADO

8259 8260 8261 8262 8263 8264 8265 8266 8267 8268 8269 8270 8271 8272 8273 8274 8275 8276 8277 8278 8279 8280 8281 8282 8283 8284 8285 8286 8287

82860 ATTILIO MARCHIORI 82877 RODNEY PLEMONS 82884 MICHAEL MURTZ 82891 DON JENS BIRCHFIELD 82907 ORLANDO BARRIOS 82914 FRANCISCUS EMAN 82921 FRANK EMAN 82938 BRIAN BRADLEY 82945 MOISES PENA 82952 JULIANA ROCHS 82969 ABDERRAHMAN SADIK 82976 MIGUEL GONZALEZ 82983 JOSEPHINE SOPHIA WALKERSMITH 82990 RAUL MILTON QUINO SR 83003 ERNEST F HORTON 83010 MICHAEL KARBAN 83027 DAVID YEARGLE 83034 GARY RICHARD SMART 83041 LADDIE TRYCHTA 83058 JOSE C DUARTE 83072 ALAN LEDGERWOOD 83089 PHILLIP GUISE 83096 KEN R KEBLUSEK 83102 MARK CAMPBELL 83119 BRIAN OSTENDORF 83126 JIMMY RODRIGUEZ SR 83133 ANTHONY SYSLO 83140 JOSE LOZANO 83157 THOMAS THORPE

Company Name 1
SANTOS DELIVERY SERVICE INC CREATIVE CARRIERS INC TARCISIUS INC
STEVE METTE INC
BAUMAN TRUCKING INC BRILLIANT ONE CORPORATION BELLAROONI INC
LAKE ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

SIGN HERE TRANSIT INC LEE & PETIT INC
LSS LOGISTICS INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

J MOURAO INC START LLC; START, LLC

START INC

M & L TRUCK ROUTE SERVICES INC

PRUETT PACKAGE SERVICE INC

NORTHERN PACKAGE DELIVERY LTD

TEAM STRATEGIC INC ODALY'S TRUCKING INC CALADO DELIVERY SERVICES LLC

CALADO DELIVERY SERVICES INC

W W J D TRUCKING CO
KAWANUA INC KAWANUA INC ANNOINTED CHARIOT INC

J & P COURIER INC QUINO SERVICES INC RUMMY INC
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN SVC INC DUARTE'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC GUISE ENTERPRISES INC
J ROD INC VICTORIA'S TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 133 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 141 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8288 83164 JOHN HIGGINS 8289 83171 JARED A WRIGHT 8290 83188 MICHAEL DURAN 8291 83195 SUNNY KURIAN 8292 83201 DOUGLAS EDWIN HULME 8293 83218 VICTOR J MUNOZ 8294 83225 LENNELL HUDDLESTON 8295 83232 BING JOWETT 8296 83249 DANIEL IORDANOV 8297 83256 MICHAEL BOWMAN 8298 83263 EDIN KORAJKIC 8299 83270 JEVGENIJUS MOZEIKA 8300 83287 EIMANTAS JAZOKAS 8301 83294 JULIO VIAMONT 8302 83300 THOMAS CORRADIN 8303 83317 CYNTHIA STONESIFER 8304 83324 BENJAMIN VALENTIN 8305 83331 ROBERT BRASKA 8306 83348 JAMES CLIFTON 8307 83355 VIVIAN KINKELAAR 8308 83362 CURTIS LEE THOMAS 8309 83379 CHRIS R GIACHERIO 8310 83386 JAMES M DREWKE 8311 83393 JOSE VAZQUEZ 8312 83409 WILLIAM HENRY SMITH JR 8313 83416 ERIC PHILLIPS 8314 83423 DOMINIC MOSSA 8315 83430 JOE MARTINEZ 8316 83447 JARRETT L BIGGERSTAFF 8317 83454 ROCKIE JOE YORK 8318 83461 CORY A SHARAR 8319 83478 TIMOTHY P MILLER 8320 83485 ALLAN VELASCO 8321 83492 JORGE VILCHIS 8322 83508 GUALBERTO CARRILLO 8323 83515 GEORGI YABANOZOV 8324 83522 ROBERT H SWITZER 8325 83539 WILLIAM A JOHNSON 8326 83546 WILLIAM E RICE 8327 83553 DAVID BOWMAN 8328 83560 MARK A SMITH 8329 83577 DELWIN WARNER MCGEE 8330 83584 ERIC OLAN 8331 83591 MICHAEL JAMES MENO 8332 83607 DAVID SCOTT NUDD 8333 83614 REGAN J PATRICK 8334 83621 JAMES ALAN HUTCHINS 8335 83638 TOM JOYCE 8336 83645 KEVIN RICHARDSON 8337 83652 KENNETH SINGLETON 8338 83669 TERRANCE HYMON 8339 83676 DAVID MICHAEL WILKEY

8340 8341 8342 8343 8344 8345 8346 8347 8348 8349 8350

83683 PALAMACHITH SOUNDARA 83690 DOUGLAS DARRELL KIRK 83706 MAREK BUCKO 83713 RAKIP SALIHOVSKI 83720 JASON M BENWARE 83737 WALTER ROMAN CARCHI 83744 THOMAS C IPPOLITO 83751 STEPHEN KASAK 83768 EDWARD GUTH 83775 JOHN THULLEN 83782 THOMAS OLEARY

Company Name 1
MOOKKETTU TRUCKING INC TEXTPARTY INC JJJ INC
DI EXPRESS TWIN BOWS INC
EIMIS LTD

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CLIFTON LOGISTICS LLC THE THOMAS TOUCH LLC GIACHERIO INC
MY SMALL BUSINESS COMPANY INC 13 M INC MARTINEZ TRANSPORT INC R J Y ENTERPRISES INC TIMOTHY P MILLER TRUCKING INC VILCHIS INC 1 CARRILLOS DELIVERY CORP

ANTMAN, INC KID TRANSPORTATION INC
TAK SEVICE
D&L WILKEY INC
PALSUNDARA, INC MB TRANSPORTATION INC ROCKY TRUCKING INC C W XPRESS INC ZEKE'S TRUCKING INC ED GUTH INC THULLEN LTD

P K R TRANSPORT INC
T & D TRANSPORTATION INC; T & D TRANSPORTATION, INC

Page 134 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 142 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8351 83799 WILLARD S KENDALL 8352 83805 GREGORY ALAN FOLK 8353 83812 TERRY BURKE 8354 83829 JOHN MACHNIK 8355 83836 ELIJAH WASHINGTON

8356 8357 8358 8359 8360 8361 8362 8363 8364 8365 8366 8367 8368 8369 8370 8371 8372 8373 8374 8375 8376 8377 8378 8379 8380 8381 8382 8383 8384 8385 8386 8387 8388 8389 8390 8391 8392 8393 8394 8395 8396 8397 8398 8399 8400 8401 8402 8403 8404 8405

83843 DANNY RUFFIN 83850 RODNEY COE 83867 BRENDA KEITH 83874 RICHARD L NOTO 83881 ANSON COOK 83898 MICHAEL JACOBSEN 83904 ROBERT J KOLLING 83911 MONTALE BROWN 83928 MARK BOCHUCINSKI 83935 CRAIG HACKER 83942 JARED RONEY 83959 JUAN A CAMACHO 83966 ALEJANDRO SIERRA 83973 NENAD NISIC 83980 ROMILDO MARCELINO 83997 ANDREW FOLEY 84000 BRIAN TIMOTHY BULIS 84017 ROGER WACHTER 84024 RODGER D CRAIG 84031 ROBERT ALLEN KLINE 84048 DURWIN D BOONE 84055 THOMAS A SCHAEFER 84062 JAMES HARMON 84079 MICHAEL ANATRA 84086 KEVIN WOODRUFF 84093 HOWARD P SNOW 84109 THOMAS WAYNE FREEMAN 84116 KOFI ABANKWA 84123 CHARLES SANDERS 84130 DANA D GARDNER 84147 KAREEM DESHAZOR HENDERSON 84154 JASON LAMB 84161 ADAM BERGIN 84178 MIROSLAV LEDVINKA 84185 PUMMY BAINS 84192 MOHAMMED BELAABD 84208 RONALD D RAINS 84215 DAVID L KLOPFENSTEIN 84239 CHARLES B BROCAR 84246 JEFFREY L KIPLING 84253 JOHN J DIESEL 84260 TYRONE PREAR 84277 JACK CRAWFORD 84284 BRIAN LEE ODELL 84291 JAMES PHILLIPS 84307 LLOYD WEVANG 84314 RENA THOMPSON 84321 JOHN GREEN 84338 JULIAN SALGADO 84345 WILLIAM ALLAN POWELL

8406 8407 8408 8409 8410 8411 8412 8413

84352 ALEX A MARRON 84369 LISA L SCHWARTZ 84376 JOHN REYNA 84383 SEAN SEBASTIAN MEIBORG 84390 ALFREDO ORTEGA 84406 NORMAN R DOYON 84413 DAVID LUEBBERT 84420 STEPHEN JOHN PILGRIM

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

MADDIA EXPRESS INC MACHNIK TRUCKING WASHINGTON DELIVERY SERVICE, INC J IS L TRUCKING INC R G B S TRUCKING
B & A DELIVERY INC
JACOBSEND INC MERFTRANS INC

HACKMAN EXPRESS INC
J C PARCEL INC; JC PARCEL INC ALEX DELIVERY CORPORATION

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RODGER THAT INC BC TRUCKING, INC
J & DRE SERVICE INC

PACKAGE HANDLERS, INC
MY FAMILY BUSINESS INC HENDERSON DELIVERY SVC INC
AHA, INC MILE PARTNERS INC BAINS DELIVERY SYSTEM INC

BROCAR CARRIER SYSTEM CO KIPCO, INC DIESEL DISTRIBUTING INC

SUPERIOR CARRIERS INC

SMOOTH INC CARLOYS INC

B POWELL ENT INC; B POWELL ENTERPRISES INC LISA'S HOME DELIVERY INC
CAMILA'S INC

POWELL TRUCKING LLC WAP INC

Page 135 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 143 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8414 84437 MICHAEL D JOHNSON 8415 84444 ERNST MEEK 8416 84451 DONALD LEROY SAIRLS 8417 84468 KENNETH PHILLIPS 8418 84475 RICKEY L SHANNON 8419 84482 LARRY ROGERS 8420 84499 FERREL REYNOLDS 8421 84505 TODD MICHAEL KACZOR 8422 84512 DANIEL J HYMES 8423 84529 BRIAN EVANSON 8424 84536 RICK M HART 8425 84543 MIKE HAMBLIN 8426 84550 JEFF GODBEY 8427 84567 ANNETTE WHITT 8428 84574 TRACY ALLEN KECSKES

8429 8430 8431 8432 8433 8434 8435 8436 8437 8438

84581 NICOLE M KELLY 84598 RAYMOND F GOLDEN 84604 SCOTT WRIGHT 84611 PHILIP J KAMPHUIS 84628 MARK EDWIN ILER 84635 MARK MOORE 84642 HAFETH MOZIP 84659 SCOTT WILLIAMS 84666 DOUG REED 84673 RANDY SCOTT HATFIELD

8439 8440 8441 8442 8443 8444 8445 8446 8447 8448

84680 RALPH CATANA 84697 KENNETH D ROBBINS 84703 EDWARD SINGLETON 84710 JASON LEWIS BICKFORD 84727 RYAN SCHUTTE 84734 JOSEPH PETER DEANGELO 84741 PHILIP CARTER 84758 TRACIE LOTTIG 84765 RYAN SCOTT LUETZOW 84772 DAVID WADE BURGE

8449 8450 8451 8452 8453 8454 8455 8456 8457 8458 8459 8460 8461 8462 8463 8464 8465

84789 JOHN HERRERA 84796 DAMION JAMES FARRINGTON 84802 GABRIEL DANHO 84819 ROGER ALLEN VAVEREK 84826 RAY TIERNEY 84833 HAROLD R BLAKE 84840 BRUCE W BRAILSFORD 84857 JAMES BALK 84864 WAYNE BARBOZA 84871 PHILLIP SLOTWINSKI 84888 DANIEL A MACPHEE 84895 STEPHEN MCGUINNESS 84901 BEVERLY SCHAN 84918 LEROY WHIPPLE 84925 KEVIN CLARK 84932 RANDY MCCOMB 84949 CHARLES JOSEPH SZEMAN

8466 8467 8468 8469 8470 8471 8472 8473 8474

84956 THOMAS R BENNETT 84963 ROBERT ANKIEL 84970 STEVEN CRAFT 84987 PATRICK C FEAK 84994 KHALED ECEEM MANSOUR 85007 MARK S GENDROLIS 85014 LINDA FOURNIER 85021 DOUGLAS WILSON 85038 JOSEPH KEY

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

DON'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC UNDERWRITING SERV AGENCY INC D&R TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CARGO NETWORK INC JJC, INC HAMBLIN TRANSPORT, INC C N Y TRUCKING INC T A K ROOFING INC; TAK EXPRESS INC
GOLDEN DELIVERY INC E-VAN INC M & M TRUCKING SERVICE, INC MOZIP TRUCKING INC
HATFIELDS HOME DELIVERY INCORPORATED

BICKFORD ENTERPRISES INC
ODYSSEY EXPEDITING INC PC EXPEDITING INC
KCZ INC D W BURGE LLC
FARRINGTON FREIGHT , INC GJD PACKAGE SERVICES INC

D W BURGE CORPORATION

BRUZER EXPRESS, INC JAMES BALK INC SAMCORT INC

W S J S DELIVERY INC

SZEMAN TRANSPORT INC
TMB ENTERPRISES INC HILLOCK ENTERPRISES INC

SZEMAN'S TRANSPORT INC

M3 TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC KRISMAL, INC
KEY EXPRESS INC

Page 136 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 144 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8475 85045 MATTHEW TAIT MCMULLEN 8476 85052 RAYMOND ARNOLD HILL JR 8477 85069 HERB DALTON 8478 85076 RAYMOND J OCONNELL 8479 85083 MICHAEL VANCIL 8480 85090 MARK ANDREW BARDEN II 8481 85106 FRANK SHIMONES 8482 85113 JAMES E PAYTON 8483 85120 JASON LEE FULLER 8484 85137 JAMES G WARNER 8485 85144 RON SMITH 8486 85151 ROBERT GLUPKER JR 8487 85168 SCOTT DOHNAL 8488 85175 ARTHUR CHRISTMAN 8489 85182 JAY SCHMITT 8490 85199 WILFRED REYES 8491 85205 RANDY STEFFEY 8492 85212 DALE PANNIER 8493 85229 GEORGE REEVERTS 8494 85236 JOHN LAWRENCE 8495 85243 LUIS VAZQUEZ 8496 85250 RANDY KNOTT 8497 85267 BRIAN CHUPICH 8498 85274 JOHN REEDY 8499 85281 LEE HUMPHREY 8500 85298 PHILIP L GRAMLEY 8501 85304 KEVIN MURPHY 8502 85311 FETHI BEN MOULDI LANDOLSI

8503 8504 8505 8506 8507

85328 EDDIE L GRAHAM 85335 JAMES F HALL JR 85342 SYLVESTER CROSS 85359 ELIOT HIGUEROS 85366 CORY A TEBBENS

8508 8509 8510 8511 8512 8513 8514 8515 8516 8517 8518 8519 8520 8521 8522 8523 8524 8525 8526 8527 8528 8529 8530 8531 8532 8533 8534 8535 8536 8537

85373 RICHARD ANTHONY GEMMA 85380 RICHARD HIGGINS 85397 RICHARD SCHNEIDER 85403 GEORGE K RONEY 85410 ROBERT A MAJEWSKI 85427 RONALD WILLIAM SHEDORE 85434 ALAN MOBLEY 85441 MICHAEL G BLAUVELT 85458 LOUIS ANTONELLI 85465 GARY WEISS 85472 ANIBAL S FONSECA 85489 VINCE STRAFFORD 85496 JON BEAUREGARD 85502 TIMOTHY J GUBLER 85519 RAYMOND EARL TATTERSALL JR 85526 JANICE MATTIS 85533 SCOTT BAKER 85540 SHAUN HEFNER 85557 JAMES HAYES 85564 DAWN MCLARRY 85571 MARKUS A LAMPHEAR 85588 LAURIEANN DUPRE 85595 PATRICK BURNS 85601 THOMAS ADAM GRASKEWICZ 85618 MATTHEW ANTONIO GILLON 85625 ERIC SARAULT 85632 DAVID HORLOCKER 85649 GREG RUDD 85656 WAYNE F MILLS JR 85663 JOHN A FIDALGO

Company Name 1 CHEWY TRUCKING INC HILL HOME DELIVERY, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

VANCIL FAMILY & ASSOCIATES, INC MAB DELIVERY LLC

PLATYNUM TRUCKING INC

RCG TRUCKING INC SNJ TRANSPORT INC A BYRON INC BOEHL & SCHMITT ENTERPRISES IN REYES TRANSPORT INC MAD-RAN INC DNT TRANSPORT INC

RAPTURE INC SPEEDY DELIVERIES INC

FYER STAR INC

L-TEC TRUCKING INC GRAMLEY ENTERPRISES LTD NEW PATH TRUCKING INC LANDOULSI TRANS GROUP
EKG LOGISTICS INC

LATIFA TRANSPORTATION INC

E&H DISTRIBUTOR'S INC GEM PACKAGE SYSTEMS LLC

SYLLIN INC
C A TEBBENS CORPORATION

RGL INC BIGSHOT BULLDOGS TRUCKING INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

HOME PROFESSIONALS LLC

SHAWN HEFNER COMPANY INC

HEFCO INCORPORATED

TDS AMERICA LLC; TDS OF AMERICA GRASKEWICZ INC

JAF CORPORATION

Page 137 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 145 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8538 85670 ERICK MAGAMBO 8539 85687 MARK PEROGINO 8540 85694 MONDY M AZETA-AITOYA

8541 8542 8543 8544 8545 8546 8547 8548 8549 8550 8551 8552 8553 8554 8555 8556 8557 8558

85700 MICHAEL JOHN HILLER 85717 MATTHEW DAVID PHELAN 85724 ROBERT EWING 85731 KEITH PIERCE 85748 KENNETH V GUSTAFSON 85755 ROBERT MYERS 85762 ROBERT ONOFRIO 85779 ROBERT J MURZIN 85786 DILYNN S DICK 85793 TIMOTHY J RONNING 85809 JANICE MATTIS 85823 FRANK JAMES RUTLEDGE 85830 DIANE KAY CORRIVEAU III 85847 MICHELLE LYNN CABLE 85854 SHAUN RANKIN 85861 DONALD BEST 85878 TOM MANOLAKIS 85885 JERRY F WARREN

8559 8560 8561 8562 8563 8564 8565 8566 8567

85892 VICKIE KIRK 85908 ALEC HILL 85915 RICHARD AMAECHI IKEJI 85922 CHAD M JOHNSON 85939 WILLIAM CATO 85946 JUSTIN MONTGOMERY 85953 RICHARD ALLEN DERY II 85960 SCOTT B ELMY 85977 SEAN MICHAEL WOOD

8568 8569 8570 8571 8572 8573 8574 8575 8576 8577 8578 8579 8580 8581 8582 8583 8584 8585 8586 8587 8588 8589 8590 8591 8592

85984 LAWRENCE JAMES PERULLO 85991 RICHARD SHANEFELT 86004 JIM F PENNY 86011 JAMES RUSS 86028 JAMES PATRICK STEFANAK 86035 TIMOTHY R LAGRO 86042 LONNIE D ARMSTRONG 86059 JOHN FRIAR 86066 LINDA D THERRIEN 86073 TIMOTHY J PRESTON 86080 LAVETTA WHITFIELD 86097 BRANDON GUBACHY 86103 GREGORY PANICK 86110 SCOTT SMITH 86127 WESLEY L LEVERING 86134 ROGER F BERNARD 86141 BRIAN M JERNIGAN 86158 ANDREW F SIMKINS 86165 RYAN TOMASKI 86172 JAMES P WORK 86189 SEDAT OZVAN 86196 AARON D REED 86202 ROBERT MILLER 86219 STEPHEN JOSEPH FOSTER 86226 JASON JAMES TAYLOR

8593 8594 8595 8596 8597 8598

86233 STANFORD MYERS 86240 PETER LESICH 86257 HENRY KOELEWYN 86264 DENNIS BLACK 86271 DULLES SMITH 86288 LEON PATTERSON

Company Name 1 THE AZETAS ASSOCIATE LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

THE AZETAS SERVICES INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

LUCKY TRUCKING LTD FXHD LLC BOBS BIG DAWG TRANZ INC
RONNING TRANSPORT INC
CABLE BOXES INC
JNA TRANSPORT LLC J M G DELIVERY INCORPORATED; JMG DELIVERY INC
AFLAK INC
C M J EXPEDITING INC WILLMC LTD JTM TRUCKING INC R A D INVESTMENT GROUP INC ELMY FREIGHT INC A BETTERWAY TRANSPORTATION LLC A BETTERWAY
TRANSPORTATION , INC

TRL P&D INC LDA LOGISTICS INC
PRESTON ENTERPRISE INC GUBACHY INC
LEVERING P&D INC RBJ TRUCKING, INC DREW'S TRUCKING INC
OZVAN TRUCKING LLC REED TRANSPORT INC FOSTERS P&D LLC BLUEWATER EXPEDITING LLC
HENRY J KOELEWYN LLC D&L EXPRESS HOLDINGS CAPRI DELIVERY'S INC

KABAC TRANSPORT LLC AAKBC TRANSPORT INC
FOSTER'S P&D, INC BLUEWATER EXPEDITING INC

Page 138 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 146 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8599 86295 ROBERT WRIGHT 8600 86301 TIM HALLER 8601 86318 ADAM CAIRL 8602 86325 JON MARC JARRAIT 8603 86332 SCOTT BETTS 8604 86349 DAVID EASLICK 8605 86356 CHRIS RICHTER 8606 86363 JEFFREY A SPATES 8607 86370 STEVE GREEN 8608 86387 JON CHRISTOPHER SABALINSKI 8609 86394 CHRIS MICHAEL GIDCUMB 8610 86400 VIVIAN LOZANO 8611 86417 RAYMOND OLSON 8612 86424 SCOTT ALLEN GLAZIER 8613 86431 JOSHUA DAVID EICHLER 8614 86448 GREG MYERS 8615 86455 RICHARD CORY GROSSHEIM 8616 86462 DANIEL CONTRERAZ 8617 86479 ROBERT LEWANDOWKSI 8618 86486 JEREMY HALFMANN 8619 86493 BRANDON RONALD PARSONS 8620 86509 GARY M SIMON 8621 86516 FREDERICK DOWNS ABEEL 8622 86523 DALE W ESTEY 8623 86530 GARY LEE CORTRIGHT 8624 86547 DAN DAVIS 8625 86554 ROBERT E SERAFIN 8626 86561 BENJAMIN BODMAN 8627 86578 ANDREW S ASHBROOK 8628 86585 KEITH R SENNE 8629 86592 TIMOTHY ORILEY 8630 86608 MIKE MILLER 8631 86615 ROBERT D ZWALUA 8632 86622 STEVEN STEFFES 8633 86639 MARK KIEFFER 8634 86646 RAYMOND GEHRINGER 8635 86653 MICHAEL S ALLEN 8636 86660 DARRIN RAY 8637 86677 JASON KEEFE 8638 86684 VINCE R GRAY 8639 86691 THERIA TERRELL 8640 86707 DONALD CZERWINSKI 8641 86714 CARL MARTINY 8642 86721 PETER MARCELO MERLO 8643 86738 WILLIAM P STAFFORD JR 8644 86745 KENNETH E SMITH 8645 86752 MARK D WILLIAMS 8646 86769 MATTHEW GORDON HAZEN 8647 86776 DEVIN LLOYD DIXON 8648 86783 RALPH JAYE MARKEL III 8649 86790 JEFF KING 8650 86813 JASON SPAW 8651 86820 MANDEL C NOBLES 8652 86837 QUENTIN EARL BLOCKER 8653 86844 RODNEY MILLER 8654 86851 GILBERT SANCHEZ 8655 86868 DUANE HASKINS 8656 86875 DELBERT CASWELL 8657 86882 MAKRAM A FEHRI 8658 86899 HARRY ROBERT GIDCUMB 8659 86905 DENNIS W SMITH 8660 86912 ROBERT L BAIRD 8661 86929 BRENDA WHITEUS 8662 86936 EDWARD RONALD LAFLEUR

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SCOTT BLAIR BETTS INC 3L TRANSPORT INC

C & P DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

C&P DELIVERY INC

EICHLER TRUCKING INC

CONTRERAZ INC LDS TRUCKING INC ASK H INC TON UP INC G M SIMON INC FRED'S INC; FRED'S INCORPORATED ESTEY INC

AYDAN TRANSPORT, INC NEW MILLENIUM P&D INC WHEELMASTERS TRUCKING INC

SENNE DELIVERY SYSTEM INC O'RILEY DELIVERY SERVICE INC TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS INC

ZIGGY ENTERPRISES LLC M KIEFFER INC

ZIGGY DELIVERY, INC

ALLEN'S P&D INC; ALLEN'S P&D, INC

GO 4 DELIVERY

CONEX LLC

CONEX LLC

CONEX INC

MARKELS LLC JLK GROUP, INC JL SPAW INC NOBLE INVESTMENTS INC

R M DELIVERIES, INC

SANCHEZ TRANSPORT SVC INC
JAMERICAN INC CYBERMAKI EXPRESS INC

BAIRD DELIVERY COMPANY
THUNDER BAY EXPRESS PACKAGE DELIVERY INC

Page 139 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 147 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8663 86943 MIKE CAMERON 8664 86950 BETTY J TYE 8665 86967 GREG KANE 8666 86974 DAVID F SLACK 8667 86981 DAVID ANTHONY DZIESZKOWSKI

8668 8669 8670 8671 8672 8673 8674 8675 8676 8677 8678 8679 8680 8681 8682 8683 8684 8685 8686 8687 8688 8689 8690 8691 8692 8693 8694 8695 8696 8697 8698 8699 8700 8701 8702 8703 8704

86998 MICHAEL GERARD PAYE 87001 KEN DEMPSEY 87018 BRIAN MCCRATH 87025 GEORGE HAIDAMOUS 87032 JERALD ANTHONY WIECHEC 87049 BRIAN DALY 87056 TRAVIS SALISBURY 87063 NAEL ABUHAMAD 87070 BRYAN CORTEZ HUDSON 87087 FRANK MANCUSSO 87094 J DALTON YOUNG 87100 KEN ALAN BARRON 87117 GENE D FUNNELL 87124 GEORGE GUIETTE 87131 TOM LLEWELLYN 87148 DENNIS GROTH 87155 RICHARD FULLMERHOUSER 87162 JOSEPH M ROZANKOVICH 87179 DAVID MITCHELL 87186 STEVEN F WRIGHT 87193 RICARDO B WHITE 87209 DALE LEE WONCH 87216 SHARON FAGAN 87223 RICHARD S BROOMFIELD 87230 PATRICK DONAHUE 87247 RAYMOND BROWN 87254 DANIEL MAREK 87261 SCOTT ALAN GAFFKE 87278 BRUCE A POLLOCK 87285 RYAN PARKER WARD 87292 MICHAEL EDWARD HENRY 87308 SCOTT E DABB 87315 STEVEN CHRISTOPHER BOTTRELL 87322 DAVID LANCOUR 87339 MARK DEMATTIA 87346 WESTON DOLE 87353 CHANNON WORTHEN

8705 8706 8707 8708 8709 8710 8711 8712 8713 8714 8715 8716 8717 8718 8719 8720 8721 8722 8723 8724 8725

87360 FADI BAZZI 87377 DAN JAMES LASTOVICH 87384 JOSE JOSEPH 87391 PAUL CHUKWUDI IWUOHA 87407 ROBERT BAILEY 87414 TERESA FOSTER 87421 MICHAEL WITTLER 87438 DAVID MCDONALD 87445 STEPHEN R SOWERS 87452 JUDITH L MOON 87469 KEN KESTERKE 87476 FRANK AMODEO 87483 RAY LEWIS WILLS 87490 JOSEPH F GILEWSKI 87506 JEFFERY BINGHAM 87513 MICHAEL NEWCOME 87520 TODD CAIN 87537 DAVID JAMES MCEACHIN 87544 RABIN IHLENFELD 87551 MARK E MARX 87568 MATTHEW PAPSDORF

Company Name 1
KANE PACKAGE DELIVERY LLC BACK DOOR DELIVERY

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

BACK DOOR DELIVERY INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SHIFCO AMBRON INC DALY EXPRESS INC
VAN BUD INC KMB PRODCUTS INC
TOM DIRECT INC

STEVE WRIGHT TRUCKING, INC MAN UP DELIVERY CORPORATION
F A S DELIVERY SERVICE

KERAM INC SCOTT GAFFKE INC WALKING BY FAITH INC
M & K INC
SMB SERVICES INCORPORATED
YOUKON DELIVERY INC BCW & ASSOCIATES INC
MARS LIMITED INC LASTO EXPRESS, INC

WALKING BY FAITH, INC
BCW EXPRESS DELIVERY INC

MELLO CARRIERS INC

DRUNIK INC AMODEO'S HOME DELIVERY JFG SERVICES INC ARCHANGEL EXPRESS INC DATA EXPRESSIONS INC
MDP EXPRESS INC

Page 140 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 148 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8726 87575 NICHOLAS BEST 8727 87582 GERALD PAUL JASKIEWICZ JR 8728 87599 CALVIN LEROY SNEARY 8729 87605 SCOTT LARIVE 8730 87612 JEFFREY A JAMES 8731 87629 ASHANTTI RASHAD WATSON 8732 87636 RYAN EDWARD HEALEY 8733 87643 KEHINDE MOSES ADEYINKA 8734 87650 WESLEY ANDREW STASKO 8735 87667 BOB PFIEFFER 8736 87674 SVEN WILLIAMS

8737 8738 8739 8740 8741 8742 8743 8744 8745 8746 8747 8748 8749

87681 MATTHEW M CARLL 87698 MARK A CHARBONNEAU 87704 VERNON JEFFERY HAYWARD 87711 ERNEST EVERETT TEEM 87728 JEFFREY NEWTON 87735 MARK G KING 87742 DAVID FLOYD TESTORI 87766 DOUG RICHARD SCHATOW 87773 RYAN STANLEY 87780 JAMES MELCHER 87797 MARK G ANDERSON 87803 CHRISTOPHER PODVIN 87810 ROBERT DALGLIESH

8750 87827 BRUCE JEFFERY RIAL 8751 87834 RODNEY ERNELL KELLEY

8752 87841 MARK MOORE 8753 87858 DANIEL RAYMOND FOSTER

8754 87865 JASON GEORGE LEWIS 8755 87872 GERALD P NEMETH

8756 8757 8758 8759 8760 8761 8762 8763 8764 8765 8766 8767 8768 8769 8770 8771 8772 8773 8774 8775 8776 8777 8778 8779 8780 8781 8782 8783

87889 JOSHUA A WEIBERG 87896 GARRETT FIELD 87902 QUINTON HOWELL 87919 JEFFREY LEE MIRACLE 87926 STEVEN DUTTON 87933 MATTHEW SCOTT CRONK 87940 JOE BLATCHFORD 87957 BROCK DAVID BROWN 87964 MARVIN CHANDLER 87971 NICK GOUT 87988 BRENTTEN SCOTT LYONS 87995 JEFFREY MONTOY 88008 WILLIAM FREDRICK LANG 88015 GREG HEURICH 88022 ANTHONY P POLICELLI 88039 KEN RIES 88046 GARY BOOTH 88053 WILLIAM R THOMAS 88060 ROLAND L GUILLET 88077 TERRY L DOLE 88084 ROBERT JOSEPH PEPIN 88091 JOEL BILLBURY 88107 THOMAS MAJEWSKI 88114 TED PULKER 88121 DONALD PARKS 88138 TIMOTHY C SPENCER 88145 DALE BAUGHAM 88152 SAMUEL MYERS

8784 88169 DAVID M CAINE

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

CLS LOGISTICS LLC
SMO VENTURES, INC ASHANTTI TRUCKING INC RYANHEALEY, INC
STASKO DISTRIBUTING INC
SVEN'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC MADDD DELIVERY SERVICE MMK TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DOUGLAS R SCHATOW, INC J&J DELIVERY INC

RPD ENTERPRISES; RPD ENTERPRISES INC
RIMPSON CORPORATION
MARK'S SPEED SHOP INC DAN FOSTER'S DELIVERY
JLEW TRUCKING INCORPORATED TJB TRUCKING INC
FED ONE EXPEDITING INC

CORPORATE ALLIANCE OF AMERICA
DAN FOSTER'S DELIVERY, INC
COLLEGE TRANSPORT INC JERRY NEMETH TRUCKING LLC

JLM TRUCKING INC BACK FORTY EXPRESS MC SERVICES INC
BROCK BROWN INC
NKC INC LYONS PARCEL SERVICE INC
MATWILL INC

JERRY NEMETH TRUCKING, INC

J & C CARRIER INC
FPD ENTERPRISE INC
SAM'S EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICES INC

Page 141 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 149 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8785 88176 BRIAN SOLITRO 8786 88183 JAMES EDWARD POWERS 8787 88190 ALBERT BLAKE 8788 88206 RICHARD LEE SCHLAUFMAN 8789 88213 GREGORY SCOTT BLAINE 8790 88220 CHRISTOPHER A MITTS 8791 88237 MARK K BLACK 8792 88244 THOMAS VOLKERS 8793 88251 JOHN BEAUCHAMP 8794 88268 JEFFREY E WOODS 8795 88275 BASEM HASSAN 8796 88282 DALE RICHER 8797 88299 DOUGLAS EDWARD SARLIE 8798 88305 DAVID ERIKSEN 8799 88312 CHRISTINE JURCZAK 8800 88329 LUKE ANDREW MASLONKA 8801 88336 MICHAEL ORTMAN 8802 88343 BROOKS WEST 8803 88350 JOSE G HENDERSON 8804 88367 DANIEL JASON PETKOFF 8805 88374 JASON E RICHARDSON 8806 88381 ROBERT A OLIVER JR 8807 88398 PAUL J LUONGO 8808 88404 ANTHONY SILVA 8809 88411 RON PETERSEN 8810 88428 WARD VANDENBERG 8811 88435 MICHAEL J BALUTIS 8812 88442 KARL MCALPIN GAINES 8813 88459 KENNETH M BALL 8814 88466 JAMES F FISHER 8815 88473 CHARLES YEAGER 8816 88480 TIMOTHY SIMMONS 8817 88497 RON BOSLEY 8818 88503 ROBERT SCHUITEMA 8819 88510 JOHN STASCHKE 8820 88527 TIMOTHY D SCHOEN 8821 88534 DAVID KIMP 8822 88541 DOYLE E MILLER 8823 88558 CHARLES WEBBER 8824 88565 CHARLES JOHN RASTELLO 8825 88572 KEVIN CLIFTON STRICKLIN

8826 8827 8828 8829 8830 8831 8832 8833 8834 8835 8836 8837 8838 8839 8840 8841 8842 8843

88589 JOHNNIE T TILLMAN 88596 BRIAN CAGLE 88602 RICHARD ALAN BILLIN 88619 TODD D BURLINGHAM 88626 HAROLD GATES 88633 RICHARD WILLIS 88640 PATRICK L NOSKEY JR 88657 RUSSELL AVERY 88664 BRETT A SUTTON 88671 WILLIAM CRAYCRAFT 88688 DANIEL REINDEL 88695 PERCIVAL WESLEY CURRITHERS 88701 RANDY HOLDWICK 88718 MICHAEL A SILVIA 88725 ROBERT LEE HARDAKER III 88732 DANIEL YANG 88749 PAO KHANG 88756 JONATHAN DOUGLAS BENNETT

8844 8845 8846 8847

88763 ROBERT WILCOX 88770 JASON ELLIS SHARP 88787 NOEL GONZALEZ 88794 GARY JOHNCOX

Company Name 1
JD EXPEDITING INC LA DELIVERY, INC RJTJ, INC G T M SCHIP COMPANY INC RIFFMASTER INC TSP TRANSFER INC TVOLKERS INC
J3 SERVICES, INC
WATERMARK EXPRESS
DAVID STEIN ERIKSEN, LTD
MAZ TRUCKING INC ORTMAN CORP WESTRUCKING CORPORATION HENDERSON DELIVERY SVCS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BLUE HAWK ENTERPRISES L L C
RAPID GAINES INC GROUND BALL COURIERS INC JTF TRUCKING INC
TJ SIMMS INC
RLS TOURS INC STASCHKE , INC

JF TRANSPORT LLC

J F TRANSPORT, INC

RASTELLO ENTERPRISES, INC UNITED TRUCKING OF CAROLINAS INC

BILLIN DELIVERY INC

BIG NOSK LTD NAKA INC

NAKA INC

REINDEL TRUCKING INC C & T EXPEDITING SERVICES, INC

SKYLITE LLC JDB INTRUSTED LLC
BDW INC

INTRUSTED DELIVERY, CORP

SPEEDY GONZALEZ CORPORATION

Page 142 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 150 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8848 88800 MIGUEL P SILVA 8849 88817 STEVEN B CORTINHEIRO 8850 88824 ROBERTO SILVA 8851 88831 JERRY FASEL 8852 88848 THOMAS CARVER 8853 88855 JAMES REDMOND 8854 88862 MATT MANCE 8855 88879 SHARON PINCUMBE 8856 88886 TOMAS SUCHAN 8857 88893 DOUGLAS JOHN DYORICH 8858 88909 JAMES B CRULL 8859 88916 MANUEL RAMON HEREDIA 8860 88923 LARRY VERNON 8861 88930 JOSE LIMA 8862 88947 BECKY CAMPBELL 8863 88954 VICTOR A WASHINGTON JR 8864 88961 LARI YANG 8865 88978 DARNELL HOLIMON 8866 88985 ALEXANDER GIGLIOTTI 8867 88992 BRADFORD ALLEN 8868 89005 WAYNE WALKER 8869 89012 PAT NOLAN 8870 89029 OSCAR RIZARRI

8871 8872 8873 8874 8875

89036 CURTIS RAYMOND COOPER JR 89043 WALTER SHARROW 89050 JOHN A ZEMAITIS 89067 BRANDON J FILAURO 89074 ALBERTO J HENDERSON

8876 89081 ERIC ESTRADA 8877 89098 RONALD WILLIAMS SR 8878 89104 JOHN AMIHERE

8879 8880 8881 8882 8883 8884 8885 8886 8887 8888 8889 8890 8891 8892 8893 8894 8895 8896 8897 8898 8899 8900 8901 8902 8903 8904 8905 8906 8907 8908

89111 TERRY ALAN LADD 89128 TATE C BUSHONG 89135 MICHAEL ASSAFF 89142 PATRICK H SMITH 89159 JAMES E COLLINS 89166 ROGER SCULLION 89173 DENNIS ADAMS 89180 ARCHIE HAMPTON 89197 GREGORY KRAUS 89203 DERRICK SMITH 89210 JAMES B HAADSMA 89227 THOMAS M WAUBEN 89234 JOSEPH SPITZLEY 89241 MARK SOPER 89258 RONNIE COE 89265 RENEE WILSON 89272 DARRYL HOGAN 89289 JOHN DUBOIS 89296 GREGORY SMITH 89302 SAMMIE CLAY JR 89319 DONALD C WIDAJEWSKI II 89326 TAJUDEEN A SANUSI 89333 ANTHONY SPERRY 89340 EDWARD FRITTS 89357 TRACY WILLIAM HALL 89364 JERRY KEHRER 89371 DENNIS LLOYD RUSH JR 89388 JONATHAN KEELER 89395 MICHAEL JAMES BROWN 89401 SCOTT ALAN HOSTETLER

Company Name 1
AM CORTINHEIRO INC R P S INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JOMDAN, INC LACEY ENTERPRISES INC DYO FAMILY INC
OPTIMUM PROFORMANCE INC

SILVER STAR EXPRESS INC

AV-WAY LLC
AMOS ENTERPRISE TRANSPORTATION, INC

JAZ DELIVERS INC EXPRESS EXPEDITING SERVICE LLC BFE TRUCKING, INC ALBERTO HENDERSON TRUCKING LTD

ESTRADA EXPRESS INC

ALPHA INVESTMENT CLUB

JODELL INCORPORATED JODELL INCORPORATED

LADD TRANSIT LTD

M A EXPRESS INC

KNK SERVICES INC
LOGISTICS LOGIC LLC TOM WAUBEN LLC P S LOGISTICS INC MARK SOPER EXPRESS INC

LOGICAL LOGISTICS INC WAUB ENTERPRISES, INC

BRONZEBACK INC SAMMIE LEE CLAY JR & ASSOC LLC

DLR ENTERPRISES INC

Page 143 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 151 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8909 89418 LARRY KAMINSKI

8910 8911 8912 8913 8914 8915 8916 8917 8918 8919 8920 8921 8922 8923 8924 8925 8926 8927 8928 8929 8930 8931 8932 8933 8934 8935 8936 8937 8938 8939 8940 8941 8942 8943

89425 DANIEL COLE 89432 SHARON LEA ZUEHLKE 89449 LANSANA H KABBA 89456 ANEL BAJRIC 89463 DAVOR JANCESKI 89470 CESAR KANAN 89487 LEO RANDALL 89494 KENNETH D FISHER JR 89500 PATRICK J KITZMILLER 89517 LYNFORD DEAN MYERS 89524 STAN WHATLEY 89531 STAN WHATLEY 89548 WILLIAM E LARSON 89555 EUGENE HAYES 89562 PHILIP ERIC BURTRUM 89579 ARTHUR KING 89586 DAVID HAAN 89593 THOMAS JOYCE 89609 ERON GRISWOLD 89616 KEVIN GRANT 89623 SCOTT KENT 89630 STEVEN SALMONS 89647 JOHN GREENAN 89654 EDWARD R WEILAND 89661 CHRIS MICHAEL STODDARD 89678 PAT LAMERSON 89685 HOWARD SARGENT 89692 MATTHEW HAMEL 89708 CHRISTOPHER R HAMEL 89715 TODD MEEUWENBERG 89722 CHARLES W SWADLING 89739 MICHAEL J THOMPSON 89746 CHAD JAMES PERRY 89753 BRIAN MATTHEW WARNER

8944 8945 8946 8947 8948 8949 8950 8951 8952 8953 8954 8955 8956 8957 8958 8959 8960 8961 8962 8963 8964 8965 8966 8967 8968 8969 8970 8971

89760 ROBERT K ORTON 89777 SHAHER SALEH SALEM HAMAD 89784 WALTER SABISCH JR 89791 RICHARD VANDERVLUCHT 89807 MICHAEL R NOYES 89814 SAMI JAMIL BALLOUT 89821 WILLIAM BUSH 89838 DONALD ADAMS 89845 JOHN R HURST 89852 RANDY L SPRUYT 89869 THOMAS WILLIAM POGGIONE 89876 WILSON EUGENE HEAVENER 89883 DAVID JAY LANDSKROENER 89890 WILLIE DUMAS 89906 PAUL G VAN GORP 89913 GEORGE WEIRATH 89920 CHARLES POLASKI JR 89937 DEVON A DEKETT 89944 AARON PATRICK NOLAN 89951 ALAN JAY ROSENBERG 89968 CHRISTINE CONSTANTINO 89975 WILLIAM EDWARD MCDONALD 89982 WENDY HARRIS 89999 KENNETH ALLEN TUCKER 90001 JOHN R HAYNES 90018 JOHN J WENTWORTH 90025 JOHN ZELINSKI 90032 MICHAEL COREY

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

KAMINSKI LOGISTICS INCORPORATED

D S COLE INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

LEDELLE ENTERPRISES INC
KITZMILLER & SONS TRUCKING INC
WHATLEY INC WHATLEY INC LARSON CONTRACTING INC HAYES CUSTOM TRUCKING INC SUNNYSIDE HOLDINGS LTD CAMELOT LOGISTICS INC
BELLE TRUCKING INC K&D 24-7 PRODUCTIONS, INC TJS TRUCKING INC
JOHN GREENAN TRUCKING INC
NORTHNET SOLUTIONS LLC
123 SERVICES LLC MEEUWENBERG, INC MICHIGAN TRUCKING CO INC
HURON VALLEY GROUND SERVICES INC ORTON, INC JHM TRANSPORTATION INC SABISCH EXPRESS INC VANDERVLUCHT DELIVERY INC NOYES TRANSPORT SERVICE INC BALLOUT SERVICE INC

WILEU TUCSON INC
ROLLS CANARDLEY LLC GLJR DELIVERIES LLC
DEVON DEKETT INC NOLAN TRUCKING LLC MOTOR CITY DELIVERY LLC MCCLJ DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

ROLLS CANARDLEY INC A NOLAN TRUCKING INC

J J WENTWORTH INC DOUBLE Z EXPEDITING INC

Page 144 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 152 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 8972 90049 BRENT HAVARD 8973 90056 KEVIN SNYDER 8974 90063 JUSTIN DAVID HAYNES 8975 90070 DWAYNE GREENFIELD 8976 90087 JODY RYAN GROSS 8977 90094 JEREMY L TIPTON 8978 90100 LAMAR THORNTON 8979 90117 NICHOLAS JENSEN 8980 90124 RYAN WITTENBACH 8981 90131 MARTIN HARWOOD 8982 90148 HOWARD ENGLISH 8983 90155 EUGEN C SOWA 8984 90162 RONALD E VISSCHER 8985 90179 RICHARD A JACKOVICH 8986 90186 DAVID BANKS 8987 90193 BRAD TOMECEK 8988 90209 DAVID WHITAKER 8989 90216 KELLI ELIZABETH WINDLE 8990 90223 CHRIS MCGRATH 8991 90230 WILLIAM D HALL 8992 90247 DANIEL HAGEN 8993 90254 ROBERT W KRUITHOF 8994 90261 DANIEL EUGENE LAVAKE 8995 90278 BRUCE CAMPBELL 8996 90285 JAMES LESTER 8997 90292 BELINDA JEAN DENKER 8998 90308 ROBERTO TORRES 8999 90315 LEANDRE C TURNER 9000 90322 BRIAN OLAY 9001 90339 AARON GAFFIELD 9002 90346 BRIAN F SMITH 9003 90353 MATTHEW MICHAEL PHELPS 9004 90360 DAVID JOHN STOKES 9005 90377 BRIAN GORDON-MICHAEL MAURIN 9006 90384 BRIAN EVANS 9007 90391 JUANCHO TEOPISTO ACIERTO 9008 90407 FRANK E GALLANT 9009 90414 JOHN W THOMAS 9010 90421 JOHN THOMAS 9011 90438 WILLIAM HUMPERT 9012 90445 JAMES MANZULLO 9013 90452 ROBERT WICKLUND 9014 90469 JOSEPH R WHITE 9015 90476 KEVIN B NICKERSON 9016 90483 PAUL ALAN SWEEZEA 9017 90490 RANDY URBAN 9018 90506 DAVID HOPKINS 9019 90513 TRACEY BRIGGS 9020 90520 THOMAS A PICHAN 9021 90537 ISAAC RENARD SCOTT 9022 90544 RONALD GLYNN RAY 9023 90551 MICHAEL MCCORMICK 9024 90568 PAUL SCHAFER 9025 90575 DUSTIN MOORE 9026 90582 RODRICO BLACKMAN 9027 90599 TODD GLASS 9028 90605 SHAWN MURRAY 9029 90612 CHARLES D CURTON 9030 90629 CARL SHAZOR 9031 90636 MICHAEL VROSS 9032 90643 DARRIN M MAHONEY 9033 90650 RAMEZ ADEL HAZIME 9034 90667 CURTIS A NIEVES 9035 90674 BRAD AMMONS 9036 90681 STEPHEN YEZBACK

Company Name 1 HAVARD EXPEDITING INC
C & JH LLC
A2 EX PARCEL SERVICE INC J LT CONTRACTING INC

Company Name 2 C & JH INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SEMINARY TOO, INC TOMECEK DELIVERY SERVICE INC ONLY OPTION EXPEDITING LLC KEWS KARTAGE
HALL'S EXPRESS INC D&P SERVICES LLC ALGAIN EXPEDITING LLC

KEW'S KARTAGE INC ALLGAIN EXPEDITING INC

ROBERTO TORRES SERVICE INC LCT TRUCKING INC
GAFFIELD BROS SHIPPING LLC SMITTY'S PARCEL INC PHELPS EX A&B DELIVERY LLC B G M M HOME SERVICES INC YOUNG GUNS DELIVERIES J ACIERTO ENTERPRISE INC

GAFFIELD BROTHERS A&B DELIVERY INC

WINDWARD TRANSPORTATION, INC E&M WELDING LLC MANZULLO MANAGEMENT, INC MCS TRANSFER INC

E&M WELDING LLC

KELCHCO INC

D&T TRANSPORTATION INC

MMC DELIVERY INC DM DELIVERY INC

MURRAY'S P&D INC
SHAZOR ENTERPRISES LLC LMV TRUCKING, INC TDMD INC HAZIME, INC PRECISION DELIVERY SERVICE INC
YEZCO LLC

SHAZOR CORPORATION YEZCO1 INC

Page 145 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 153 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9037 90698 NICK MOORS 9038 90704 RONALD MUMY 9039 90711 JOSEPH ARHTUR BARRETTE

9040 9041 9042 9043 9044 9045 9046 9047 9048 9049 9050 9051 9052 9053 9054 9055 9056 9057 9058 9059 9060 9061 9062 9063 9064 9065 9066 9067 9068 9069 9070 9071 9072 9073 9074 9075 9076

90728 LEWIS NICKELL 90735 PATRICK R FLORIAN 90742 TONI A BULLER 90759 BOBBY E WATSON 90766 DEKE DEKILDER 90773 JOSEPH EDWARD FERRIS 90780 MARK ANTHANY CRONKRIGHT 90797 MICHAEL EUGENE CLARK 90803 JEFFREY HAROLD DEMPSEY 90810 CYNTHIA THORNTON 90827 BRETT JENKINS 90834 MICHAEL JAMES GRANT 90841 JAMES DEROSHIA 90858 CHRISTOPHER T FELTS 90865 GREGOREY ALLEN NEFF 90872 BILL DURAND 90889 SCOTT ALAN COSTELLO 90896 DAVID PARSONS 90902 ROBERT SMITH 90919 CHUCK PETTIS 90926 JEFFREY JEROME 90933 THACH LE 90940 ANDY LEE PARKER 90957 DOMENIC V CENTOFANTI 90964 MARK ALFORD 90971 MATTHEW PAUL KASPARI 90988 BRIAN WILLIAM MALINOWSKI 90995 GABRIEL NIEMEYER 91008 PATRICK G STOUT 91015 BECHIR BOUBAKER 91039 RAYMOND E FONTAINE 91046 RODNEY FLAGA 91053 MICHAEL EDWARD MIKO 91060 MITCHEL D PATTEN 91077 GREGORY MILLER 91084 DAVID COPPERSMITH 91091 TIMOTHY HOGUE

9077 9078 9079 9080 9081 9082 9083 9084 9085 9086 9087 9088 9089 9090 9091 9092 9093 9094 9095 9096 9097 9098 9099

91107 DAVID MACK 91114 DAVE DENNANY 91121 STEVEN D WAYNEE 91138 MELVIN SMITH 91145 RYAN WITTE 91152 TIMOTHY S KEECH 91169 SETH OWEN MEACHAM 91176 ROBERT ANDRUS 91183 JAMES RUMSEY 91190 DENNIS G KUCZYNSKI 91206 JEFFREY MARTIN RESTER 91213 MELVIN MEEUWENBERG 91220 JAMES KASSUBA 91237 COREY BRAME 91244 THOMAS WILLIAMS 91251 ROBERT RUTH 91268 TONIA JONES 91275 JEFF KOCHOIAN 91282 LAWRENCE V JENKINS JR 91299 SHANE WILLIAM LEE SMITH 91305 CHAD W HETCHLER 91312 KEVIN CALDWELL 91329 SEAN KRAJEWSKI

Company Name 1
JAB DELIVERY LLC S M N ENTERPRISES INC PATRUCK LLC; PATRUCK, INC
DHD P&D INC MVC INC CLARK EXPRESS INC
SOPHIE ENTERPRISES INC TIMBERLY TRUCKING INC NEFF PACKAGE & DELIVERY, INC SUN COMMUNICATIONS KAAS, INC
CDAC INC T & M TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

BARRETTE INCORPORATED S M N ENTERPRISES INC

BNB ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 6

GRAY WOLF EXPEDITING LLC MALINOWSKI ENTERPRISES INC
PG STOUT LLC BECHIR TRUCKING INC

SLY BLUE EYE, INC

AMERICAN DELIVERY SERVICE, INC BMP TRUCKING, INC

F I N A O TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LLC
DENNANY TRANSPORT INC SUNDOWN INC M&A SMITH INC
BOXIE INC SOPAD, INC ANDRUS TRANSPORT LLC RUMSEY COURIER SERVICES LLC
JMR DELIVERY INC M L MEEUWENBERG LLC
BRAME TRUCKING LLC

LAVON J ENTERPRISES INC

HETCH TRUCKING INC A & K TRUCKING S&T DELIVERY INC

Page 146 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 154 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9100 91336 THOMAS HERDZIK 9101 91343 JUSTIN KANE GORSKI 9102 91350 ALFRED DEPRETE 9103 91367 SALVATORE ABATE 9104 91374 BRUCE WIEBER 9105 91381 BRIAN KLEINER 9106 91398 NICK NICHOLAS 9107 91404 RICK CHANEY 9108 91411 RANDOLPH REED 9109 91428 MICHAEL DONNER 9110 91435 DANIEL WENDT 9111 91442 ALTON HARDY 9112 91459 CHARLES SEEGER 9113 91466 KEVIN ALBER 9114 91473 STEVEN CLAY 9115 91480 DANIEL STOIN SR 9116 91497 RONALD SMITH 9117 91503 JASON LALONDE 9118 91510 PERRY MILLER 9119 91527 BOB J WOOD 9120 91534 ROBERT REED 9121 91541 STEVEN MICHAEL HAMEL 9122 91558 TIMOTHY REEVES 9123 91565 TOM S CHAMBERLIN 9124 91572 JAMES C DIXON 9125 91589 MARK ROYAL 9126 91596 KEVIN AANENSON 9127 91602 JACK ALEXANDER SCHAFFER 9128 91619 JEFFREY S KLEIN 9129 91626 ROSS A MAGUIRE 9130 91633 DAVID JAMES DAZELL 9131 91640 DALE RICHARD CHORONZY 9132 91657 THOMAS CHALKER 9133 91664 ROBERT L SIMONEAU 9134 91671 LISA BOSCH 9135 91688 RONALD SHAW 9136 91695 GREGORY THAXTON 9137 91701 PATRICK B DENSMORE 9138 91718 PATRICK B DENSMORE 9139 91725 ROBERT PRESTON 9140 91732 FREDERICK N DEBELL 9141 91749 DARREN SKIDMORE 9142 91756 ROBERT ABDULLAH 9143 91763 ANTHONY B HASTINGS 9144 91770 JEFFREY MILLER 9145 91787 JACOB POWELL 9146 91794 JAMES LINEBARGER 9147 91800 TRAVIS JAMES QUICK 9148 91817 ZENAS J LOCKETT 9149 91824 ROBERT SLIZEWSKI 9150 91831 TIMOTHY PATRICK SAVAGE 9151 91848 MARK MANTYLA 9152 91855 AMANDA BUDNICK 9153 91862 JOHN F MARTUCCI 9154 91879 MAKEETA BROADY 9155 91886 JOSEPH A WOJTANOWSKI 9156 91893 HUSSEIN ALI JAMMOUL 9157 91909 JAMES JOSEPH MINER 9158 91916 DONALD PEREIRA 9159 91923 DIANDRA JEAN OLIVIER 9160 91930 JOSE J CARDOSO
9161 91947 GERALD LEE MCCOY 9162 91954 LARRY T TUCKER 9163 91961 DEBORAH DANIEL

Company Name 1
PROJEX EXPRESS LOGISTICS INC
BY-LAND EXPRESS INC WIEBER INVESTMENTS INC KZT INC NICK NICHOLAS INC R&D DELIVERY SERVICE INC SHOWTIME PRODUCTIONS
WENDT & WENDT INC ABUNDANT LTD

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

J S CLAY & COMPANY INC STOIN SERVICES INC RON-BON INC A F L TRUCKING INC PME TRANSPORT INC BJ TRUCKING INC RJR DELIVERY SERVICES INC
EBONY EXPRESS INC TSC TRANSPORT INC

RJR DELIVERY SERVICES

AANENSON P&D LLC JS GROUP INC

RKM SERVICES LLC

CHALKER'S SERVICE LLC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

THAXTON TRUCKING, CORP BRETT'S TRUCKING COMPANY INC BRETT'S TRUCKING COMPANY INC

DO-FOR-SELF LLC HEYBUB INCORPORATED MILLER'S PICKUP & DELV SVC INC MR POWELL LLC

R N R EXPEDITING, INC A'S LOGISTICS; A'S LOGISTICS INC

JAMMOUL TRUCKING LLC JAMES J MINER, INC
J J C ENTERPRISES INC

CUSTOMERS ARE OUR BUSINESS

Page 147 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 155 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9164 91978 RICHARD ALLEN SMITHER 9165 91985 WILLIAM FORREST BARNES

9166 9167 9168 9169 9170 9171 9172 9173 9174 9175 9176 9177 9178 9179 9180 9181 9182 9183 9184 9185 9186 9187 9188 9189 9190 9191 9192 9193 9194 9195 9196 9197 9198 9199 9200 9201 9202 9203 9204 9205 9206 9207 9208 9209 9210 9211 9212 9213 9214 9215 9216 9217 9218 9219 9220 9221 9222 9223

91992 JACK BARRIX 92005 JOHN F RANDALL 92012 ELWYNN LYLE BOERMA 92029 GEORGE WOODS 92036 ARTHUR FORD 92043 GREG N WHITE 92050 BARTHOLOMEN A SALAZAR 92067 HENRY CAPERS 92074 CARL R CARPENTIER 92081 BRUCE MIKE OVERHOLSER 92098 ROBERT HAVILAND 92104 RONALD A PAQUET 92111 WAYNE DICKERSON 92128 ALEXANDER AIZIN 92135 MARK J LEVINE 92142 CHRISTOPHER JOE PRANOMVANAVECH 92159 BYRON SMITH 92166 EDWARD ST GEORGE 92173 GWYN D GREEN 92180 JASON CARL ELWELL 92197 TIM LIVINGSTON 92203 RANDY MONCHILOV 92210 SUZAN L TOUREAU 92227 KENNETH SCOTT TEDFORD 92234 SHANE W FRASER 92241 MIKE JOHNSON 92258 CHAD MICHAEL BERGMAN 92265 SAM BERRY 92272 DEAN MCNICOL 92289 ANDREW BROWN 92296 PAUL GYOMORY 92302 KEVIN JOSEPH SOUZA 92319 HOURREDDINE SEBAI 92326 RICHARD A VECCHIO 92333 CHRISTOPHER BUTLER 92340 DEREK GOMES 92357 ROBERT DALE BEHR 92364 STEVE STANLEY BELL 92388 MATTHEW R HARRIS 92395 DENNIS VALLUS 92401 LORI RAE JULSON 92418 RICHARD BERNHARD 92425 TYRONE HAWKINS 92432 CARL CANDY 92449 FLOYD LAWRENCE VERNIER 92456 GREGORY JON SPRAGUE 92463 ANTONIO ANDREOLI 92470 BRET L ROBERTS 92487 MIKEAL YONGE 92494 DUARTE MANUEL VALERIO 92500 ERIC JAMES MOSS 92517 DONALD ELTON FARMER 92524 TOM ANDREW GARDELLA 92531 DAVID LONDON 92548 MIKE STEPHEN MARSHALL 92555 JAMES R KELLY 92562 GREGORY GRUBBS 92579 DAVID DUANE GILLETT

9224 92586 KAREN KAY WING 9225 92593 RONALD WALDRON 9226 92609 MARK GARANT

Company Name 1 R & L DELIVERY, INC BARNES TRANSFER LLC
AMERICAN LOGISTICS LLC
BOERMA INC
MCDOUGALL TRUCKING INC GW ENTERPRISES INC B SALAZAR INC DIONE TRANSPORTS INC
ROBERT HAVILAND INC PAQUET TRANSFER INC
GAMA SERVICE EXPRESS INC LEVINE ENTERPRISES INC SLANGIN', INC

Company Name 2
BROWNTOWN BULLDOG DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

B SALAZAR LLC

HOWLING EXPRESS INC
R&M DELIVERY INC
KRAUT2K LLC FOUR POINT MANAGEMENT LLC

STFS DELIVERY, INC

BERRY # 1, INC
BROWNS DOWNTOWN DELIVERY INC GYOMORYGUY INC
SEBAI'S COURIER INC

SUMMIT DELIVERY INC R D BEHR DIST INC
MRH ENTERPRISES

DELIVERIES BY TY LLC VERNIER INCENTIVES, INC

VALERIO INC MOUNT HOPE BAY TRUCKING INC KAD CONTRACTING INC GARDELLA DELIVERY SERVICES INC
MIKE MARSHALL INC
CENTURION TRANSPORT CORPORATION WING PACKAGE DELIVERY INC
GARANT TRUCKING INCORPORATED

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 148 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 156 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9227 92616 RICHARD A BENSON 9228 92623 JOHNATHON COFFEY 9229 92630 JOHNATHON COFFEY 9230 92647 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9231 92654 DOUG S DEBAAR 9232 92661 TODD HESS 9233 92678 ROY BANKS 9234 92685 SAMUEL KIRKLAND

9235 9236 9237 9238 9239 9240 9241 9242 9243 9244

92692 MICHAEL S CHADWICK 92708 CORBIN O BROWN 92715 KEVIN R YOUNG 92722 RICHARD JAMES SCHWARTZLY 92739 BRIAN WARNER 92746 NEIL JAMES DOBSON 92753 NICHOLAS JOHN HAGGE 92760 REGINALD JOHNSON 92777 IVAN GIUSEPPE SCUDERI 92784 SCOTT STEELE HUNTER

9245 9246 9247 9248 9249 9250 9251 9252 9253 9254 9255 9256 9257 9258 9259 9260 9261

92791 ADRIAN CHRISTOPHER EMERSON 92807 CECIL GREEN 92814 MARK SQUIER 92821 DALE R DEMERELL 92838 CHRISTOPHER L MUSSER 92845 MARK SCHWARTZ 92852 RONALD WILLIAM NEILAN 92869 DAVE LAMPMAN 92876 BRYAN QUINN 92883 MARK J BLAKE 92890 TOM WELLER 92906 TRAVIS EVERHARDUS 92913 RANDALL B OWEN 92920 DUNCAN MOORE 92937 MARK E BECKER 92944 ART HULME 92951 STEVEN J MEEUWENBERG

9262 9263 9264 9265 9266 9267 9268 9269 9270 9271 9272 9273 9274 9275 9276 9277 9278 9279 9280 9281 9282 9283 9284 9285 9286 9287 9288

92968 JOHN W WEBB 92975 JEFFREY BRENNER 92982 KENNETH VOUGHT 92999 RAYMOND FRANK II 93002 MICHAEL MALASPINA 93019 DAVID KLINGSPON 93026 JASON BRIAN KLEPPER 93033 DOUGLAS SCOT LEONARD 93040 MARK BROOKS 93057 ROBERTO JULIO 93064 KEITH COULTES 93071 GREGG V BAZZANI 93088 CHARLES SMITH 93095 ANTHONY JUSTIN ACERRA 93101 ANDREW ZINK 93118 GEORGE TOUREK JR 93125 RUDOLPH STEPHEN NIGL 93132 RICHARD L HIGGINS 93149 DEAN JOECKS 93156 WARREN L SMITH 93163 JAMES MCCULLOCH 93170 GREG HENRIKSEN 93187 ANDREW JOSEPH READY 93194 RICHARD J ROBERTSON 93200 MICHAEL DAWICKI 93217 PETER PATRICK GLYNN 93224 BARBARA SCHENK

Company Name 1 RICHARD BENSON, INC DAYBREAK ENTERPRISES INC DAYBREAK ENTERPRISES INC
DEBAAR TRUCKING INC
LEUMAS LOGISTICS LLC
CHADWICK TRUCKING INC
DRUN TRUCKING INC SCHWARTZLY ENTERPRISES INC WARNER B TRUCKING LLC ND SHIPPING LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

LEUMAS LOGISTICS INC

SECOND SAMUEL TRANSPORT, INC

WARNER B TRUCKING INC RURAL EXPRESS INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

G & S DELIVERY LLC ADRIANS SERVICES LLC
DEMERELL LTD
NEILAN LLC QUINN ENTERPRISES, INC
TRAV'S TRUCKING CORP OWEN ENTERPRISE LLC
SAHA, INC STEVENSON'S TRUCKING LLC THE MAINTENANCE GROUP INC

HUNTER ON THE HUNT CORP
NEILAN ENTERPRISES INC
MEEUWENBERG TRUCKING, INC

DGK INC JB DLEPPER LLC DSL TRANSPORT INC GVB EXPEDITING INC
KEITH COULTES DELIVERY INC BAZZANI CORPORATION INC CSJR INCORPORATED OUT OF TIME INC KINEXUS, INC
KATO'S KRUNCHERS INC DEAN JOECKS, INC WST INC

KLEPPER INC

DAWICKI INC ITILDO INC

Page 149 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 157 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9289 93231 MARK DUNN 9290 93248 RONALD CHILDS 9291 93255 CHARLES JANZ 9292 93262 DONALD C SMITH

9293 9294 9295 9296 9297 9298 9299 9300 9301 9302 9303 9304 9305 9306 9307 9308 9309 9310 9311 9312 9313 9314 9315 9316

93279 RON MAURER 93286 JOHN C SEIBEL 93293 MICHAEL J STORANDT 93309 CURTIS DEAN WENZEL 93316 DAN BRIDGES 93323 DOUGLAS J CLEARY 93330 TODD STAEGE 93347 DENNIS DICKEY 93354 STEPHAN R REDMANN 93361 RON E MEYER 93378 DONALD W FRITZ 93385 DAVE ADAMS 93392 JEFF LANGENFELD 93408 RICHARD SCHALOW 93415 RYAN SNOW 93422 DAYN A WINKLER 93439 JEFF SIGETICH 93446 AMY VANBROCKLIN 93453 KENNETH M MCALLISTER 93460 KEITH GEMEINHARDT 93477 ROBERT J VANDENAVOND 93484 TONI BAKER 93491 STEVEN D BRAUN 93507 DEAN ROBERT PRONSCHINSKE

9317 9318 9319 9320 9321 9322 9323 9324 9325 9326 9327 9328 9329 9330 9331 9332 9333 9334 9335 9336 9337 9338 9339 9340 9341 9342 9343

93514 KEVIN PATRICK GRANT 93521 JEFFERY A BUCKMASTER 93538 BRENT K WIRSING 93545 MARY ZANGL 93552 DANIEL DAHL 93569 CALVIN FLEMING 93576 IAN FRENCH 93583 JUSTIN MICKELSONN 93590 NICHOLAS MARK-CHRISTOPHER BEST 93606 CHIHREI WU 93613 ELVIS PAPALEKA 93620 DRAGAN SIMIC 93637 JIM BROOKS 93644 ROGER WABISZEWSKI 93651 RONALD LEE ADAMS 93668 LAWRENCE JOSEPH ROBERTS 93675 PAUL STRYCKER 93682 JEFFREY J PLANTZ 93699 JESS VAN HOUT 93705 TIMOTHY P SMITH 93712 CHRIS GUNDERSON 93729 DONALD R NELSON 93736 JERRY D OTT 93743 JERRY K SCHROEDER 93750 JAMES J MLSNA 93767 TODD L MELVIN 93774 JAY JAMES SCHOENBORN

9344 9345 9346 9347 9348 9349 9350

93781 RICHARD CLEMENT 93798 JASON R LANSER 93804 CARRIE BERA 93811 LAWRENCE HARRIS 93828 DAVID OLSON 93835 DENNIS FLYNN 93842 GERARD ROBINSON

Company Name 1 DUNN ENTERPRISES INC R & 3 J'S INC CJ FREIGHT S & S DELIVERY SERVICE; S & S DELIVERY SERVICE INC
BOTTOMLINE TRANSPORT INC CURT WENZEL DELIVERY LLC D K ASSOCIATES INC BADGERLAND TRANSPORT LLC
BE D BE INC STEFNROO ENTERPRISE, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

S & S DELIVERY SERVICE INC

D&S DISTRIBUTION INC CARTEL CARTAGE INC

LEOLANG INCORPORATED

AMBECK TRANSPORT INC

DRIVEWAY DELIVERY SERVICE LLC BVA TRUCKING INC

BRAUNCO TRANSPORTATION INC RIVER COUNTRY ENTERPRISES LLC
CK GRANT INC BUCKMASTER SERVICES INC

RIVER COUNTRY ENTERPRISES, INC FAIRWAY DELIVERY, INC

AMAAZANG PACKAGE DELIVERY LLC TONKA XPRESS INC FLAME LLC

WU TRUCKING COMPANY ELVI INC
BROOKS EXPRESS INC ROGER WABISZEWSKI INC

PAUL'S PARCELS CORPORATION MOBY SERVICES LLC
GB TRUCKING BACT TRANSPORT LLC
OTT TRUCKING INC MJHK INC

MOBY SERVICES INC

FOUR SEASON EXPRESS INC; FOUR NORTHERN TRAIL

SEASONS EXPRESS INC

EXPRESS INC

NORTHERN TRAIL EXPRESS INC

LAR-REE TRUCKING D FLYNN INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 150 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 158 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9351 93859 JOHN PEEK 9352 93866 JOSHUA JAE KAMIN 9353 93873 PATRIK ORYAN 9354 93880 LAWRENCE MARTIN GOOTEE 9355 93897 JERAMY D MAKEEFF 9356 93903 GARY J KLESMITH 9357 93910 JEFF LARSON 9358 93927 CHRISTOPHER J GRITT 9359 93934 WESLEY O WANTA 9360 93941 AARON PATTERSON 9361 93958 RADA PJESCIC 9362 93965 BOBAN ZIVKOV 9363 93972 DARWIN C STELLMACHER 9364 93989 SHARON PAGELS 9365 93996 ANTHONY J MATAJAC 9366 94009 GUY P DODA 9367 94016 HAROLD A GREENE

9368 9369 9370 9371 9372

94023 STUART B BROOKS 94030 DAVID SPRINGER 94047 RANDY HANSEN 94054 JOHN M FOLLETT 94061 GREGORY D FOX

9373 9374 9375 9376 9377 9378 9379 9380 9381 9382 9383 9384 9385

94078 LESTER L CONNOR 94085 SCOTT A NEST 94092 LEON KENNETH BLAND 94108 PAUL DAENTL 94115 TERRENCE D MCCULLEN 94122 DENISE WATERMAN 94139 MARY PAULA SIERLECKI 94146 MARK BERGNER 94153 JIM JONES 94160 MICHAEL PRZLOMSKI 94177 AMY ELIASON 94184 MICHAEL WELLS 94191 JEFF ALAN REDEPENNING

9386 9387 9388 9389 9390 9391 9392 9393 9394 9395 9396 9397 9398 9399 9400 9401 9402 9403 9404 9405 9406 9407 9408 9409 9410 9411 9412

94207 BRIAN WILSON 94214 LORNA DOERING 94221 BRETT ROBERT TOLLAKSEN 94238 JAMES ARTHUR WALLS 94245 SHAWN CHARLES BEHLENDORF 94252 SHANE A JOHNSON 94269 LORI WISNICKY 94276 KENNETH OSTROWSKI 94283 BRYAN DUANE GAREY 94290 ANTHONY PAUL JOSEPH 94306 STEVE ALSTON 94313 DAVID N PATCHEN 94320 BRIAN CHRISTENSEN 94337 RYAN JOSHUA HAASE 94344 JOSE FELIX 94351 STEPHEN WILLIAM SAUER 94368 JASON LILLIE 94375 ERIC A MCKERNAN 94382 DARMINDER SINGH 94399 PIOTR MARIUSZ MACHNIKOWSKY 94405 DOUGLAS G SHINKER 94412 JOSEPH STOKES 94429 MICHAEL STANKE 94436 GARY REITH 94443 TIM S KETTERHAGEN 94450 RANDY G HANZEL 94467 MYRON SHERRY

Company Name 1 PEEK VENTURES LLC
GOOTEE'S INC MA KEEFF TRUCKING INC GK EXPRESS INC
TRUE GRITT DELIVERY, INC WANTA INC
MINIC MKR, INC

Company Name 2 PEEK VENTURES LLC

Company Name 3 PEEK VENTURES INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GUY DODA CONTRACTING INC CHALLENGE ENTERPRISES OF DEPERE

RALAH INC J M F SPECIAL SERVICES FOXY'S DELIVERY SERVICE; FOXYS DELIVERY SERVICE LST WOLF EXPRESS INC NST INCORPORATED

NEVADA NEXT DAY DELIVERY INC
MERRY WAY, LLC E & M DELIVERY, INC AFAB OR TWO INC PRZLOMSKI'S P & D SERVICES, INC

MERRY WAY, INC

RED ROCKET DELIVERY
WILSON EXPRESS INCORPORATED
WHEELS OF STEEL LLC JAMES A WALLS LLC

RED ROCKET TRANSPORT INC

BMG LOGISTICS LLC WISOTA ENTERPRISES INC
R HAASE DELIVERY LLC FLASH MCGEE INC E&K EXPRESS INC EUROPLASTIC DGS HD, INC M&M DELIVERY INC
HANZEL PACKAGE, INC MYRON SHERRY INC

B A D ENTERPRISE INC R HAASE DELIVERY, INC

Page 151 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 159 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9413 94474 THOMAS L WILLIAMS 9414 94481 JOSEPH LEBLANC 9415 94498 ROBERT ERBENTRAUT 9416 94504 MARK E BIRKETT 9417 94511 JEFFREY KELLER 9418 94528 JOHN GRABOWSKI 9419 94535 MARCIA VANDESTREEK 9420 94542 CHRIS KILEY 9421 94559 BRIAN PETERSON 9422 94566 DARRELL TOKARSKI 9423 94573 JERRY LEQUE 9424 94580 DIONNE WOMACK 9425 94597 STEVEN LAMON 9426 94603 KENNETH LYLE MATHEYS 9427 94610 MARK THIENE KRUEGER 9428 94627 DAVID R SEMROW 9429 94634 ANDREW PAUL MACBETH HICKLING 9430 94641 MICHAEL MCKIBBIN

9431 9432 9433 9434 9435 9436 9437 9438 9439 9440 9441 9442 9443 9444 9445 9446 9447 9448 9449 9450 9451 9452 9453 9454 9455 9456 9457 9458 9459 9460 9461 9462 9463 9464 9465 9466 9467 9468 9469 9470 9471 9472 9473 9474 9475

94658 JEFF RETZAK 94665 SHAYNE GORDON HASTINGS 94672 ANDRZEJ GASIK 94689 JOSHUA C HUGHES 94696 CHAD ALLEN LINDBERG 94702 JEFFREY BOEKHOLDER 94719 SUZETTE NIKODEM 94726 FIKO SELIMOVIC 94733 POR YANG 94740 JOSE DAVID RIVERA 94757 TOUYA TOBI YANG 94764 CARLOS FORTIS 94771 GERALD BENNETT 94788 PEDER HANSEN 94795 STEVEN HAEBIG 94801 BRUCE ROBERT ATKINSON 94818 BRUCE STEBNITZ 94825 TIMOTHY LEE MILLER 94832 BRIAN F KUBE 94849 RON KEILHOLZ 94856 TOM CASPER 94863 TODD BORN 94870 RYAN KEITH ROMENS 94887 DUANE GRIFF 94894 STANLEY MERLIN QUAMME 94900 KEITH SCOTT STACHURSKI 94917 MIKE SCHWARTZ 94924 TODD BEATTY 94931 DANIEL JOSKI 94948 DARWYN SUNDELL 94955 M BEAUDETTE 94962 ERIC BLOCK 94979 GERALD LEE ERICKSON 94986 TODD JONES 94993 CABOT L LITZER 95006 KEVIN GAHAN 95013 DALE LEE BAKER 95020 DENNIS L VIETH 95037 JOHN KURT 95044 CHAD KUNEY 95051 MATT BOARDMAN 95068 CRAIG WEBB 95075 DAVID E DAHLMANN 95082 CYNDI BORNEMANN 95099 GEORGE MCCARTHY

Company Name 1 TJJ INC JAL ENTERPRISES INC M&N BIRKETT INC
LM WOLFRUN, INC RAPITRANZ LLC
WOMART EXPRESS INC KL MATHEYS LLC SEMROW TRANSPORT LLC MAC ENTERPRISES INC; MAC ENTERPRISES, INC

Company Name 2

DMC DELIVERY INC KDM EXPRESS INC

TTY DELIVERY LLC FORTIS TRANSPORTATION INC J BENNETT TRUCKING INC HANSEN DELIVERY INC FULL DRAW INC

B KUBE TRUCKING INC KEILHOLZ, INC K-TOWN TRUST TODDS TIRE & WHEEL INC A M D G CORP
INTEGRITY TOOLS INC THE FLORAL CONNECTION
DANIEL T JOSKI INC
K T SERVICE BLOCK TRANSIT INC ERICKSON SERVICES INC

T DOUBLE C

STOP DROP AND ROLL LLC
I CAN TRUCKING LLC
BOARDMAN INC CNTZ INC
CYNDI'S EXPRESS MCCARTHY MOTORSPORTS; MCCARTHY MOTORSPORTS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

ROUTE RUNNERS INC

Page 152 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 160 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9476 95105 ERICK S SEBERO 9477 95112 ALONZO MCCLUNG 9478 95129 WAYNE MATTHEW TRIMBELL 9479 95136 KEITH GREGORY 9480 95143 ROGER LANDOWSKI 9481 95150 XIOUNG YANG 9482 95167 RICKEY EUGENE WEST 9483 95174 AARON MICHAEL VANDENBUSCH 9484 95181 MIKE MURDOCK 9485 95198 ANDREW LAST 9486 95204 ED RABUCK

9487 9488 9489 9490 9491 9492 9493 9494 9495 9496 9497 9498 9499 9500 9501 9502 9503 9504 9505 9506 9507 9508 9509 9510 9511 9512 9513 9514 9515 9516 9517 9518 9519 9520 9521 9522 9523 9524 9525 9526 9527 9528 9529

95211 KENNETH AMUNDSON 95228 BRUCE HANSON 95235 RICHARD MALINOWSKI 95242 BRETT LEE CAREY 95259 KEN NELSON 95266 BENJAMIN NICKEL 95273 JAMES CHOI 95280 KEVIN PETERSON 95297 JASON REUTER 95303 AARON JOHN CUNNINGHAM 95310 WIN CONSULTING CORP 95327 JEFF ROHN 95334 KARLTON D KING 95341 KIP RUBENZER 95358 JOHN W CARLSON 95365 LANE ROBERT BASHAW 95372 ROMAN A WELLS 95389 KENNETH NAEF 95396 ZAID KIRATA 95402 LYNN C DIETER 95419 BRAD GEORGE WENTZEL 95426 HOWARD MILLER 95433 PATRICK SOMMERS 95440 DARYL JAEGER 95457 JAMES C REUTER 95464 PAM HAFFEY 95471 RUSSELL LARSON 95495 GARY S SAFER 95501 MICHAEL DAVID SHOEDER 95518 JOSEPH F IACAMPO 95525 RICK C KARN 95532 TIM ORCHOLSKI 95549 JAMES J ANDERSON 95556 BRUCE KURSZEWSKI 95563 CHRISTOPHER REDMAN 95570 WILLIAM KUGEL 95587 AARON ANTHONY BOYD 95594 RICKY JOHN STAEVEN 95600 TIM B FRANK 95617 MARGE KEESEN 95624 JEREMY DENNEE 95631 GARY NYMAN 95648 JOHN DOUGLAS KRAUS

9530 9531 9532 9533 9534 9535 9536 9537 9538

95655 JIM CHARNIAK 95662 DAVID L FURRU 95679 CRAIG THOMAS 95686 SCOTT LEITZKE 95693 PHILLIP ANTHONY KASUBASKI 95709 TONYA DUPUIS 95716 MICHAEL BRAUN 95723 TALON MYERS 95730 THOMAS WESCOTT

Company Name 1 SEBERO TRUCKING, INC
TRIMBELL TRANSPORTATION LLC
R L DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

KUSTOMS LLC MURDOCK INC ROCKET DELIVERY RABUCK'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC; RRDS, INC AMUNDSON INC SCHMENGE INC NORTH COAST LTD BMC DELIVERIES INC
NICKEL TRUCKING INC

KUSTOMS SERVICE INC

JREUTER TRUCKING, INC A J LOGISTICS INC
ROHN TRANSPORT INC LOCOMOTION SPECIALTIES GROUP JRT LOGISTICS LLC JWC INC
RAW P&D SERVICE INC NAEF ENTERPRISES INC

SINGLETREE SERVICES INC
PHAT PAT LLC ADAKA SERVICES INC PAKMULE INC
RJL ENTERPRISES INC BAGGS INC

KARN TRUCKING INC

BMK TRUCKING, INC REDEX INC KUGLER INC
STUFF HAULER INC
GATOR INC
THIRD W INC MTS TRANSPORT LLC; MTS TRANSPORT, LLC
GAINING GROUND LLC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 153 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 161 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9539 95747 DAVID PATRICK KUEHL

9540 9541 9542 9543 9544 9545 9546 9547 9548 9549 9550 9551 9552 9553 9554 9555 9556 9557 9558 9559 9560

95754 JEFFREY SEQUEIRA 95761 SINISA DERIKONJA 95778 WAYNE JOHNSON 95785 WAYNE G BARBER 95792 RON SWAIN 95808 JEFFREY G FRIEVALT 95815 MARK C MIREAU 95822 TIMOTHY C WILLIAMS 95839 GREGORY KIRBY 95846 EDWIN A HAFENSTEIN 95853 RANDALL L HARTLE 95860 RANDOLF MUNGER 95877 GREG GERGETZ 95884 ANTHONY EVANS 95891 RODNEY ALLEN LINDBERG 95907 CLAYANN M GEISSLER 95914 JOHN MARCOULLIER 95921 THOMAS PRODELL 95938 RODNEY HILL 95945 DAVID WOLFF 95952 TERRY MICHAEL STRASSER

9561 95969 MARTIN FANNIN 9562 95976 DORAN L JORGENSON 9563 95983 MARK GEORGE RUEDEN

9564 9565 9566 9567 9568 9569 9570 9571 9572 9573 9574 9575 9576 9577 9578 9579

95990 JEFF LEMKE 96003 THOMAS JOHN GIESE 96010 JUSTIN LUCAS 96027 JON D DOUGALL 96034 JEANNINE M COLEMAN 96041 SHAWN RONALD KLUBERTANZ 96058 MARTIN DALRYMPLE 96065 TIM PETER KOMOROWSKI 96072 MARK VANDEN WYNGAARD 96089 JOSEPH BROWN 96096 RICK BOSCH 96102 SHAWN ANGLEMYER 96119 BRIAN BLOCK 96126 PAUL HOPPE 96133 BRADLEY THOMAS BLAKE 96140 THOMAS D SCHROEDER

9580 96157 THERESA ANN NOOYEN

9581 9582 9583 9584 9585 9586 9587 9588 9589 9590 9591 9592 9593 9594 9595 9596 9597 9598

96164 BRIAN HAYS 96171 CRAIG REDNER 96188 SCOTT OLSON 96195 FRANK PATRICK CLINE 96201 PAUL ALBRECHT 96218 DANIEL J DAWSON 96225 XE XIONG 96232 VONG XIONG 96249 GEROMY YANG 96256 RODNEY M ST PIERRE 96263 JOHN P CHAPMAN 96270 RONALD ALBERT DESORCY 96287 BILL SWANSON 96294 EDWARD JOHN PRESTAS JR 96300 SUSAN WEIBLER 96317 PAUL T PARRIS 96324 STEVEN JOHNSON 96331 CHRISTOPHER CHARLES LOCHER

Company Name 1 SAVING FORE VEGAS LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

FOREWARD DELIVERY INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

WAYNE'S PLACE LLC R & L PACKAGE SERVICE INC PENMARK LOGISTICS INC
RANDAN SERVICES INC

QUAD ENTERPRISES LLC RODNEY'S TRUCKING INC

DIVERSIFIED INSTALLATION SERVICE, INC MP FANNIN INC

RUDYS GROUND TRANSPORT LLC
J LEMKE INC NORTHERN DOOR TRUCKING INC LUCAS LOGISTICS DOUGALL TRUCKING INC STOP DROP AND ROLL LLC KLUBERTANZ DELIVERY INC

RUEDEN ENTERPRISES INC

KOMOROWSKI SERVICES LLC

HARDCORE DELIVERY INC BIG SKY TRUCKING INC ANGLEMYER ENTERPRISES

SMA TRANSFER, INC

BLAKE ENTERPRISES INC SUNSHINE TRANSPORTATION LLC
TNC DELIVERY LLC
WHITETAIL EXPRESS DELIVERY

SUNSHINE TRANSPORTATION INC TNC DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

KNIGHT DELIVERY INC

ARVIA INC P & L ALBRECHT, INC DANIEL J DAWSON LLC

DANIEL DAWSON, INC

SW ENTERPRISE PAUL PARRIS INC INFOCUS MEDICAL IMAGING CHRIS CO INC

Page 154 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 162 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9599 96348 DONALD WILLIAM VOIGTS 9600 96355 THOMAS KRIESCHER 9601 96362 CONSTANCE O ANDERSON 9602 96379 JAMES A BRANDT 9603 96386 DONALD SELLNER 9604 96393 PETER JAMES LOVELAND 9605 96409 ANDRE JAMES LOVELAND

9606 9607 9608 9609 9610

96416 DEAN JANOWICZ 96423 THOMAS SZYMANSKI 96430 TODD A PALUBICKI 96447 DALE STEVEN DORSCHNER 96454 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL KOMOROWSKI

9611 9612 9613 9614 9615 9616 9617 9618 9619 9620 9621 9622 9623 9624 9625 9626 9627 9628 9629 9630 9631 9632 9633 9634 9635

96461 GARY BARNES 96478 MARCUS BYRD 96485 MITCHELL ALLEN LUKASAVAGE 96492 JOSEPH CHARLES NENNIG JR 96508 TIMOTHY BOUVINE 96515 JAMES ARNOLD 96522 MICHAEL S LESHOK 96539 SHAWN PATRICK WALSH 96546 MICHAEL J HERRICK 96553 ROGER KATZKE 96560 PAUL ROCKEY 96577 DAN MCPHETRIDGE 96584 ANDREW RYAN PAULSON 96591 LEONEL AMORIM ENES 96607 BOBBIE JOE PALMER 96614 LEE YANG 96621 WILBERT BUCK 96638 MIKE KABACINSKI 96645 STEPHEN M HAMILTON 96652 THOMAS HILGENDORF 96669 ROBERT OBERMEIER 96676 JAMES O HENNING 96683 RONALD REINHARDT 96690 KEVIN HAROLD KIRST 96706 JAMES LOUIS BEHRENS

9636 9637 9638 9639 9640 9641 9642 9643 9644 9645 9646 9647 9648 9649 9650 9651 9652 9653 9654 9655 9656 9657 9658 9659 9660

96713 JEFF WIMMER 96720 ARTHUR FROEMKE 96737 MICHAEL WAKSMONSKI 96744 JAMES KOEHN 96751 DAVID M STADT 96768 ROBERT TADDER 96775 BOB GUGGENBUEHL 96782 ROBERT FRANK BIECHLER JR 96799 ERIK M JUSTESEN 96805 DANIEL BRANIGAN 96812 DAVID GARDNER 96829 ANDREW LEHMAN 96836 DANIEL RUNDE 96843 SHANE RASMUSSEN 96850 BARBARA MOORE 96867 LEE PETERS 96874 LORI ANN GOCHEE 96881 JEFF EVERY 96898 RICHARD D JENQUIN 96904 BRIAN R TALLMAN 96911 RORY KEMPF 96928 KENYA DESHAWN DANIEL 96935 TONI HOUSE 96942 DEAN WILLIAM BROWN 96959 TODD EDWARD GREUEL

Company Name 1 DONCIN TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

MARANATHA DELIVERIES INC
PETE LOVELAND INC ROYAL PRIDE ENGRAVING INC DBA RPE ENTERPRISES INC
T S M DELIVERY INC
SONIC DELIVERY, INC CMK DELIVERY LLC
BYRD DYRECT

KOMOROWSKI DELIVERY INC

M S L DELIVERY OF WISCONSIN, INC

RJ KATZKE TRUCKING, INC
DANIEL J MCPHETRIDGE LLC SIGNATURE SEEKERS INC ENES COURIER SERVICE INC BJ PALMER DELIVERIES INC
B & C CONSUMER SERVICES INC

ASHLAND WINDOWS-DOORS & MORE

JLAR INC

JLAR ENTERPRISES INC

CRN TRANSPORT LLC J & N DELIVERY SERVICES LLC
WIMMER DELIVERY, INC ARF, LLC MIKE SKI DELIVERY INC

CRN EXPRESS INC J & N DELIVERY SERVICES INC

TADDER CORP BOBBY G'S DELIVERY R F BIECHLER TRANSPORT INC

POCKET ROCKET, INC DTR VENTURES INC SHANE'S P&D INC
BRN DERBY INC
EVERY TIME DELIVERY INC GODSPEED LLC
KEMPF GROUP INC DAN CORP INVESTMENTS INC
DWB ENTERPRISE LLC T G TRUCKING INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 155 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 163 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9661 96966 GRANT WAYNE EVANS JR 9662 96973 GUY FREDERICKSON 9663 96980 DEAN PAPROCKI 9664 96997 VIRGIL SYKES 9665 97000 JOSEPH BIWERSI 9666 97017 ROXANNE KLOSS 9667 97024 JOSHUA D STARR 9668 97031 KIM FLOCK 9669 97048 BRIAN MORSE 9670 97055 RICHARD ALLEN HALVORSEN 9671 97062 LEO H SUTANTODINATA 9672 97079 BLONG YANG 9673 97086 AIDAS DARVIDAS 9674 97093 GARY D STIELOW 9675 97109 DANIEL L BACKES 9676 97116 SERGEY ZASLAVSKIY 9677 97123 WAYNE SHEPARD 9678 97130 ROBERT D CREASEY 9679 97147 WILLIAM CHARLES FEITEN 9680 97154 ROBERT OBRIEN 9681 97161 MICHAEL DICKEY 9682 97178 GARY SWENSON 9683 97185 SCOTT WARD 9684 97192 RODNEY J KARABA 9685 97208 GREG ALTENBURG 9686 97215 DANIEL ELIJAH BROWN 9687 97222 GREG KELLOGG 9688 97239 KEN M RUMMEL 9689 97246 KARA NIELSEN 9690 97253 GARY AUSTIN 9691 97260 ROBERT HOUSTON 9692 97277 TODD ALLEN PETERSON 9693 97284 DONALD L OLSEN 9694 97291 SHARON GRINDLE 9695 97307 SCOTT ODEGAARD 9696 97314 ANTHONY CURTIS 9697 97321 JON MICHAEL WINSKE 9698 97338 PETE Z SIAWAY 9699 97345 DANIEL T DOYLE 9700 97352 CHRISTOPHER A TEUTEBERG 9701 97369 BRADLEY E MOELLENBERNDT 9702 97376 COREY ALAN SCHULZ 9703 97383 TIMOTHY DONALD SHELTON 9704 97390 STEVEN IBE 9705 97406 BRIAN KIELPIKOWSKI 9706 97413 MICHELE JACOBSON 9707 97420 DANIEL KEITH DEWITT 9708 97437 ERIC ROBERT ANDERSON 9709 97444 DANIEL LOUIS MEINHARDT 9710 97451 JENNIFER STRATTON 9711 97468 MARCUS WILLIAM MCCAIN 9712 97475 PREDRAG MASTILOVIC

9713 9714 9715 9716 9717 9718 9719 9720 9721 9722 9723 9724

97482 PAUL T CHRISTIE 97499 GARY LARSON 97505 JEAN STECHER 97512 BRUCE T PUNG 97529 DWAYNE MILLER 97536 JEFFREY KIMMES 97543 MARK FISCHER 97550 EDWARD PASTOREK 97567 MARK JOHN LEHL 97574 STEPHANIE HART 97581 GARY R ROTHER 97598 PAUL MCGIVERN

Company Name 1
G&K DELIVERY SERVICES INC DEANPAP INC
JB DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GOLDEN BRIDGES INC YZ'S DELIVERY SERVICES INC DARVIDAS LTD M&G EXPRESS INC
CAZ - 59 EXPRESS INC
WILLIAM C FEITEN & COMPANY SHAMROCK DELIVERY, INC

ALTY ENTERPRISES, INC
CBL HOME DELIVERY CO FOREGROUND LLC IBTIS INC AUSTIN EXPRESS INC BEST FRIENDS DELIVERS LLC PETERSONS DELIVERY LLC

T & N DELIVERY INC

GMR INC C & T CONTRACTING INC
CNA DELIVERY INC SHELTON EXPRESS INC
K-TOWN TRUST
CCG TRUCKING INC DANIKKI DELIVERY INC
MASTILOVIC TRUCKING INCORPORATED P T C INC DROP N RUN INC

PACKAGE PRINCESS INC

JAMES A HART INC

Page 156 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 164 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9725 97604 BRET PLOECKELMANN 9726 97611 REGINA L SANFORD 9727 97628 LARRY LOVELL JACKSON 9728 97635 MATTHEW KUSTERS 9729 97642 DOMINIC LUPO 9730 97659 MICHAEL STUBBE 9731 97666 WILLIAM C GRADY 9732 97673 STEVE KOSLO 9733 97680 RANDALL D BREY 9734 97697 ALLEN GIFFORD 9735 97703 MICHAEL K STOLTZ 9736 97710 MARK RODNEY WILLIAMS 9737 97727 LAVONNE L WINGER 9738 97734 CLINT MARTIN HEYROTH 9739 97741 AARON PERRY 9740 97758 DOUGLAS CRAWLEY 9741 97765 BERNARD JAMES MCMAHON 9742 97772 JAMES W KOST 9743 97789 CORY M BRADASERIC 9744 97796 PAT MANIKOWSKI 9745 97802 PATRICK BAARS 9746 97819 THOMAS HAHM 9747 97826 KYLE C KOLKA 9748 97833 BRADLEY JAY WEILAND 9749 97840 WILLIAM RICCHIO 9750 97857 PAUL J RICCHIO 9751 97864 DAVID RADTKE 9752 97871 RUSSELL L TILOT 9753 97888 YURI KRUGLYY 9754 97895 PETE KNEBEL 9755 97901 ARTHUR PUCZYLOWSKI 9756 97918 DANIELLE SUE CONNOR 9757 97925 BARRY JAMES MULROY 9758 97932 GARY VAUBEL 9759 97949 DONALD BRUNNER 9760 97956 SAMMY JEROME DUERST 9761 97963 ROBERT POKRZYWINSKI 9762 97970 MATTHEW JOSEPH HABLEWITZ 9763 97987 KARL K HOEPPNER

9764 9765 9766 9767 9768 9769 9770 9771 9772 9773 9774 9775 9776 9777 9778 9779 9780 9781 9782 9783 9784 9785 9786 9787 9788

97994 TERRY ALBERTI 98014 WAYNE DAVID BUTOR 98021 RANDY SHAFER 98038 MARSHALL M GRONEWOLD 98045 DENNIS USELMANN 98052 KELLY MCCOY 98069 MICHAEL HERMAN 98076 RICHARD J KUJAK 98083 CLARK FETZER 98090 CHAD J RENNIE 98106 BRIAN PLOWMAN 98113 ROBERT M WIZA 98120 DAVID DECLEENE 98137 MITCHELL ALAN BRITTON 98144 KENNETH P STORCK 98151 RANDY SCOTT YOCUM 98168 TODD MIELKE 98175 BRIAN K BARNES 98182 MICHEL LEMIEUX 98199 JASON PFIEFFER 98205 THOMAS PALLASKE 98212 JOHN PATRICK MELCHER 98229 ANTHONY PEACOCK 98236 JEFFREY STEFONEK 98243 MICHAEL DAVID BECK

Company Name 1
NO TOP TRUCKING CORP
PRIDE VALLEY TRANSPORT LTD GRADY DELIVERY INC KOZ MOTORS BREY EXPRESS INC

Company Name 2

WINGIN IT DELIVERY LLC
CRAWLEY INC BROOKS JAY TRANSPORTATION INC BERJER INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

LANDSSTAR ENTERPRISE LLC DEVIL DOG EXPRESS LLC WEILAND DELIVERY BTR ENTERPRISES INC PJRICCHIO INC
RLT & SGT, INC
JOLO TRUCKING A&J DELIVERY INC
BJM EXPRESS, INC VAUBEL INC M&D EXPRESS INC LUGNUTS INC
HAULIN IT INC HOEPPER LLI

ECOTRAX INC WEILAND TRANSPORT INC TILOT DELIVERY INC
HOEPPNER TRUCKING, INC

WAYNES WORK LLC MARSHALL EXPRESS , INC

WAYNES WORK ONC

ROAD KINGS INC

MICHAEL HERMAN INCORPORATED

RENNIE-GADE EXPRESS, INC BP TRUCKING INC
BUGSPLAT INC

YOCUM ENTERPRISES INC MIELKE EXPRESS INC

RANDY'S TRUCKING LLC

J PFEIFFER INC PALLASKE INC LOST JOHNNY ENTERPRISES INC T R PEACOCK, INC

Page 157 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 165 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9789 98250 WILLIAM FISCHER

9790 9791 9792 9793 9794 9795 9796 9797 9798 9799 9800 9801 9802 9803 9804 9805 9806 9807 9808 9809 9810 9811 9812 9813 9814 9815 9816 9817 9818 9819 9820 9821 9822 9823 9824 9825 9826 9827 9828 9829 9830 9831 9832 9833 9834 9835 9836 9837 9838 9839 9840 9841 9842 9843 9844 9845 9846 9847 9848 9849 9850 9851 9852

98267 WILLIAM H GARSKE 98274 KELLY SCHROEDER 98281 ALAN GBUREK 98298 AL WOLF 98304 ARTURO A CUEVAS 98311 BRENT KRUIZENGA 98328 TIMOTHY JOESPH MCTIER 98335 JOHN RUSSELL 98342 AARON JOHNSON 98359 JAMES R HOUSTON 98366 LARRY NONNENMACHER 98373 MICHAEL LEE SOLL 98380 LAUREL DOLAN 98397 DON BIGELOW 98403 PHYLLIS ANN FARRELLY 98410 DAVID A CHIRAFISI 98427 ROBERT SCHMIDT 98434 ROBERT JAMES STENBERG 98441 WILLIAM KLEMZ 98458 MICHAEL D DANSBY 98465 RICHARD FENRICK 98472 GERALD DONLEY 98489 DEBRA KAY COPPAGE 98496 CHARLES WAYNE HOPFENSPERGER 98502 MIKE KITKOWSKI 98519 JAMES BAYARD 98526 GLENN A BILLER 98533 BART RADKE 98540 JODY L RAMSEIER 98557 KEVIN BRUSHABER 98564 MARK JAY HORNBACHER 98571 JOSEPH LOPEZ 98588 KEVIN HETZEL 98595 SCOTT DOUGLASS WRIGHT 98601 SCOTT ALAN KLUGE 98618 PAUL I ORR 98625 CHAQUITTA MEDONYA COLLINS 98632 ANTONIO L PERRY 98649 BRIAN K HYLLENGREN 98656 RANDY WERCHEK 98663 D DEAN HOFF 98670 JAMES TYRONE HARDIN JR 98687 JOHN CHAPMAN 98694 LYVONG VUE 98700 GABRIEL LEE SCHUR 98717 RONALD HILL 98724 CURTIS LEONARD ELWOOD 98731 JOSEPH A SANDOR 98748 KEITH OLSON 98755 SCOTT MATTHEW WOLF 98762 JAMES E VIETH 98779 JEFFREY ALAN KACZKOWSKI 98786 SALLY RUDEBECK 98793 LEO RITTENHOUSE 98809 TERESA WALKER 98816 JIMMY DARRELL MILLER 98823 JAMIE LEE WILLIAMS 98830 GARY SMITH 98847 EUSEBIO ENRIQUE GUEVARA 98854 BENJAMIN HAMILTON MARTIN 98861 JOHN PAUL NICHOLS 98878 GARY NELSON WARD 98885 CLYDE LAWSON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

DIVERSIFIED INSTALLATION SERVICE WILD BILL'S EXPRESS, INC WJD DELIVERY, INC

INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

ANG TRANSPORT INC TRIPLE A, M & W TRANSPORT INC CUEVAR SERVICE

RUSSELL DISTRIBUTING INC
HOUSTON TRUCKING INC
MLS SERVICES INC
1ST FREIGHT EXPRESS P M FARRELLY'S INC DAC EXPRESS INC TURNBERRY, INC KENGENELK DELIVERY SERVICE INC

KITKOWSKI ENTERPRISES LLC BLACK RIVER CARRIERS
PLETHORA OF SYNERGY, INC
K & R HETZEL INC WRIGHT ONE LLC
KAZEE MANAGEMENT LLC BKH DELIVERY INC RJW INC MIXTURE TRANSPORT, LLC HEAT LLC VONG ENTERPRISES INC
ELWOOD EXPRESS LLC TYRION INC
J KAZ, INC
JD CONTRACTING INC

MJK DELIVERY INC
S WRIGHT INC K Z CONNECTIONS INC
ELWOOD XPRESS INC

C LAWSON TRUCKING INC

Page 158 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 166 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9853 98892 STEVEN D REYNOLDS 9854 98908 WILLIAM LAUZON 9855 98915 CRAIG SEBASTIAN 9856 98922 WALDEN RAY RIFFE III 9857 98939 GARY DALE DAVIS 9858 98946 WILLIAM T ASHBY 9859 98953 JEFFERY B STEAGALL 9860 98960 EJLIN DADANOVIC 9861 98977 ERIC CAMPBELL 9862 98984 GERALD GREGORY 9863 98991 LARRY ADAMSON 9864 99004 DUNCAN SHIPLEE 9865 99011 DEE HAMILTON 9866 99028 DWIGHT THOMAS 9867 99035 KEITH KNOWLES 9868 99042 HAROLD J TOMES 9869 99059 LARRY R LEEDY 9870 99066 CHAD MILLER 9871 99073 EDWIN WALKER 9872 99080 CHRISTOPHER LIGHTNER 9873 99097 DAVID STEVEN LEET 9874 99103 ROBERT SCOTT HUMPHREYS 9875 99110 SAMMY NAPIER 9876 99127 COLIN BAKER 9877 99134 JOSEPH CONNER CAMPBELL 9878 99158 TIMOTHY KELVIN ORCUTT 9879 99165 MIKE MATHEWS 9880 99172 JAMES VALENTINE 9881 99189 BRIAN STEVEN BELCHER 9882 99196 TERRENCE AUGUST BRICKING 9883 99202 CARL MORRIS 9884 99219 WESLEY KENTON ISAACS 9885 99226 KENT MCCROD 9886 99233 TED L WEINER 9887 99240 SCOTT ALAN DREHER 9888 99257 JONATHAN LANE SKAGGS

9889 9890 9891 9892 9893 9894 9895 9896 9897 9898 9899 9900 9901 9902 9903 9904 9905 9906 9907

99264 RICK HENDRIX 99271 KRISTOPHER KLOCKENTEGER 99288 TENA BOLEN 99295 GEORGE D SKILES 99301 RANDALL KEEN 99318 RICHARD WILLHOITE 99325 TOBY BROWN 99332 DARRELL ROBINSON 99349 FRED GHOUJEGHI 99356 ROBERT JAMES COLE 99363 TIMOTHY MARCUS WHITE 99370 CANDACE CAPRA 99387 ROLLIE JACKSON II 99394 JOSEPH B BURNETT 99400 CHRIS LEE COURTNEY 99417 TIMOTHY GRAVIL 99424 CHARLES TRACY SHARP 99431 JEFFREY SOARD 99448 MARCUS MASTERS

9908 9909 9910 9911 9912 9913 9914 9915

99455 RYAN JAMES NICHOLSON 99462 YVONNA SHEWARD 99479 THOMAS B WORSHAM 99486 DOUGLAS PHIPPS 99493 MIKE KINNAIRD 99509 HAROLD MIKE NAPIER 99516 JODY LEE HELLARD SR 99523 JAMES PATRICK SIZEMORE

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

GARY DAVIS, INC
C AND P DELIVERY, INC EJLIN DADANOVIC CORPORATION

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

D T ENTERPRISES INC
LRL INCORPORATED MILLER COMMERCIAL PROP INC

PINE BLUFF DELIVERY INC

MATTHEWS ENTERPRISES LLC DOUBLE V DELIVERY, INC BELCHER EXPRESS INC BRICKING, INC

MATTHEWS ENT INC

MCCORD TRUCKING INC

JONATHAN SKAGGS TRUCKING LLC INVESTMENT CO INC

JONATHAN SKAGGS TRUCKING, INC

ECT TRUCKING INC
DUKIES INC HUNTER BROWN TRANSPORT INC

TMW SERVICES INC BROOKLEE INC
CT&K ENTERPRISES INC SHARPS SHIPPING INC SOARDFISH TRUCKING CO FUZZY GOAT INC
SHE-WARD INC TBW INC
HMN LLC CHASIN A DREAM TRUCKING INC

REVOLUZION TRUCKING INC

Page 159 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 167 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9916 99530 R CURTISS CHESNUT 9917 99547 CAROL ANNETTE LACHNER 9918 99554 ADRIAN WAYNE STACY 9919 99561 JOHN LOGAN 9920 99578 MICHAEL ALLEN VINCENT 9921 99585 RANDY LEE BALL 9922 99592 GEORGE COFER 9923 99608 GLENN P NAPIER II 9924 99615 JULIUS MANDEL IRVIN

9925 9926 9927 9928 9929 9930 9931 9932 9933 9934 9935 9936 9937 9938 9939 9940 9941 9942 9943 9944 9945 9946 9947 9948 9949 9950 9951 9952

99622 DENNIS J ROARK 99639 PHILLIP OGLES 99646 RICHARD TAYLOR 99653 RAYMOND KWALEK 99660 FREDERICK D WHITAKER 99677 STEPHEN LEE MOORE JR 99684 RYAN CASEY HOLLOWAY 99691 TONY LEMOND WILSON 99707 WILLIAM RUSSELL RATLIFF 99714 TIM C KALBFLEISCH 99721 PETERSON SOUZA PEREIRA 99738 RONNIE COLE 99745 RANDALL VICKERS 99752 RICHARD STORM 99769 CLAUDE T HOUSE 99776 LARRY STEVE HICKERSON 99783 CHARLES W MEEKS 99790 STEVEN HOUSE 99806 JOYCE ALLEN 99813 CHESTER STEWART 99820 HARRY BROWN 99837 RANDY FITZGERALD HASKINS 99844 MARK D CORSO 99851 DONALD E WETTIG 99868 WILLARD WILLOUGHBY 99875 MARK A LOVE 99882 CHRISTOPHER COOPER 99899 RONALD EARL MARTIN

9953 9954 9955 9956 9957 9958 9959

99905 TIMMY ENGLISH 99912 JOEL TYLER GREATHOUSE 99929 PAUL SPICER 99936 REGINA ANN WOOD 99943 GARY STIDHAM 99950 DIANA GILFORD 99967 BRIAN L ODUBOLA

9960 99974 BOB WILBURN 9961 99981 CHARLES C MEEKS 9962 99998 MICHAEL CHARLES MCWILLIAMS 9963 100007 CHRISTIAN JOHN MARWEDE 9964 100014 ELLIOT CAMPBELL

9965 100021 BRADLEY STURGILL 9966 100038 JEFFREY SCOTT VANHOOK 9967 100045 WESLEY OWEN MEREDITH 9968 100052 TIMOTHY W WATT 9969 100069 BENJAMIN TRAVIS DOTSON 9970 100076 JEFFREY D SLEDGE 9971 100083 STEVEN MICHAEL COX 9972 100090 STEPHEN EDWARD HATTON 9973 100106 LESLIE FRASURE 9974 100113 CHARLES PRICE 9975 100120 RANDALL L BEHAN

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

NAPIER LOGISTICS LLC GROUND ONE LOGISTICS LLC

NAPIER LOGISTICS, INC GROUND ONE LOGISTICS INC

STEVE MOORE TRUCKING, INC RDH DELIVERY SERVICE INC TW TRUCKING INC RATLIFF LLC
WILD 57'S
CARLISLE CONTRACTING LLC

S F HOUSE INC

ITRUCKN INC SKYHOPE TRANSPORT

ALLISON MARTIN TRUCKING INC; ALLISON MARTIN TRUCKING INCORPORATED ENGLISH DELIVERY SERVICE, INC GREATHOUSE TRUCKING INC BUGAR 4 SPICE INC
BEAR TRACKS LLC C&D TRANSPORT LLC B O PARCEL SYSTEMS INC

BEAR TRACKS INC
SOURCE ONE DELIVERY SOLUTIONS INC

MAK MAC TRUCKING, INC
ELLIOT CAMPBELL CONT INC; ELLIOT CAMPBELL CONTRACTNG INC
B & E TRUCKING, INC MEREDITH, INC

RATHER BE FISHING INC
FRASURE TAXIDERMY PRICE TRUCKING INC

Page 160 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 168 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 9976 100137 LEE J COLEMAN
9977 100144 EDDIE HALL 9978 100151 LAWRENCE RUSHING 9979 100168 STEVEN JUSTUS 9980 100175 DONALD KENT COYLE 9981 100182 BONNIE BENNETT 9982 100199 DAVID BUTLER 9983 100205 DALE EUGENE SHELL 9984 100212 MAYNARD KELLY NICKELL 9985 100229 JOSEPH MARK PHILLIPS 9986 100236 MELVIN MOCK 9987 100243 BRANDON BAEZ 9988 100250 JAMES DAVID GEE 9989 100267 THOMAS RUSSELL TRIBELL 9990 100274 SCOTT DEVLIN 9991 100281 C SHANE BREWER 9992 100298 STEPHEN MOORE 9993 100304 MAGUS GUDLAUGSSON 9994 100311 DUSTAIN VANCE 9995 100328 JOHN LEAR 9996 100335 WILLIAM HACKER 9997 100342 JERRY L PURCELL 9998 100359 TIMOTHY N PATTERSON 9999 100366 JOSEPH SMITH 10000 100373 TIM T WALDRIDGE 10001 100380 LARAMIE BARBER 10002 100397 DUSTIN FREE 10003 100403 JONATHAN SHAWN STACY 10004 100410 ROBERT KENTON LAWRENCE 10005 100427 CHRISTOPHER RICE 10006 100434 BRIAN ALAN DENNISON 10007 100441 MOUSA ALSHAIR 10008 100458 EDWARD D ELLENBERG 10009 100465 RUDOLPH COHEN 10010 100472 ERNEST WARREN JOHNSTON 10011 100489 BOBBY A ROBINSON 10012 100496 EDGAR RUBLE 10013 100502 JOHN WATSON FERGUSON 10014 100519 HAROLD W THOMPSON 10015 100526 CORDELL WEATHERFORD 10016 100533 RANDELL GLEN ROSE 10017 100540 LLOYD MYRON SHARP 10018 100557 KENNETH L HAMMOND 10019 100564 MICHAEL WHITTEMORE 10020 100571 SCOTT CARSKADAN 10021 100588 GARY W SHEPHERD 10022 100595 JENNIFER COOPER 10023 100601 JASONSCOTTKINMANKT SCOTT KINMAN 10024 100618 DOUGLAS BECKMANN 10025 100625 KENNETH WILLIAMS 10026 100632 JOHN SILVESTRI 10027 100649 GERALD F DOBUZINSKY 10028 100656 JERRY COMBS 10029 100663 CHARLES ALLEN DAVIS 10030 100670 DON EUGENE ESTES 10031 100687 JEREMY SULLIVAN 10032 100694 JOHN PATTERSON 10033 100700 STEVEN B ELKINS 10034 100717 CHRIS MAHONEY 10035 100724 PATRICK BRYAN 10036 100731 SHAWN R JOHNPIERE 10037 100748 BRIAN BELISLE 10038 100755 RICHARD M LANGLEY 10039 100762 DAVID M LUCE

Company Name 1 ESTILL L & M ENTERPRISES INC
RUSHING DELIVERY SERVICE INC S R JUSTUS INC PICK FOUR EXPRESS INC
BLUE I D NDN INC
J D GEE INC TRIBELL INC MAINWAY CAFE INC
DAYSTAR TRUCKING INC HACKER TRANSPORTATION INC PATTERSON TRANSPORTATION
DAF ENTERPRISES LLC BMA DELIVERY INC RED SHARK TRANSPORT LTD CO DENNISON TRANSPORT INC ALSHAIR INC
RUBLE'S DELIVERY SERVICE, INC
WEATHERFORD TRUCKING INC
KENNETH HAMMOND INC STC SERVICES INC
JSK DELIVERIES INC
GROUND ONE, INC
BIG JOHN TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 2 BUTCH AND RON TRUCKING
J D GEE INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GEE PLUS 3 INC

Page 161 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 169 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10040 100779 BRIAN MILLER 10041 100786 JAMES A COX 10042 100793 LARRY WILLIAMS 10043 100809 BARRY STEVEN HOUSE 10044 100816 DARRELL W DENTON 10045 100823 PHIL BEGLEY 10046 100830 JOE DIXON 10047 100847 BRIAN DOYLE 10048 100854 WILLIAM CREIGHTON SPURLOCK 10049 100861 ROBERT FLOYD 10050 100878 JEFFREY ROJAS 10051 100885 TONY RHINEHEIMER 10052 100892 SCOTT JACKSON BARTLEY 10053 100908 SHANE LEWIS 10054 100915 SCOTT GARVIN 10055 100922 MITCHEL BRYANT GRIM 10056 100939 JUSTIN GEARLDS
10057 100946 ASHLEY DANIEL SHEFFIELD
10058 100953 BRETT L COOK 10059 100960 BRIAN FREKING 10060 100977 TIMOTHY WINSTON MILLER 10061 100984 CASEY M SHERIDAN
10062 100991 BRIAN PAUL BONENFANT 10063 101004 NELSON AVILES 10064 101011 STERLING BAGLEY 10065 101028 DAVID RICHARD ALLING 10066 101035 ROBERT W KAYLOR 10067 101042 TONY JOHNSON 10068 101059 ARTHUR HENSLEY 10069 101066 RONALD L ROMES 10070 101073 CARL C HESTER
10071 101080 HARRY ROWE 10072 101097 JOCELYN CHANG 10073 101103 LINCOLN PHILLIP GILLON 10074 101110 LEON BALES 10075 101127 DAVID LEE THOMPSON 10076 101134 JOSEPH KEVIN CRADY 10077 101141 CRAIG RHO 10078 101158 TYLER WILLIAM SCHOLEFIELD
10079 101165 CHUCK HAYDEN
10080 101172 BRIAN JOSEPH DONOGHUE 10081 101189 JAMIE LUKITSH 10082 101196 DAVID EVANS 10083 101202 EUGENE A LEWIS 10084 101219 DONALD WAYNE MOORE 10085 101226 CRAIG STEPHEN ANDREAS SR 10086 101233 ANTHONY R YELVINGTON 10087 101240 FRANK STOUT 10088 101257 RICKY WILLIAMS 10089 101264 ROBERT HINES 10090 101271 DOUG WALLSMITH 10091 101288 DAVID MCCASLIN 10092 101295 BEVERLY THOMAS 10093 101301 TAMMY CHAMBERS 10094 101318 TIMOTHY L WILLIAMS 10095 101325 RACHELLE WESTBROOK 10096 101332 ROBERT L BULL 10097 101349 ROBERT STEVEN SEIGENTHALER

Company Name 1
BIG CAT EXPRESS LLC HOUSE DISTRIBUTING INC D DENTON, INC KATECO INC ATJ LLC BMD TRUCKING INC
SILVERLAKE LOGISTICS LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BASSMAN TRUCKING INC

STL, INC S E S E INC M GRIM LLC GEARLDS TRANSPORT SERVICE LLC
SHEFFIELD TRANSPORTING SERVICES INC

GRIM OUTDOORS, INC GEARLDS TRANSPORT SERVICE INC

BSF TRUCKING INC

SHERIDAN AND GALLAGHER TRANSPORT; SHERIDAN AND GALLAGHER TRANSPORT LLC

SHERIDAN AND GALLAGHER TRANSPORT INC

ALLING INCORPORATED

R L ROMES INC CARL & CHARLES DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

BALES CONTRACTING INC JKC TRANSIT LLC S I A M LLC
HAYDEN'S DEL'Y SERV; HAYDEN'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC

JKC COURIERS INC
CT PACKAGE DELIVERY, INC

DAVID EVANS INC B A K K INC

Page 162 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 170 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10098 101356 CHARLES A GUY 10099 101363 TYRONE C LONG 10100 101370 DONALD TILSON 10101 101387 SCOTTIE LYNN BLACKWELL 10102 101394 DUSTIN WESLEY WAUGH SR 10103 101400 ANTHONY ARRON TAYLOR 10104 101417 KIMBERLY ANN BISHOP 10105 101424 MARK A SWANSON 10106 101431 TIMOTHY DALE RAMPAUL 10107 101448 BRIAN HOPKINS 10108 101455 PHILLIP ALLAN BAZEMORE 10109 101462 DONALD LONG 10110 101479 JOHN MOTRONI 10111 101486 TORRE JAJUAN CRUTCHER 10112 101493 DANIEL WHALEN 10113 101509 RICHARD ADKINS 10114 101516 ZACHARY IAN BOWLING 10115 101523 JAMES POE 10116 101530 LYNN MILLER 10117 101547 JAMIE CRAVENS 10118 101554 WILLIAM SCOTT STOWE 10119 101561 GAYLE HARLEY 10120 101578 MICHAEL TERRY SELLS 10121 101585 MICHAEL BROWNE 10122 101592 SCOTT ALAN BLEVINS 10123 101608 KEVIN HAWKINS 10124 101615 BRIAN PIRTLE 10125 101622 BRANDON DEWAYNE GOLDEN 10126 101639 JASON TIMOTHY GRIFFIN 10127 101646 DANNY WEBB 10128 101653 CHRISTOPHER RAY HILL 10129 101660 CHAD C BOLDING 10130 101677 MICHAEL PRICE 10131 101684 PAUL I MCINTYRE 10132 101691 LESTER EDWARD HICKMAN III 10133 101707 JOHN WITHERS 10134 101714 DERREON CLAY MCELWEE 10135 101721 JAMES DAVID RITCHIE 10136 101738 ROBERT KEVIN MCKINNEY 10137 101745 BRIAN EDWARD DUKE 10138 101752 JAMES BRUCE EDMONDSON 10139 101769 DON VADEN 10140 101776 KENNETH FADDIS 10141 101783 HERBERT HUMPHREY 10142 101790 DAMIR BESIC 10143 101806 CHARLES FASSAM 10144 101813 ANDREW BLAKE HENDRICKSON SR 10145 101820 JAMES ALAN WILES 10146 101837 JOEL T STREET JR 10147 101844 MICHAEL HICKS 10148 101851 CHARLES HOLMES 10149 101868 ARTIE LEE HATFIELD 10150 101875 WILLIAM NORRIS 10151 101882 CHARLES WESLEY YEARGAN 10152 101899 GREGORY HARRELL 10153 101905 DALE A FLETCHER 10154 101912 JERRY GLENN THOMAS 10155 101929 BRIAN KEVIN PENLEY 10156 101936 FRANK BLAINE LEWIS 10157 101943 PATRICK STEWART 10158 101950 SAMUEL DEMOND ALEXANDER
10159 101967 JEFF THOMAS HANEY 10160 101974 VINCENT FRANCIS 10161 101981 WILLIAM NEAL TAYLOR

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

RAMPAUL TRUCKING INC

POE'S DELIVERY INC
OVERSHARE SERVICES HAWKINS ENTERPRISES INC
PMCINTYRE INC E K ENTERPRISE LLC
KEN FADDIS INC ZANNE TRANS, INC
HARTFIELD INC NORRIS PACKAGE SERVICE GROUNDMEN INC PEN-EX LLC FBL SERVICES INC P J STEWART LLC GO YE THEREFORE INTERNATIONAL INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 163 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 171 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10162 101998 BRYAN PATTY 10163 102001 DEREK B FRENCH 10164 102018 STEVE SHELTON 10165 102025 BRANDON SMITH 10166 102032 MARK MATTHEW STONE 10167 102049 KEVIN D BREWER 10168 102056 DANIELLE JAMISON 10169 102063 BRIAN HODGSON 10170 102070 JASON DENTON 10171 102087 DANNY NORTH 10172 102094 RANDALL LEE CHAPMAN 10173 102100 JOHN M HOPKINS 10174 102117 DARNELL L MURPHY 10175 102124 RICHARD BRENT WALKER 10176 102131 CHARLES RANDALL GAMBILL 10177 102148 DAVID JACKSON 10178 102155 TIMMY THOMAS SCOTT 10179 102162 DAVID L KILE JR 10180 102179 BILLY KEITH HARPER 10181 102186 ROBERT LANE 10182 102193 JODY POOLE 10183 102209 MICHAEL K WILSON 10184 102216 TRAVIS DWIGHT HICKS 10185 102223 JAMES MCNEER 10186 102230 JOHNNY BICKERSTAFF 10187 102247 PHILIP S BILLINGTON 10188 102254 STEVE BROWN 10189 102261 MIKE ALLISON 10190 102278 SAID SOLAH 10191 102285 LACY LEE BEARD 10192 102292 JOSEPH RICHARD CALLAHANJR 10193 102308 TIMOTHY LOWERY ELLIOTT 10194 102315 DALE M MCCOLLUM 10195 102322 ROBERT MCGEE 10196 102339 MARK RANDOLPH 10197 102346 ROBERT TODD CONLEY 10198 102353 WILLIAM STEPHEN CLIFTON 10199 102360 WILLIAM SCOTT TAYLOR 10200 102377 BILL RAMSEY 10201 102384 DARYL ATKINS 10202 102391 CARSON CALDWELL 10203 102407 RONNIE NEVILLES 10204 102414 CECIL HUGH HAMILTON 10205 102421 SCOTT W BAXTER 10206 102438 RODNEY L ALLISON
10207 102445 PAUL IOANNIDES 10208 102452 LEWIE NORFUL
10209 102469 ROGER TRACY BENNETT 10210 102476 ROBERT LEE REEVES 10211 102483 JOHN R BUNTYN III 10212 102490 DAN WELLS 10213 102506 ENNIS F NEWBERN 10214 102513 CEDRIC GRANDBERRY 10215 102520 ROBERT WEBBER 10216 102537 SEDRICK BLAKE 10217 102544 BILLY RICHARDSON 10218 102551 THOMAS GILL 10219 102568 KIMBERLY DAWN CHANDLER 10220 102575 ROBBIE GREER 10221 102582 LARA J CAVES 10222 102599 ANDREW SPRINKLES 10223 102605 HOBERT DWIGHT GOINS 10224 102612 BRIAN LEACH

Company Name 1 ALL HIS INC HODGSON ENTERPRISES INC HOPKINS TRANSPORT INC CHARLES GAMBILL INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KNOX PACKAGE SYSTEMS

ROCKIN P ENTERPRISES INC

AYA EXPRESS , INC BEARD DELIVERY SERVICE LLC
MCCOLLUM DELIVERY SERVICE INC
A-NET ENTERPRISES INC CRC ENTERPRISES INC TOBIEBARKLEY LLC ALLISON & ALLISON TRANSPORTATION INC CARTOON TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LLC
CARABUN INC

CAVES TRUCKING INC LAND D TRUCKING INC

Page 164 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 172 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10225 102629 JEFFREY J SAVALOJA 10226 102636 CHRIS DAVID SWANN 10227 102643 JASON RANDALL HARP 10228 102650 JOHN BRIAN CHOATE 10229 102667 ANGELA COLLOM 10230 102674 JEFF BOHANAN 10231 102681 BLAKE DOUGLAS BARRINGER 10232 102698 TROY PHARRIS 10233 102704 DONNIE WARREN PELL JR 10234 102711 GREG LINKOUS 10235 102728 WONTINA TAJUAN WILSON 10236 102735 JOHN BEN BECK
10237 102742 DOUG HINSHAW 10238 102759 BENJAMIN EDWARD WATKINS 10239 102766 THOMAS MIHALKO 10240 102773 SCOTT ALAN DUNCAN 10241 102780 STACY RICE 10242 102797 THOMAS GRANT MCCONNELL III 10243 102803 SELEIM SALIH ANBAR 10244 102810 JASON B KELLY 10245 102827 JAMES DANIEL STAFFORD 10246 102834 JEREMY STAFFORD 10247 102841 GREG HARRISON SCHOONOVER 10248 102858 ROBERT BUCHANAN 10249 102865 JOEL DEWAYNE RAY 10250 102872 RANDY LANNOM 10251 102889 MICHAEL GREGROY ONEIL 10252 102896 COREY D ESTES 10253 102902 RENO GREGANTI III 10254 102919 JOHNNY LEE GUY JR 10255 102926 JASON AARON MEARS 10256 102933 ROBERT LEE REED 10257 102940 JOSHUA J SAMAHA 10258 102957 BRISMOND VICTOR 10259 102964 ROBERT HOPSON 10260 102971 CLAUDE PHILLIP FOSTER 10261 102988 CHARLES E WILLIAMS 10262 102995 CHARLES OLIVER 10263 103008 JERRY HENDRIX 10264 103015 LARRY E DAVIS 10265 103022 ANDREW CRUSOE POTEETE 10266 103039 MICHAEL L NICOLETTI 10267 103046 ARTHUR SMITH 10268 103053 JERRY DEAN HARGROVE 10269 103060 JERRY D ADAMS 10270 103077 GERALD HAMILTON 10271 103084 DANIEL GRINNELL 10272 103091 ROBERT WESLEY WYATT 10273 103107 MICHAEL DUGGER 10274 103114 PORTER BOLEYJACK 10275 103121 LYNN LARUE 10276 103138 JAMES TAD REEVE 10277 103145 CHARLES THOMAS TAYLOR 10278 103152 JOHN EDWARD SWAFFORD 10279 103169 TERRY D MITCHELL 10280 103176 TERRY MITCHELL 10281 103183 RODNEY DENT 10282 103190 STEPHEN LAYTON KRIESE 10283 103206 JACKIE STIGGER 10284 103213 BRYAN RODERICK AINSWORTH 10285 103220 TERRY PRICE 10286 103237 SYLVIA POWERS 10287 103244 ALEJANDRO QUINTANA 10288 103251 PAUL M SMITH

Company Name 1 JORDAN TRANSPORTATION INC COLLOM INC TROY'S TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MIDDLE TENNESSEE TRANSIT LLC

MIDDLE TENNESSEE TRANSIT

T L C DELIVERY, INC

OLIVER'S S P D INC HENDRIX INC
POWER MECHANICAL & TRANS LLC
MITCHELL TRANSPORTATION INC MITCHELL TRANSPORTATION INC FLYWAY EXPRESS

Page 165 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 173 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10289 103268 JOEL M LAWRENCE 10290 103275 ANTHONY GULLEY 10291 103282 BOBBY R ATWOOD 10292 103299 DURWIN TAYLOR 10293 103305 ISAAC ANTHONY VAUGHN 10294 103312 JERRY L BOWLIN
10295 103329 JOEL DOTSON 10296 103336 DAVID LEE LAFEVER 10297 103343 EDWARD COWAN 10298 103350 CALVIN H LAKE JR 10299 103367 ALAN L LOFTON 10300 103374 STEVEN DEVANEY 10301 103381 DAVID L HILLIARD 10302 103398 CHAD LAFEVER 10303 103404 ROD SIAS 10304 103411 RICKEY EARL JONES 10305 103428 STEPHEN MCNABB 10306 103435 MARK AVERA RIDDLE 10307 103442 JOSEPH SHOULTS
10308 103459 ANDREA O KNOWLES 10309 103466 MICHAEL JOSEPH CORRIER 10310 103473 JAMES YOUNG 10311 103480 JOHN JARMON JR 10312 103497 MICHAEL B GLADNEY 10313 103503 BILLY KEVIN GIBBS 10314 103510 GREG PLUNK
10315 103527 COREY REYMER 10316 103534 EDRIC COLE 10317 103541 JONATHAN RAE FLETCHER 10318 103558 JASON HUFF 10319 103565 DEREK HERRELL 10320 103572 JEREMY PETERS 10321 103589 STACEY VANCE 10322 103596 GARY PHILIP DAVIS 10323 103602 BRETT RICHMOND 10324 103619 ADRYAN TAYLOR 10325 103626 CHAD FORESTER 10326 103633 GLENN MASON HUGHES 10327 103657 BILLY BRIGGS 10328 103664 JAMES MIKE HYDE 10329 103671 MARTY STILLWELL 10330 103688 MARCUS D NUNNALLY 10331 103695 JEFF COX 10332 103701 JOSHUA ANDREW SMITH 10333 103718 JONATHAN R DIXON 10334 103725 JONATHAN LANCE STURM 10335 103749 BRIAN BROWN 10336 103756 JOSEPH BRAD MADEWELL 10337 103763 KURTIS A STOHR 10338 103770 JACOB STEPHENS 10339 103787 DARYL WAYNE DARNELL 10340 103794 KENNETH D LENTZ JR 10341 103800 GARY SAGER 10342 103817 LAWRENCE GRIFFIN 10343 103824 ALAN EDWARDS 10344 103831 BOB BLURTON 10345 103848 DWIGHT OBERT 10346 103855 JOEL DEAN JACKSON 10347 103862 DAVID HOWELL 10348 103879 EDWARD RAINWATER 10349 103886 VIRGINIA HACKLER 10350 103893 DENNIS DRAACK

Company Name 1
DMD INCORPORATED BOWLIN TRANSPORT INC D & S DELIVERY INC ALNTCB, INC HILLIARD TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

J BOWLIN TRANSPORT, INCORPORATED

TERMINAL LOGISTICS COORDINATION INC

R A M SERVICES INC

METRO DELIVERY SYSTEMS; METRO P & D DELIVERY INC; P&D

DELIVERY SYSTEMS INC

DELIVERY INC

FLETCHER ENTERPRISES LLC

BEAUTIFUL DISASTER, INC STURM TRUCKING INC THE ESTATE OF J BRAD MADEWELL
MUFF'S TRUCKING INC D J SHIPPING INC CHAMPION SERVICE INC FREIGHT HOG INC
CIRCLE WEST

Page 166 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 174 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10351 103909 CLAUDIUS A GREEN 10352 103916 LARRY G KING 10353 103923 RIDLEY WAYNE GAW 10354 103930 RICK RUNBERG 10355 103947 TOM ANDERSON 10356 103954 VICTOR KUSI 10357 103961 RICHARD HAMILTON 10358 103978 TROY D NIEUWSMA 10359 103985 ANDY KLEMETSON 10360 103992 JEFFREY LYLES 10361 104005 ROBERT THOMAS WEBSTER III 10362 104012 MARK SHEARON 10363 104029 MICHAEL H GATELEY 10364 104036 JOHN FERRARA 10365 104043 REBECCA ALLEN 10366 104050 PAUL HEATHCOCK 10367 104067 SUSAN TINKER 10368 104074 FREDERICK JERMAINE ARMSTRONG 10369 104081 JEREMY WAYNE SPIVEY 10370 104098 JOHN MILLIGAN 10371 104104 LANDON W GAW 10372 104111 PERRY RUSSELL 10373 104128 LAURA JANE ANDERSON 10374 104135 THOMAS D MAYERS 10375 104142 RICKY BEECHAM 10376 104159 SARA DILLARD 10377 104166 KERRY TUCKER 10378 104173 DARRYL K DANIELS 10379 104180 TIMOTHY DARNELL DANIELS SR 10380 104197 TIMOTHY T LAWSON 10381 104203 JUSTIN CHAPMAN 10382 104210 DARIN TODD HILL 10383 104227 RANDALL A SLUSS 10384 104234 MITCHELL EDWARDS 10385 104241 NICHOLAS RYAN INGLE 10386 104258 CORRY DARNELL BROOKS 10387 104265 BRIAN MILLER 10388 104272 GHASSAN A AWWAD 10389 104289 KERRY GRAVES 10390 104296 CHUCK FAUST 10391 104302 TIMOTHY GRANT 10392 104319 MITCHELL MABONE 10393 104326 TODD E WALL 10394 104333 RONALD GIST 10395 104340 BUDDY JOHNSON 10396 104357 CHAD SEIBER 10397 104364 BRADLEY P WOODS 10398 104371 JOE JOE DODSON 10399 104388 JEREMIAH SHEA HILL 10400 104395 ROBERT EDWARD COOK IV 10401 104401 MICHAEL M NATEQI 10402 104418 DWIGHT CREWS 10403 104425 PAULETTE EDWARDS 10404 104432 BETTY MERRITT 10405 104449 ROBERT LEE REED 10406 104456 EMMETT HARVELL 10407 104463 KENNETH ATWELL 10408 104470 ROBERT MURPHY MCDANIEL 10409 104487 CHARLES R VAUGHN 10410 104494 GARY BREEDLOVE 10411 104500 GLENN WRIGHT 10412 104517 STEVEN JOHN RUSSELL 10413 104524 JAMES MICHAEL DEEGAN 10414 104531 CHARLES LESTER BLEDSOE 10415 104548 ROSS CECIL

Company Name 1 WESTMORELAND CORPORATION
RICOCHET CONTRACTING INC T ANDERSON TRUCKING INC
BITTERMAN TRUCKING INC DUTCH DELIVERY INC A K FREIGHT INC LYLES CONSULTING INC WEBSTER ENTERPRISE INC M & T TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 2

RIVER DELIVERY, INC S DILLARDS TRUCKING INC

STILLBREEZE EXPRESS, INC

CRUISE INC
FIVE GUYS TRANSPORT INC EMMETT L HARVELL INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 167 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 175 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10416 104555 RITA KING 10417 104562 LLOYD COLLINS 10418 104579 JOHNNY WAYNE GOODMAN 10419 104586 JEFFERY S CATRON 10420 104593 MICHAEL WRIGHT
10421 104609 DANIEL W BRASWELL 10422 104616 MARK M MCCOY 10423 104623 JAMES LAMB 10424 104630 LARRY TWILLEY 10425 104647 RANDY D SHUMWAY 10426 104654 TIMOTHY J WALLACE 10427 104661 DAVID GARDENHIRE 10428 104678 MARVIN JAY PATTERSON 10429 104685 STEPHEN P ANDERSON 10430 104692 DAVID W ENSEY
10431 104708 DOUG DAVIS 10432 104715 JERRI JENKINS 10433 104722 JEFFREY SCOTT RIDINGS 10434 104739 JAMES D LAWRENCE
10435 104746 KEVIN D SPENCER 10436 104753 JAVED TAJ 10437 104760 PHILLIP JAY BRANDON 10438 104777 RICHARD HUFFMAN HUNT 10439 104784 WILLIAM ASBURY GABLE 10440 104791 RANDY DAUGHERTY 10441 104807 QUINCY SCOTT 10442 104814 JASON BARR 10443 104821 LISA HOBLET 10444 104838 CHRISTOPHER JOE CATES 10445 104845 MARK STEVEN JOHNSON JR 10446 104852 BRANDON HUMMEL 10447 104869 LARRY RITTER 10448 104876 THOMAS U DUKEIV 10449 104883 KATHY WALL 10450 104890 TERRY M FORRESTER 10451 104906 JESSE CHESTNUTT 10452 104913 CALVIN L MATHES 10453 104920 JASON DOUGLAS GIBSON 10454 104937 JON HOUSER 10455 104944 DAVID MICHAEL LAFEVER 10456 104951 JASON EDWARD WESTMORELAND 10457 104968 MARK COFFMAN 10458 104975 ERIC A AUSTEIN 10459 104982 JOHN A TREVISAN 10460 104999 GREGORY C HAUK 10461 105002 DAVID A HEADRICK 10462 105019 PAUL GARY LAKINS 10463 105026 DANNY DENTON 10464 105033 CHARLES E BEASLEY 10465 105040 PAUL CARL CHESTNUTT 10466 105057 JAMES TROBAUGH 10467 105064 MITCHELL HENDERSON 10468 105071 BARNEY LEVON DALE 10469 105088 SHANE VAUGHN 10470 105095 ROBERT W CALL 10471 105101 DONALD MCCLAFFERTY 10472 105118 GREGORY POOLE 10473 105125 BUFORD A BEARD 10474 105132 DENNIS ALLEN 10475 105149 BRENDA OWNBY 10476 105156 JEFFREY LAWRENCE PEELE 10477 105163 HARRY EDWARD BACKHURST

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

WHW FREIGHT INC; WHW FREIGHT, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

HOSE INC

ROMANS TWELVE TRUCKING LLC

ROMANS TWELVE TRUCKING INC

J & S LOGISTICS LLC JT EXPRESS INC

J & S LOGISTICS INC; J & S LOGISTICS LLC

DUKE LOGISTICS JACKALOPE VENTURES INC CHESTNUTT CARRIERS INC
HEADRICK DELIVERY SERVICE INC BEASLEY TRUCKING INC

EX-PEELEDITE INC

Page 168 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 176 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10478 105170 THOMAS LAMONT HICKS 10479 105187 KERRY MILLIGAN 10480 105194 DAVID CASEY 10481 105200 RENWICK PORTER 10482 105217 RALPH BROWNLEE 10483 105224 JAMES KEITH FORD 10484 105231 SHERRI MICHELLE UHDE 10485 105248 JETHRO WIGGINS 10486 105255 SAMUEL MILTON WESTCOT 10487 105262 SAM CAL HAMILTON
10488 105279 ROBERT CROW JR 10489 105286 WILLIAM ALBERT ROLEN 10490 105293 JOSEPH L HULL 10491 105309 JOHN JOSEPH DELGADO 10492 105316 JAMES M MOORE 10493 105323 ROBERT DAVID FERGUSON 10494 105330 BRANDY R MARTIN 10495 105347 MATTHEW BRYAN ANDERSON 10496 105354 JOEL RAYBURN 10497 105361 TYRONE BLEDSOE 10498 105378 DAVID CASTILON 10499 105385 MICHAEL W OSBORN 10500 105392 BECKY STEELE 10501 105408 ROB BLANKENSHIP 10502 105415 EMILY CARYL WARD 10503 105422 JONATHON DAVIS 10504 105439 TIMOTHY DEWAYNE EUBANKS 10505 105446 TONY DEWAYNE VAUGHN SR 10506 105453 DEOBRAH JEROME BELL 10507 105460 CHRIS YOUNG 10508 105477 KRISTIE LYNN MALSY 10509 105484 CHARLES TEWKSBURY 10510 105491 TONY BRIGGS 10511 105507 JEFF MOORE 10512 105514 JOHN MARK WEAVER 10513 105521 PHILLIP HEATHERLY 10514 105538 ROBERT BRANNON MCDANIEL 10515 105545 STEVEN HOOPER 10516 105552 CHRISTOPHER DION THOMAS 10517 105569 DAVID W GERBER 10518 105576 GEORGE A HAMMER III 10519 105583 ALI MALEK BADRAN 10520 105590 ROY CLERE 10521 105606 DAVID R OLSON 10522 105613 RICHARD JUNIOUS MCDOUGALD JR 10523 105620 JASON H PRICE 10524 105637 RICHARD KAMAN 10525 105644 JOSEPH FETCHER FARMER 10526 105651 STEPHEN LINTON MCCREA 10527 105668 BOBBY SISCO 10528 105675 RANDY RICHIE 10529 105682 SAMUEL JOHNSON 10530 105699 BOBBY MONTFORD 10531 105705 RICHARD ALAN BLAKE 10532 105712 GARY DEAN WINNIE 10533 105729 BRIAN WARDREP 10534 105736 TIM WADDELL 10535 105743 RODERICK GOODWIN 10536 105750 TONY GLENN MCMILLAN 10537 105767 JASON WADE MCMILLAN 10538 105774 JEFFERY WAYNE MORGAN
10539 105781 RONALD SCOTT HUGHES 10540 105798 DAVID CLIFTON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FTS INC J WIGG TRUCKING INC S & L PACKAGING; S&L PACKAGING INC
POWER VISION INC

K&M FULLFILLMENT LLC STEELE HANGER INC MEKA DELIVERY INC
BELL TRUCKING LLC
PLUS M EXPRESS
TRINITY TRUCKING INC
ROYONG ENTERPRISES INC JASON PRICE , INC CLAXTON SUPPLY INC SPECIAL DELIVERY LLC

BELL TRUCKING INC SPECIAL DELIVERY INC

EZI COURIERS LLC

EZI SYSTEMS INC

MORGAN & MORGAN ENT LLC
R S H TRANSPORTATION INC CLIFTON CONTRACT DELIVERY INC

MORGAN-MORGAN TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 169 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 177 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10541 105804 HERBERT B KNIGHT 10542 105811 NEAL DARLING 10543 105828 WALLACE DORSE 10544 105835 CHRIS STIVERS 10545 105842 WALTER JACKSON 10546 105859 MARK BONNER 10547 105866 SHELDON GARNER 10548 105873 RALPH STEWART
10549 105880 KELLY HULL SWARTZ 10550 105897 CHRISTOPHER STREET 10551 105903 STEVEN ALLEN BAYSA SR 10552 105910 JEFFREY V SIRCY 10553 105927 NATHAN JOHNSTON 10554 105934 RONALD FARRELL 10555 105941 THIREL YOUNG 10556 105958 RICHARD TOLLESON 10557 105965 JEFFREY TED SALANSKY 10558 105972 TONY MICHAEL WALLACE 10559 105989 JASON CLARK 10560 105996 BRYANT DOWLEN 10561 106009 PHAT PATTY XAYARATH 10562 106016 GREG BLOOMFIELD 10563 106023 GENE BURCHELL 10564 106030 MICHAEL FREEMAN 10565 106047 BRUCE TOLLESON 10566 106054 CHRIS HORNER 10567 106061 MICHAEL GLENN RUSHING 10568 106078 GREGORY THOMPSON 10569 106085 MATHEW J RAWLICK 10570 106092 CHARLES LOVE 10571 106108 CHRIS MARTIN 10572 106115 DONALD WILLIAM ZECK II 10573 106122 TAMATHA SUSAN HARRIS
10574 106139 CASEY DEAN HAROLD 10575 106146 PHILLIP STACY 10576 106153 TRACY PILKENTON 10577 106160 JASON PITMAN 10578 106177 CHAD ROBERTS 10579 106184 DAVID LONG 10580 106191 CRAIG DAVIS 10581 106207 MATTHEW CHRISTIAN BROWN 10582 106214 RICHARD BOWERY 10583 106221 DAVID OWENS 10584 106238 SARA J SHEARON 10585 106245 KEVIN LEWIS PATTERSON 10586 106252 SALLIE M MOORE 10587 106269 MICHEAL FERGUSON 10588 106276 ALLEN A HARVEY 10589 106283 STEVEN FORREST BARBER 10590 106290 STEVE CHATTIN 10591 106306 THOMAS WAYNE WHITWORTH 10592 106313 ROGER WHISANTE 10593 106320 DENNIS MONAHAN 10594 106337 CARY RYAN 10595 106344 DARREN KEITH HARRIS 10596 106351 DAVID OLIVER BARNETT 10597 106368 REGINALD WILLIAMS 10598 106375 RODNEY MACK MANLEY 10599 106382 MICHAEL GRIGGS JR 10600 106399 STEVE BREWTON 10601 106405 MARGARET SMITH 10602 106412 ANTONIO J POWELL

Company Name 1 SOUTHERN KNIGHT INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GARNER ENTERPRISES INC CARL & CHARLES DELIVERY SERVICES, INC
THEBYZS, INC
RONSLUCSHA INC
JR SKY, INC

RJS DELIVERY SERVICES INC

SMOKEY MOUNTAIN EXPRESS

THARRIS ENTERPRISE LLC JCB TRANSPORTATION INC

THARRIS ENTERPRISES INC

DAVID J OWENS INC MOORE TRANSPORTATION, INCF AVENUE VENTURES INC

DK HARRIS ENTERPRISES, INC JESPAT R W DELIVERY INC
AJ POWELL TRUCKING SERVICES, INC

Page 170 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 178 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10603 106429 MICHAEL LUSTER 10604 106436 CHRISTY CHANEY 10605 106443 THOMAS ATKINSON 10606 106450 STEPHENY Y HILL 10607 106467 WINSTON STEPHENSON 10608 106474 WAYLAND YVES DIXON 10609 106481 JAMES F DONAHUE 10610 106498 DAVID WAYNE EUBANKS
10611 106504 GEORGE HOWARD ERISAT 10612 106511 ABRAHAM CERONIO 10613 106528 MICHAEL LAFFERTY 10614 106535 CLIFFORD W KLINGENSMITH 10615 106542 FRANCESCO BIRRITTA 10616 106559 JIMMY LOUIS PATE 10617 106566 JOHN THOMAS 10618 106573 WAYNE COMER 10619 106580 CALVIN HOWARD 10620 106597 DAVID GORE 10621 106603 VINCENT MOORE 10622 106610 THOMAS BURKE 10623 106627 PAUL F THOMAS 10624 106634 DEWITT WATSON 10625 106641 DURWARD GERALD MCDONALD 10626 106658 BILLY POWELL 10627 106665 ARTHUR PRITCHETT 10628 106672 CHESTER LAWRENCE 10629 106689 ALLEN C MASON 10630 106696 MARC W VEILLEUX 10631 106702 RUSSELL LEON WILLIAMS 10632 106719 GARY A SMITHERMAN 10633 106726 BRUCE SCOTT 10634 106733 JAMES NOONE 10635 106740 BELINDA G PATTERSON 10636 106757 RICHARD EDMONDSON JR 10637 106764 DERRELL SHADDEN 10638 106771 DONALD SOLOMON JR 10639 106788 DERRICK LITTLE 10640 106795 STEVE BURROUGHS 10641 106801 FREDERICK KENT GILL 10642 106818 PHILLIP MORRIS 10643 106825 MICHAEL E GUETTLER 10644 106832 CURRY L FLETCHER 10645 106849 MICHAEL CORRY 10646 106856 JEFF T NATIONS 10647 106863 STANLEY LOVETT 10648 106870 FREDERICK TOLBERT 10649 106887 BRIAN JOHNSON 10650 106894 PAT RODEN 10651 106900 DOUGLAS DALE RODEN 10652 106917 CYRUS PICKETT 10653 106924 RICHARD A BURNS JR 10654 106931 JEFFREY HOLSOMBACK 10655 106948 HENRY JONES 10656 106955 ROBERT G MONROE III 10657 106962 GABRIEL BOYD 10658 106979 TIMOTHY SHAUN HARVEL 10659 106986 BRAD NEWBY 10660 106993 ANDREW LEWIS 10661 107006 RICHARD ALLEN WEIHS JR 10662 107013 JOSHUA CAINE CHAPMAN 10663 107020 IFEOMA A OGBOLU 10664 107037 MOHAMMAD ALI SHAMS 10665 107044 MATTHEW DENNERLEIN 10666 107051 JOSEPH A IBARRONDO

Company Name 1
FOOTHILLS COURIERS INC
DAVID EUBANKS INC; DAVID EUBANKS, INC AEROMAX LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GORE SERVICES INC
BORROWED TIME DELIVERY INC POWCO INC KC & STEEL INC
R & R CONNECTIONS INC
JAMES NOONE TRUCKING, INC
SHADDEN ENTERPRISES D&L DELIVERY SERVICE INC
FLETCH, INC PALE HORSE DELIVERY INC TL3, INC FREDDY T INC

JABEZ TRANSPORTATION INC J CHAPMAN ENTERPRISES INC DD MAC SERVICES, INC

Page 171 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 179 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10667 107068 WALTER JOHNSON 10668 107075 ROGER D MOORE 10669 107082 HENRIETTE HIPP 10670 107099 EDWIN BENEFIELD BROWNING 10671 107105 CHARLES MOORE 10672 107112 JAMES TYRONE ABRAMS
10673 107129 CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN 10674 107136 EDDIE SWAIN 10675 107143 KEVIN WADE GODWIN 10676 107150 RAYMOND BROOKS 10677 107167 SAMUEL REESE JR 10678 107174 JEFFERY W RYDER 10679 107181 ANGELA MCFARLAND 10680 107198 KENNETH L EON HILL 10681 107204 JOHN A WEST 10682 107211 MICHELLE CATERINICHIA 10683 107228 SLAWOMIR KOLBUSZ 10684 107235 CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE THOMPSON 10685 107242 ADAM MCMILLIAN 10686 107259 DWIGHT ATCHLEY 10687 107266 DERRICK PETTIWAY 10688 107273 KRIS HUDSON 10689 107280 GARY BURNS 10690 107297 RICHARDO WILLIAMS 10691 107303 JONATHON TILLMAN 10692 107310 DANNY ROLLINS 10693 107327 BRANDON G DUCK 10694 107334 CAMERON BLAKE ELLIS 10695 107341 EDDIE JAMES GRIMSLEY 10696 107358 JEREMY WAYNE WHITE 10697 107365 SCOTT EDWARD NORTON
10698 107372 EDDIE H BOYKIN 10699 107389 REGINALD AMERSON 10700 107396 DONNA RICE POWELL 10701 107402 VALINDA OLADENINDE 10702 107419 PALMER DEW 10703 107426 JOHNNY MEEKS 10704 107433 CHARLES G WILLIAMS 10705 107440 GREGORY ALLEN 10706 107457 GENE STEELMAN 10707 107464 MARCUS ONEAL KELLEY 10708 107471 MILTONJR HANNAH 10709 107488 LEE LIGHTFORD 10710 107495 DAVID EDWIN CARLIN 10711 107501 CHRISTOPHER RAY MOON 10712 107518 GEORGE ANDREW BANKS 10713 107525 OTIS JONES 10714 107532 ERIC DEAN SHUTZE 10715 107549 ALFRED JACKSON 10716 107556 CALVIN TAYLOR 10717 107563 LESTER LITTLE 10718 107570 MAZE STALLWORTH 10719 107587 BYRON DEWAYNE ORR 10720 107594 MARK HEREFORD 10721 107600 NICHOLAS JACK WATSON 10722 107617 SCHMOHN JUAQUINE DUNN 10723 107624 HARRY MICHAEL JACKSON 10724 107631 SHAUN WADE JACKSON 10725 107648 WAYNE ARRIGAS LEWIS 10726 107655 WILLIAM J MARINO 10727 107662 JONATHAN WEATHINGTON 10728 107679 EDMUND GERALD MATTHEWS 10729 107686 DOUGLAS KYLE MOFFETT

Company Name 1
E B BROWNING, INC J ABRAMS TRUCKING INCORPORATION MACH IV EXPRESS INC G&G SERVICES INC CL JOHNSON CORPORATION

Company Name 2 EAS EXPRESS

Company Name 3

THOMPSON DELIVERY SERVICE INC P-WAY EXPRESS LLC

JP EXPEDITING
H C C TRUCKING INC
NORTON GROUND TRANSIT LLC
DONCO INC DEW & DEW INC MEEKS DELIVERY SYSTEM WILLIAMS SHIPPING INC

JP EXPEDITING INC
ACCEL SERVICE POINT, INC

L & L COURIER INC CHRIS MOON INC JONES & JONES COURIER INC EDS DISTRIBUTING, INC AM+M & ASSOCIATES INC KT'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC
ORR INTERNATIONAL LLC HEREFORD ENTERPRISES INC
EXPRESS PACKAGING INC ON TIME PARCELS INC MG DELIVERY LLC
DOKYMO CORPORATION

BDO, INC E NOEL CORPORATION

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 172 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 180 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10730 107693 MARK HOLLAND BLACKERBY 10731 107709 MICHAEL GREEN 10732 107716 JOSHUA EDWARD HENDRIX 10733 107723 BYRON BLANKS 10734 107730 GEORGE NJOROGE NGINYO 10735 107747 ANAYO EMMANUEL OBI 10736 107754 RALEIGH N ROBINSON 10737 107761 FRANKLIN HENRIQUE FERREIRA 10738 107778 CALVIN L SMITH 10739 107785 ROBIN ATKINSON 10740 107792 PHILIP A CALASCIONE 10741 107808 REGINALD JACKSON 10742 107815 MICHAEL ZIEMBA 10743 107822 STEVE LEE BASWELL 10744 107839 BRUCE GENTLE 10745 107846 CHARLIE L WILKINS 10746 107853 GERALD A VANDERVER 10747 107860 ANTALAN PACIFICO 10748 107877 JAROME WHITLOW 10749 107884 TONY FITZGARLD EDWARDS 10750 107891 KEITH E SIMS 10751 107907 DONNIE RAY WEAVER 10752 107914 HUGH GALLAGHER 10753 107921 RICHARD MARTIN 10754 107938 GERALD STARKS 10755 107945 WALTER K SMITH 10756 107952 RICK CRAIG 10757 107969 TIMOTHY C MCKNIGHT 10758 107976 ROBERT C CALDWELL 10759 107983 DAMON SCOTT ALLEN 10760 107990 LEONARD AUSTIN THOMPSON
10761 108003 GREG YORK 10762 108010 CHARLES DAFFIN ABERCROMBIE 10763 108027 STEVEN A EVANS 10764 108034 BRIAN A MCNAB 10765 108041 PATRICK ADAMS 10766 108058 GAYLON ALLEN ALLEN 10767 108065 TONY PEARCE 10768 108072 ALAN MICHAEL HENRY 10769 108089 JAMIE ROBERTSON 10770 108096 DERRICK WAYNE BERRY 10771 108102 JACQUELINE LENNET MARTIN 10772 108119 GREG CAIN 10773 108126 SOMCHAI AROONSAKULWONGSE 10774 108133 ANTONIO LAMBERT
10775 108140 JONATHON LEON MARTIN 10776 108157 PAWEL MATUSIK 10777 108164 JASON LEE STOUT 10778 108171 SHEA STOUT 10779 108188 EARL COLE 10780 108195 ABDULLAH SHABANEH 10781 108201 ADRIANO ALVES OLIVEIRA
10782 108218 TOMMY LEE GREER 10783 108225 MICHAEL BROWN 10784 108232 ROBERT FRANKLIN 10785 108249 WILLIAM LEE POOLE 10786 108256 DARRELL W MCKNIGHT 10787 108263 ERIC J MARTIN 10788 108270 ROBERT GILLEY 10789 108287 ERIC COTTRELL 10790 108294 DANNY WINDSOR 10791 108300 GREGORY CALHOUN

Company Name 1
ELLESIG INC
NGINYO INC OBIZY, INC THE HILLWAY GROUP LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

HENDRIX LOGISTICS INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GETTOTHELAKE LLC

GET TO THE LAKE, INC

FIRST DOWN DELIVERY, INC KEITH AND TAMMY SIMS SHIPPING
GALLAGHER FREIGHTWAYS LLC

CHUCK MCKNIGHT TRUCKING, INC

DSA ENTERPRISES INC LEONARD THOMPSON INCORPORATED GJG COURIERS; GJG COURIERS LLC ABCO ENT, INC

GJE COURIERS INC

MCNAB'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC

GAYLON ALLEN TRUCKING INC TP HOME DELIVERY INC HENRY TRANSPORTATION INC

JLM ENTERPRISE, INCORPORATED

KHUNPHON LLC

LPN, INC

ANTONIO LAMBERT INCORPORATIONS

KEEGO TRUCKING INC

SHABANEH DELIVERY INC ADRIANO ALVES OLIVEIRA TRUCKING INC

POOLE & SONS ENTERPRISE INC WMC LLC MARTINS P & D INC GILLEY, INC
WINDSOR ENTERPRISE INC GMAJCAL ENTERPRISE INC

WMC INC

Page 173 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 181 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10792 108317 HARLAN D WRIGHT 10793 108324 JAMES W ADCOCK 10794 108331 SKOTT WHITE 10795 108348 DONALD M FLANIGAN 10796 108355 HAROLD W SCRUGGS 10797 108362 KEITH EDWARDS 10798 108379 DRAPER WILLIAMS 10799 108386 BEN ZEGARELLI 10800 108393 ALAN J BRADY 10801 108409 TINA FLOYD 10802 108416 ISIAH MCCLENDON 10803 108423 MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER CRUMLEY 10804 108430 WESLEY ERIC BROWN 10805 108447 ANGELA LYNNE WILEY 10806 108454 RODNEY DEAN 10807 108461 NATHANIEL EMANUEL STANTON 10808 108478 MARK EDWARDS AMMONS 10809 108485 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN CLIFTON 10810 108492 ALVIN HENDRICKS 10811 108508 BRETT JASON SAMS 10812 108515 CASEY WHITE 10813 108522 MARK QUINTON BLAIR 10814 108539 JEWREL RUDOLPH 10815 108546 TIMOTHY DUNN 10816 108553 TONY FULTON CARROLL 10817 108560 BRADLEY EUGENE CALHOUN 10818 108577 JEREMY M WOODLEY 10819 108584 JIMMY R BROMLEY 10820 108591 LEROY STOVER 10821 108607 JOHN GREENE 10822 108614 TERRY MEIER 10823 108621 CLARENCE JACKSON 10824 108638 DON PHILLIPS 10825 108645 EDWARD SHAW 10826 108652 STEVEN JACKSON 10827 108669 GARY HOEPKER 10828 108676 DAN SAMPLE 10829 108683 DOUG BRAUN 10830 108690 BRIAN STOKES 10831 108706 RODNEY M RADFORD JR 10832 108713 BRUCE F THIES 10833 108720 RICHARD HARVEY 10834 108737 PASCHAL TOCHUKWU AMADI 10835 108744 GEORGE H MCKINLEY 10836 108751 LEON ONEAL 10837 108768 SYLVESTER MOORE 10838 108775 SHELIA CLARK 10839 108782 THOMAS N READ JR 10840 108799 JOHN DENNEY 10841 108805 JOE VINSON 10842 108812 STEVE KELSO 10843 108829 KENNETH UPTON 10844 108836 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS 10845 108843 CHARLES T SAMUELS 10846 108850 TIMOTHY TYRONE MARSHALL 10847 108867 WILLIE SPENCER 10848 108874 GARY FLOWERS 10849 108881 MICHAEL REEDER 10850 108898 DARIN CRABB 10851 108904 HILTON D TUCKER 10852 108911 GINA M BURKS 10853 108928 SOJI OGUNSOLA 10854 108935 JEFFREY BRIAN PATE 10855 108942 MATTHEW HAMPTON 10856 108959 DEXTER BLUE

Company Name 1 ADCOCK TRANSPORTATION, INC

Company Name 2

DA WILLIAMS FREIGHT INC DELIVERY PROFESSIONALS INC BRADY CORPORATION
IVE GOT YOUR PACKAGE OF INC
RED ENTERPRISES
CLIFTON ENTERPRISES INC ALVINS COURIER SERVICE INC CASMAR INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GREG CHASTAIN TRUCKING INC RYAN'S EXP INC CLASS ENTERPRISES INC SHADON INC ED SHAW TRUCKING INC JACKSON EXPRESS INC G&H DELIVERY SERVICE INC D SAMPLE EXPRESS INC BRAUN TRUCKING INC STOKES TRANSPORTATION INC PACKAGE MAX INC TRIPLE T LEASING, INC

PACKET-JENN; PACKET-JENN INC S&S MOORE INC

MOORES TRUCKING INC

KHD SERVICES INC

J PATE TRUCKING INC MH DELIVERY SERVICE INC BLUE ENTERPRISES INC

Page 174 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 182 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10857 108966 JERRY D WILBURN 10858 108973 MICHAEL EDWARD WHITNEY 10859 108980 ARCHIE LEE ABRAMS JR 10860 108997 CALVIN W SLEDGE
10861 109000 KENNETH HENRY BAKER JR 10862 109017 BOBBY WIXON 10863 109024 ANTOINNE DION HOPE 10864 109031 JEFFREY SMITH 10865 109048 DANNY VINTSON 10866 109055 CLAY E BOWEN 10867 109062 DAVID PIPER 10868 109079 S DAVID KING 10869 109086 JAMES MAXON BROMLEY 10870 109093 WILLIAM TY HURST 10871 109109 HAROLD DEWAYNE HENDERSON
10872 109116 SHAFTON MARKETH REESE 10873 109123 SELINA HUGHES 10874 109130 JOSEPH ERIC BLOCKER 10875 109147 MARCEL CORLETT 10876 109154 BLANE J KENT 10877 109161 CHRISTOPHER CHARLES WILLIAMS 10878 109178 MICHAEL DAVID JOHNSON 10879 109185 BONIFACE KAGIA GITHUKA 10880 109192 JONATHAN W LEE 10881 109208 JOHN ALVIN DECKER SR 10882 109215 ROGER MCGHEE 10883 109222 LINDSEY HARCROW 10884 109239 JONATHAN D TOMLIN 10885 109246 DEBORAH THOMAS 10886 109253 MICHELLE TINDLE 10887 109260 MARVIN T JONES 10888 109277 CAREY MICHAEL KING 10889 109284 RICKEY JOE COLEMAN 10890 109291 GRAYLON ANDERSON 10891 109307 CEDRIC BLACKMON 10892 109314 LONNIE KEITH HYDE 10893 109321 DEDRICK DION MITCHELL 10894 109338 LARRY JAMES HOLMES 10895 109345 HARVEY DWAYNE PINSON 10896 109352 JAMES S HARPER 10897 109369 DONALD HARRIS 10898 109376 PATTI BURCH 10899 109383 JOSHUA GEORGE HANSON 10900 109390 DANIEL WAYNE SIMS 10901 109406 JOSEPH OWENS 10902 109413 OSCAR LEO ELLIS III 10903 109420 JADE LOWELL WILSON 10904 109437 GEORGE CORBETT GODWIN 10905 109444 CHRISTOPHER LEE ALLEN 10906 109451 ALICIA MADDOX 10907 109468 ADAM JOHNSON 10908 109475 LEVON M JONES 10909 109482 ERIC MESSER 10910 109499 FRANK BLATCHLEY 10911 109505 JAYCE CLAY 10912 109512 JAMES KOHLER 10913 109529 HAROLD BUSBY 10914 109536 JOHN P HALLET 10915 109543 VICTOR LAWRENCE 10916 109550 JAMES L WILLIAMS 10917 109567 LEMARD MARSHALL 10918 109574 TRAVIS L PORTER

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BIRMINGHAM DIVERSIFIED SERVICES INC
BK WIXON, INC HOPE'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC

CLAYBOWENINC J D P ENTERPRISES KING'S P&D, INC
TY HURST, INC OUTEREDGE DELIVERIES LLC

OUTEREDGE DELIVERIES INC

GITHUKA INC

GSA DELIVERY SERVICE LLC B & B DELIVERIES LLC PROLIFIC ENTERPRISES INC HOLMES ONE INC HARPER, INC
DMB EXPRESS INC FED UP PACKAGE SERVICES, INC CRIMSON DELIVERY, INC
PGB LLC
TLP INC

Page 175 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 183 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10919 109581 EARNEST BALDWIN
10920 109598 JAMES REEDY 10921 109604 WILLIAM FREDERICK MARCUM
10922 109611 GLENN T ROGERS 10923 109628 CORNELIUS SHAKESPEARE 10924 109635 DEAN GOBER 10925 109642 BRAD VIALL 10926 109659 CHARLES EDWARD HILLIARD 10927 109666 RICHARD DELOACH 10928 109673 MARK PITTS 10929 109680 CURTIS L BREEDING 10930 109697 MARK STUTTS 10931 109703 CHARLES JEFFREY SEAY 10932 109710 HENRY FULWIDER 10933 109727 WILLIAM MITCHELL EDMOND 10934 109734 DAVID CATTARUZZA 10935 109741 DENNIS MUNDY 10936 109758 KEITH WYNN 10937 109765 CLYDE MCGINNIS 10938 109772 ROY BISHOP 10939 109789 PHILLIP GUTHRIE 10940 109796 SONYA Y PRATT 10941 109802 KELLEY BURROUGH 10942 109819 MATHEW EDOSOMWAN
10943 109826 RONALD KYLE TERRILL 10944 109833 JAMISON H SKALNIK 10945 109840 WILLIAM JOHN DESMOND 10946 109857 JENNIFER PAIGE CLARKE 10947 109864 ERIC SHAWN RICE
10948 109871 ALEJANDRO DELATORRE 10949 109888 CLIFTON TRUITT JR
10950 109895 MARY ANN FLORKOSKI 10951 109901 KYNDRA SMITH 10952 109918 JERRY A ANDERSON 10953 109925 JOSHUA GABRIEL SMALLWOOD 10954 109932 GORDON B QUINNEY 10955 109949 SANDRA TRIPLETT 10956 109956 ROBERT MEEK 10957 109963 MILTON LOWELL CLECKLER 10958 109970 THEROLD FUTRAL 10959 109987 DOUG BAILEY 10960 109994 RICHARD BRICKETT 10961 110006 WILLIE L THOMAS 10962 110013 GEORGE D MIXON 10963 110020 ANTHONY W PERKINS 10964 110037 DONALD MURRY 10965 110044 MELVIN A BRYANT SR 10966 110051 RICKY JENKINS 10967 110068 ADAM BAUGH 10968 110075 ALVIE HARLES ALLISON 10969 110082 DENNIS E PRITCHETT 10970 110099 STEVEN SENUTA 10971 110105 HUGH FOSTER 10972 110112 JERRY COBB 10973 110129 BRADFORD COLLINS QUICK 10974 110136 KERRY GRIFFIS 10975 110143 WILLIAM MOSELY 10976 110150 WILLIAM SCOTT NANCE 10977 110167 PAUL DRYER

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

DEARNEST BALDWIN DBA ONE STOP

DELIVERY

MARCUM DELIVERY OF MADISON, INC

G&E TRUCKING INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

TWIST DELIVERY

ON TIME DELIVERY LLC ON TIME DELIVERY INC

BREEDING INCORPORATED M W STUTTS TRANSPORTATION INC
LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS LLC

P D M EAST CORPORATION
HOWZIT INC THE GUTHRIE GROUP, INC S PRATT CORPORATION JUSGIRLS EDOMATT INTERNATIONAL

EDOMATT INTERNATIONAL CORP

JOHN DESMOND INC

ACL LLC

ACL DELIVERY INCORPORATED

CAM N COLIN TRUCKING ENTERPRISE INC

R D MEEK INC L & C SERVICES LLC

PERKIN DELIVERY SERVICE INC MURRY EXPRESS INCORPORATED IBLEE LLC
PRITCHETT ENTERPRISES INC

PLAINSMAN FREIGHT WAYS DOMINION ENTERPRISES LLC

DOMINION ENTERPRISES INC

Page 176 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 184 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 10978 110174 ALEXANDER DRYER 10979 110181 IVY HERBERT 10980 110198 CURTIS FIELDS 10981 110204 RAY MCGRATH 10982 110211 EDDIE HOWARD PEEPLES JR 10983 110228 CHRISTOPHER RAY MCALEXANDER 10984 110235 ALLAN MAY 10985 110242 KATHLEEN MCCARRY 10986 110259 TERRY ADAMS 10987 110266 MARVIN QUAY BOLEN 10988 110273 DAVID N HANEY 10989 110280 CHARLES BECKHAM 10990 110297 RENITA LYNN BOLEN 10991 110303 CHADWICK BRETT SHOEMAKE 10992 110310 CLINT MOORE 10993 110327 FRANK OQUINN 10994 110334 KEVIN MACKAY 10995 110341 DENNIS WILLIAMS 10996 110358 CAROLYN GRICE 10997 110365 THEODORE FLEMING 10998 110372 CHERYL BING 10999 110389 RICHARD O DAVIS
11000 110396 STACEY ANDRESS 11001 110402 DEBRA A LEWIS
11002 110419 ARCHIE REDMON 11003 110426 JOHN L MORRIS
11004 110433 ROBERT D VANGORDEN 11005 110440 PATRICK S WRIGHT 11006 110457 JAROD D MOREE 11007 110464 PERCY BROWN 11008 110471 ROY J WEBB 11009 110488 JAMES R WORTHY 11010 110495 TERENCE CAVALIER 11011 110501 PHILLIP MOORE
11012 110518 CHARLES B TAYLOR 11013 110525 STACY ROGERS 11014 110532 RONALD HAYGOOD 11015 110549 ERIC ALONZO DANCER 11016 110556 RHONDA TAREECE PATTERSON 11017 110563 CHANDRA V HARDAWAY 11018 110570 GLEN M MANGUM 11019 110587 CHISTOPHER E COLLIER 11020 110594 REGINALD J HENDRIX 11021 110600 ARTHUR G WOODS 11022 110617 RAYMOND BRADLEY MASSENGALE 11023 110624 JASON VEALS 11024 110631 JOHONNY WOLFE 11025 110648 VINCENT CAVALIER 11026 110655 JOHN F REARDON 11027 110662 PETER ALAN WOODS 11028 110679 STEWART C STILES 11029 110686 JAMES P TRACY 11030 110693 MICHAEL ANSON MORRIS 11031 110709 MICHAEL CHIDESTER 11032 110716 CHARLES GUNTER 11033 110723 AQUILEO CAMELO 11034 110730 CARLOS TOMASSONI-VIDAL 11035 110747 JOUBERT DASILVA 11036 110754 LARRY EUBANKS 11037 110761 RONALD L VARNADO 11038 110778 LONNIE EARL WARREN

Company Name 1 DOVE TRUCKING INC
CJ FIELDS DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BOLEN DISTRIBUTING INC RLB DELIVERY INC

MACKAY FREIGHT LLC WILLIAMS TRUCKING INC

T FLEMING & SON, INCORPORATED

RICHARD DAVIS TRUCKING DELIVERY SERVICE INC

LEWIS DELIVERY INC

LEWIS PHILLIPS DELIVERY INC

RON KAT TRUCKING, INCORPORATED

PEABO INC COUNTRY BIRD INC
PHILLIP MOORE TRUCKING SERVICE LLC S&M ROGERS INC RL HAYGOOD INC
BONZ TRUCKING, INC MANGUM TRANSPORTATION INC HENDRIX INC B & C MASSENGALE INC VEALS DELIVERY INC
J F REARDON, INC FLAT TIRE EXPRESS INC

CATOVI INC L-UB INC

Page 177 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 185 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11039 110785 PATRICK A WILKINSON 11040 110792 KATHY MOULDS 11041 110808 TIM H MOWDY
11042 110815 STEVEN PAUL WEATHERS 11043 110822 BRANDON CARTER WEBB 11044 110839 JAMES T MELTON
11045 110846 JAMES C MASON 11046 110853 HARVEY HESTER 11047 110860 CECIL C JONES 11048 110877 MARK KYZAR 11049 110884 MALCOUM LYDELL KENT SR 11050 110891 JAMES R SMITH
11051 110907 RICKY JOINER 11052 110914 CHARLES CRANFORD 11053 110921 KENNETH V DEAN 11054 110938 J ODELL FINLEY 11055 110945 KEVIN BRICE HAWKINS 11056 110952 DAVID ALLEN 11057 110969 LISA ANNETTE ROBBERTS 11058 110976 ANTHONY B HOLLIS 11059 110983 JIMMY DALE SMITH 11060 110990 HOUSTON MCKENZIE 11061 111003 TITO F AVERY SR 11062 111010 MARK STEPHEN MULLER 11063 111027 STEVEN JOINER 11064 111034 CHARLES E BROWN
11065 111041 RENOVER LOWELL WHITE 11066 111058 ROBERT STANLEY LUCUS 11067 111065 FERRELL JONES 11068 111072 JESSIE DEWAYNE MCLAIN 11069 111089 KENNETH O HILL 11070 111096 MICHAEL A VORE 11071 111102 PAUL TEETER 11072 111119 BARRY LYLE 11073 111126 FREDDIE REYES 11074 111133 GEORGE DAVID MOORE 11075 111140 MARVIN TYSON 11076 111157 CLIF G COCHRAN 11077 111164 MICHAEL MACKENZIE 11078 111171 ERIC BORROMEO 11079 111188 JOHNNY J EDWARDS 11080 111195 JOHN C STROHM 11081 111201 JOHN ISRAEL WREN 11082 111218 CHARLES BRONSON MURRAY 11083 111225 JEFFERY B CHAMBLEE 11084 111232 JEFFERY JAMAL BROWN 11085 111249 NEAL CONDON 11086 111256 JOHN T THORP 11087 111263 JONATHAN HEDEN 11088 111270 BRUCE HEWITT 11089 111287 JOHN O TAYLOR 11090 111294 LARRY AVERY 11091 111300 ANETHA BROWN 11092 111317 URIAH WIGGINS 11093 111324 JOHN P COPPOLA JR 11094 111331 JOHN LEONIDAS HIGHTOWER 11095 111348 L C BELL 11096 111355 CHARLES W BARNES 11097 111362 PAUL PEARSON 11098 111379 RAY L KIRBY 11099 111386 PERCY KENNETH NELSON

Company Name 1
KATHY MOULDS INC MOWDY ENTERPRISES LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

MOWDY ENTERPRISES INC

BRANDON WEBB ENTERPRISES LLC MELTON SMALL HAUL INCORPORATED

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

M X, INC PHANTOM TRUCKING INC BEAR JOINER TRUCKING INC
FINLEY P&D INC

DIXIE PACKAGE EXPRESS INC

HCM ENTERPRISES, INC SOUTHSIDE EXPRESS, INC
TRIPLE S ENTERPRISES INC C & A ENTERPRISES OF JACKSON INC

LUCUS INC

HILLS TRUCKING INC

HILLS TRUCKING INC

EAST MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORT INC

EDWARDS FREIGHT INC
COONTAIL FREIGHT INC
RML INC MG DESERT EXPRESS LLC

GMJ OF MISSISSIPPA INC PEARSON DELIVERIES, INC

Page 178 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 186 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11100 111393 L WAYNE BARRETT 11101 111409 ANTHONY JULIAN 11102 111416 DAVID W DAVIS 11103 111423 SCOTT H HASTINGS 11104 111430 JOSEPH DAVID BUTLER 11105 111447 ARTIS H IRBY 11106 111454 PENELOPE MATLOCK 11107 111461 LEWIS FAIRLEY 11108 111478 CARLOS MCNAIR 11109 111485 TERRI PHEBUS 11110 111492 GEORGE H SIMPSON 11111 111508 WILLIAM D WILSON 11112 111515 KENNETH STEWART 11113 111522 MIKE RECORD 11114 111539 DONNIL GILLESPIE 11115 111546 DAVID HALDANE HUCKEL 11116 111553 MAYLON R PEAKS 11117 111560 RAYNER M LIZANA 11118 111577 ALBERT PERRY 11119 111584 HUGH HARRIS DANIEL III 11120 111591 MARVON SPELL 11121 111607 MARK CASH 11122 111614 TRAVIS CRAIG BOSWELL JR 11123 111621 MICHAEL BAILEY 11124 111638 HAROLD NORRIS BOLIN 11125 111645 BRIAN BOUCHILLON 11126 111652 RICHARD LAWRENCE SMITHJR 11127 111669 BRANDON WAYNE SIMON 11128 111676 DONALD TAMBOLI 11129 111683 LANDRY J HILL 11130 111690 DANIEL MALONE 11131 111706 THOMAS E SMITH III
11132 111713 LEROY BEDDINGFIELD 11133 111720 ANTHONY ODOM 11134 111737 CLABERT LAWRENCE GUILLORY 11135 111744 ROBERT H MOORE JR 11136 111751 DARYLE WOOD 11137 111768 FRANK PORTER 11138 111775 MICHAEL D NEAL 11139 111782 DAVID MOORE 11140 111799 MARTIN INMAN SHOEMAKE 11141 111805 LARRY FULLILOVE 11142 111812 JAMES FORSYTHE 11143 111829 JOSEPH GARRETT BUSTIN 11144 111836 KEVIN HOLYFIELD 11145 111843 CHARLES BEAMON 11146 111850 MARVIN WASHINGTON 11147 111867 JOHNANNES JACOBUS THIEL II 11148 111874 PAMELA D SMITH 11149 111881 JEFF HERRINGTON 11150 111898 DEBRA ANN THOMPSON 11151 111904 CHRISTOPHER HARGRAVE 11152 111911 DANNY PUTNAM 11153 111928 DANNY R WRIGHT 11154 111935 ROBERT CRAFT 11155 111942 DESKA LENORRIS MAYFIELD 11156 111959 DAVID POWELL 11157 111966 KEITH HAYGOOD 11158 111973 STIFAN WASHINGTON 11159 111980 DEWAYNE E FRENCH 11160 111997 ARCHIE TAYLOR 11161 112000 WALTER GREG RODGERS 11162 112017 PERRY CURTIS 11163 112024 RAYMOND E BROWN

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

DAVIS DELIVERY SERVICE
MOSELLE TRANSPORTATION LLC
MATLOCK PD INC DFIANT INC CARLOS INC PHEBUS TRUCKING INC

MATLOCK PD INC

STEWART'S P & D EXPRESS, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BOSWELL TRANSPORTATION INC

BOUCHILLON TRUCKING INC

WJ PARCEL SERVICE

WJ PARCEL SERVICE INC

HILLS UNLIMITED INC

YOUNG MOTIVATED ENTREPENEUR INC MJK ENTERPRISES INC

FULLILOVE-FULLILOVE & ASSOC INC
STAT DELIVERY SERVICES INC
COASTAL LOGISTICS INC HARGRAVE DELIVERY INC WRIGHTAWAY, INC D'MAYFIELD INC THE POWELL COMPANY STIFAN & DARLENE INC A & T ENTERPRISES INC

Page 179 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 187 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11164 112031 JOHNNIE E MASSEY 11165 112048 JASON FORRESTER 11166 112055 RUSSELL A CLAYTON 11167 112062 TOMMY PACE 11168 112079 CHARLES WALLACE 11169 112086 ANTHONY TERRELL INGRAM 11170 112093 DERRICK BROCK 11171 112109 STEPHEN SHANE BRISTER 11172 112116 RODNEY MEADERS 11173 112123 GARY DONNELL LEACH 11174 112130 DANIEL W HAWKINS 11175 112147 ROBERT DUSTIN REESE 11176 112154 CLINT DOUGLAS MCHAN 11177 112161 JOSH REESE 11178 112178 COREEN J JORDAN 11179 112185 WYLIE GLENN BRISTER 11180 112192 ELBERT PHILLIPS 11181 112208 LEROY FREEMAN 11182 112215 DAVID PARKER
11183 112222 WILLIAM V WARREN JR 11184 112239 HOSTON MATTHEWS 11185 112246 ROBIN V NORWOOD 11186 112253 HAROLD MITCHELL 11187 112260 STEVE SAIK 11188 112277 MICHAEL A HERMAN 11189 112284 JACKIE NICHOLS 11190 112291 VIRGIL MCNEELY 11191 112307 ELVIS CARRANZA 11192 112314 MAURICE G WINSTON 11193 112321 SHAWN HARRIS
11194 112338 JOHN RINGER 11195 112345 ARTHUR LEE HOUSTON JR 11196 112352 VICTOR SAINE 11197 112369 STAHLE L SMITH 11198 112376 RICKY GLEN MCCLUSKEY 11199 112383 LANCE ALAN PRY 11200 112390 TOMMY R HARRIS 11201 112406 KENDRICK OLANE WILBURN 11202 112413 COLBY BURKE BREWER
11203 112420 KEVIN KILMAN 11204 112437 JOHN DAVID HILL 11205 112444 KENNETH SMITH 11206 112451 TIMOTHY WADE BURNS 11207 112468 JACK SANDERS 11208 112475 OKWUDILI A NWOFOR 11209 112482 RICHARD HOLLOWAY 11210 112499 RASIM ZILIC 11211 112505 JEFFREY OBRIEN 11212 112512 JOHN JASPER DEAN ZACHARY 11213 112529 DOUGLAS JORDAN 11214 112536 RICKEY MCPHERSON 11215 112543 CHARLES EDWARD DEGARMO 11216 112550 WILLIE L BRAY 11217 112567 DANIEL AUSTIN BADEAUX 11218 112574 JERRY BULLINGTON 11219 112581 RICHARD MORRISE 11220 112598 BILL B MORRISE 11221 112604 WILLIAM C NOLAN 11222 112611 RICHARD WHEELER 11223 112628 TIM SMITH 11224 112635 JAMES URICK 11225 112642 CHRISTOPHER COE

Company Name 1 J &J MASSEY CORPORATION
RALJ INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

NOTEWE TRUCKING INC REESE DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

COREEN DELIVERING SERVICE INC TKM LLC

D & E SYSTEM INC; D & E SYSTEMS INC

GREENLEAF TRANSPORT INC
SAIK TRANSPORT INCORPORATED
R N B LLC; RNB LLC MAC MOMENTUM INC

MAC MOMENTUM INC

SHAWN HARRIS ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED RINGER ENTERPRISE GROUP INC

PRY ENTERPRISES LLC

PRY INC

WILBURN DELIVERY SERVICES INC BURKENBROOKE TRANSPORTS INC
EXCELLENCE IN DELIVERY INC

BREWER BROTHERS DELIVERY INC

CITY COURIER INC

US EXPEDITING, INC ZACHARY ENTERPRISES INC

EAUX TRANSPORTATION INC MORRISE TRUCKING INC W C NOLAN INC
CEESQUARE ENT INC

GROUND EXPRESS LLC GROUND EXPRESS INC

Page 180 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 188 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11226 112659 BRANDON SWIFT 11227 112666 MIKE MANFRED ROJAS SR
11228 112673 KENNETH HOLDER 11229 112680 JAMES KANYINGI 11230 112697 AARON THOMAS 11231 112703 TERRY ROGERS 11232 112710 STEVEN W SHOEMAKER 11233 112727 PAUL EUGENE CLAVET 11234 112734 VICTOR BRYAN HUNT 11235 112741 AARON FORKUM 11236 112758 SHAUN PAUL OBRIEN 11237 112765 CRAIG ADAMS 11238 112772 ROBERT JASON WALTON 11239 112789 MICHAEL P DREWRY 11240 112796 CRAIG OBRIEN 11241 112802 HAROLD LEE JR 11242 112819 KENNETH ERIC HANEY 11243 112826 JOSHUA BRYAN LAWS 11244 112833 ANTHONY DEWAYNE DRUMGOOLE SR 11245 112840 JIMMY DRUMGOOLE
11246 112857 MICHAEL BERGHAGER 11247 112864 JESSIE L MOORE 11248 112871 JOHN C BOYD 11249 112888 JERRY WOOTEN 11250 112895 GEORGIANNA MERRELL 11251 112901 GARY BARTLETT 11252 112918 MICHAEL HOLDENRIED 11253 112925 RICHARD HENDRICKS 11254 112932 BILLY BROWN 11255 112949 JOE HOOKER 11256 112956 BRUCK HORNBURG 11257 112963 EDWARD JUDSON 11258 112970 CHRIS BOYER 11259 112987 DOUG JEFFERY 11260 112994 HAROLD A LINDSEY 11261 113007 DAVID E MILLER 11262 113014 CHARLES PRETTYMAN 11263 113021 DEANNA LYNN WINDER 11264 113038 JERALD ENANDER 11265 113045 JESSE SANDS 11266 113052 MIKE RIDDLE 11267 113069 HOWARD DELMAR LANKFORD 11268 113076 GENE AUSTIN 11269 113083 STEVE TOWNSEND 11270 113090 CHARLES D LEE 11271 113106 ROLAND MCNEIL 11272 113113 LLOYD RUSH 11273 113120 DUANE DAVID TEEHEE
11274 113137 JAMES TALLEY 11275 113144 DERRICK ALLMON 11276 113151 KEVIN H YORK 11277 113168 MICHAEL SMITH 11278 113175 BRADFORD SETTLE 11279 113182 STEVEN G CRAWFORD 11280 113199 CHRISTOPHER RYAN ALLEN 11281 113205 NATHAN D BROWN 11282 113212 JAY WALLER 11283 113229 BRIAN JOHNSON 11284 113236 ROBERT GIBSON IV 11285 113243 FRANK BOGNANO 11286 113250 ED KING 11287 113267 EDDIE LEE THOMAS

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

ROJAS M & N SERVICES LLC; ROJAS ROJAS SERVICES

M&N SERVICES LLC

INCORPORATED

Company Name 3

SHOEMAKER CONTRACTING INC
A&J DELIVERY INC OBRIEN TRANSPORTING INC
JWALS ENTERPRISE INC MIKE DREWRY INC COB ENTERPRISES INC

ON POINT DELIVERY, INC J&L DELIVERY SSVCS LLC
BERGHAGER PARCEL DELIVERY INC

J T DELIVERY SERVICE CORP

WTS INC R G T T M INC BARTLETT SERVICES INC HOLDENRIED INC RJH GROUP INC BILBRO INC JOE HOOKER'S DELIVERY SVC INC HORNBURG TRUCKING JUDSON TRANS CONSULTING INC M&B TRANSPORT R S C J LLC

T C PRETTY INC WINDER ENTERPRISES INC
SANDMAN HOME DELIVERY INC
LL EXPRESS LTD
EXPRESS TRANS SERVICE INC

RUSH DELIVERY CORP PEARLDUANE LLC

PEARLDUANE, INC

TJK DELIVERY SERVICES INC

SETTLE DELIVERIES INC CRAWFORD COURIERS INC
DOWNTOWN DELIVERIES INC
RABBIT EXPRESS INC RG&B ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 181 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 189 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11288 113274 CECIL W RYAN 11289 113281 MACEO SMITH 11290 113298 MICHAEL J TURNER 11291 113304 BETTY PINKINS 11292 113311 JAMES SMITH 11293 113328 DREW B LANDRY 11294 113335 ELROY PINKINS
11295 113342 ESTEVE LIVINGS 11296 113359 ARNOLD SKIPPER 11297 113366 ALBERT J BOYD 11298 113373 AUSTEN H WOOD 11299 113380 KENNETH JOSEPH SMITH SR 11300 113397 ROY HAYES 11301 113403 JOE NEIL BUCKNER 11302 113410 ROBERT WESLEY MCMILLIAN 11303 113427 ALBERT NORTHERN 11304 113434 ANDREW W ISTRE JR 11305 113441 ALEXANDER FERGUSON 11306 113458 RUSSELL MYRON MCCLURE 11307 113465 VORNIE R WOODLEY 11308 113472 DARRYL JOSEPH COULON 11309 113489 BYRON BOLDEN 11310 113496 WILLIE BOLDEN 11311 113502 PAUL MARC COLLINS 11312 113519 CHRIS PIZZUTO 11313 113526 ALVIN WILLIAM WASHINGTON 11314 113533 CHIKENNA DIONNE JONES 11315 113540 ANTHONY BROUSSARD 11316 113557 JAMISON H WYNNE 11317 113564 STEPHEN LOCOCO 11318 113571 OTIS DANTONIO REDDING 11319 113588 JOEL HAINES DUPLANTIS 11320 113595 BRIAN NEW
11321 113601 ALFREDO BEAUCHAMP 11322 113618 TERENCE LERON GRAHAM 11323 113625 GUSTAVO N VINET 11324 113632 DEDRIC EUGENE DIXSON 11325 113649 SHEILA TOOMEY 11326 113656 RYAN JUDE BOUDREAUX 11327 113663 TERRENCE KENYON MCCOY 11328 113670 MICHAEL W BROUSSARD 11329 113687 ALLAMONT DEANDRE BATES 11330 113694 SCOTT STERLING STRIPLING 11331 113700 JONATHAN ARD 11332 113717 CHAD DAVID MEIER 11333 113724 BRETT DUNHAM 11334 113731 JEREMIAH D MYERS 11335 113748 JAMES VANSDRELL WASHINGTON 11336 113755 TROY A MOUTON 11337 113762 AARON LINZEY COWART 11338 113779 GLORIA MOTT 11339 113786 JENNIFER HILLEBRANDT 11340 113793 SIMON A MCKEE JR 11341 113809 CHRISTY D BOND 11342 113816 CLARENCE DALCOUR 11343 113823 BYRON R WINTERS 11344 113830 DAVID KEVIN JACKSON 11345 113847 KENNETH MARTINEZ 11346 113854 JASON CHARLES MORRIS 11347 113861 EDWARD LAWRENCE BAKER SR 11348 113878 KELLY T CASLER 11349 113885 JEREMY GUILLOT 11350 113892 BRANDON FONTENOT

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JANAE & COMPANY, INC
DREW B LANDRY INC ELROY E PINKINS ENTERPRISES INC ELROY & PINKINS
ENTERPRISES INC
SKIPPER TRANSPORT INC
HILLSIDE SERVICES SUCCESSFUL TWO INC HAYES TRANSPORT INC JOT DELIVERY INC
A L & A, INC

MCCLURE TRUCKING NIPSY ENTERPRISES LLC J & D DELIVERY CO INC
WB MAIL SERVICE LLC

NIPSY ENTERPRISES INC

YELLOW ROOM INC S&L TRANSPORT SERVICE INC

ACADIANA DELIVERY SERVICE; ACADIANA DELIVERY SERVICE, INC A2B LOGISTICS LLC GEMINI DELIVERY, INC VINET P&D INC D E M DIXSON, INC

A2B TRANSPORT, INC

MERRYDALE PARCEL LOGISTICS, INC BATES INVESTMENTS INC AKS ENTERPRISES LLC

C R C COURIER SERVICE INC
MEPS INC D&H COURIER SERVICES INC ELB INCORPORATED GIZMO DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

Page 182 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 190 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11351 113908 EDDIE SINNOTT 11352 113915 CHRISTOPHER VANDENBORRE 11353 113922 CHARLES RAYMOND PEER JR 11354 113939 WILLIAM PAUL MORGAN 11355 113946 TOMMY TAYLOR 11356 113953 CLARENCE SIMS 11357 113960 DWIGHT BOURGEOIS 11358 113977 WESLEY EDWARDS 11359 113984 DENNIS S GRANGER 11360 113991 PATRICIA AMERSON 11361 114004 KENNETH HAMILTON PRESCOTT 11362 114011 EARL WILLIAMS 11363 114028 JOSEPH BOURDA 11364 114035 WAYNE ANGELLE 11365 114042 PATRICE MARY SHAVOR
11366 114059 HENRY JOHNSON 11367 114066 GILFORD HERNANDEZ 11368 114073 RICHARD PELLEGRIN
11369 114080 KENNETH E ELLIS 11370 114097 SAMUEL MANIA 11371 114103 TROY L NEWMAN 11372 114110 BENJAMIN MCDANIEL JR 11373 114127 GILBERT W GARY 11374 114134 GHASSAN FAHAD 11375 114141 DALIBOR STANKOVIC 11376 114158 ALVIN PAUL 11377 114165 ANTONOIOUS PEGUES 11378 114172 JUDE ROY BROUSSARD 11379 114189 JEROME FLOYD 11380 114196 KENNETH ALLEN GLOVER 11381 114202 CLIFFORD LEE ALBRO 11382 114219 MARISSA JOSEPH 11383 114226 STEVEN K LEBLANC 11384 114233 JEFFERY LYNN TAYLOR 11385 114240 KEVIN ODOMS 11386 114257 CURBY KENDALL THOMAS 11387 114264 JOHN KERR 11388 114271 DARRYL MORRISON
11389 114288 BRIAN YOCHES 11390 114295 JEFFREY DEAN LEJEUNE 11391 114301 HEATH LAMBERT MADISON
11392 114318 MICHAEL TURNER 11393 114325 JOHNNIE COLLINS
11394 114332 MICHAEL A BOUTTE SR 11395 114349 WILLIAM DESTEFANO 11396 114356 JAY ANTHONY HARRINGTON 11397 114363 CHARLES AMAR 11398 114370 JOHN DOYLE 11399 114387 NATHANIEL DAVIS 11400 114394 CHERAMIE D COURVILLE 11401 114400 WENDY B STAMPLEY 11402 114417 TRAVIS J ETIE 11403 114424 TAMMY SIMIEN 11404 114431 JASON DUPREE 11405 114448 JONATHAN RAYBURN 11406 114455 CARL BROUSSARD 11407 114462 MANUEL MUKES 11408 114479 CHRIS A BUSHNELL 11409 114486 JOSEPH PELOSO 11410 114493 NARSEAL BATISTE

Company Name 1 EJS TRANSPORTATION INC TORBETH ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PARCELS & PACKAGES DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

PELLEGRIN FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC

FED G INC MCDANIEL ENTERPRISES, LLC WAYNE'S EXPRESS INC FAHAD DELIVERY INC DADO LLC

DADO PARCEL INC

T & J EXPRESS FREIGHT HAULERS INC KVG INC

MORRISON'S TRUCK DELIVERY SERVICE, INC
A & J ENTERPRISES INC HIGHLY FAVORED LLC
TURNER DELIVERY SERVICE INC JL COLLINS ENTERPRISES LLC
DESTEFANO TRUCKING, INC

HIGHLY FAVORED ENTERPRISES INC
JOHNNY R P S DELIVERY, INC

CDC DELIVERY INC STAMPLEY DELIVERY SERVICES LLC T N A ENTERPRISES INC COMES 2 U
TRUSTINGTRUCKING INC

Page 183 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 191 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11411 114509 JOHN JOHNSON 11412 114516 RAYMOND MEQUET 11413 114523 CHAMECLLAR KREAU BOUDREAUX 11414 114530 DOUGLAS F BOSCHEINEN 11415 114547 TERRANCE ROSS 11416 114554 KALANTHA WEBER
11417 114561 JARROD MORGAN 11418 114578 BRAD KEITH FLEMING 11419 114585 NANCY ARAGON 11420 114592 KEVIN DEWAYNE BRUMFIELD 11421 114608 LLOYD LEE GLENN 11422 114615 MICHELLE FONTENOT 11423 114622 JOHN PINCKARD 11424 114639 JOHN CHAMBERS ROETHLISBERGER 11425 114646 RUFAS HOWARD 11426 114653 RICHARD A LAURENT 11427 114660 RICHARD HAMPTON
11428 114677 RANDALL DAQUANNO 11429 114684 JOHN ALBIN 11430 114691 JOHN FOSTER 11431 114707 ROGER D LANCLOS 11432 114714 KERRY GIBSON 11433 114721 RUSSELL L YATES 11434 114738 WILLIAM CHARLES AUGUSTINE 11435 114745 RAMON AGUILERA 11436 114752 JEFFERY D CURRY 11437 114769 BARTHOLOMEW HEBERT 11438 114776 JEFFERY MULKEY 11439 114783 TIMOL LEMOYNE LIGGANS SR 11440 114790 MICHAEL CAGE 11441 114806 CHARLES KELLY 11442 114813 JOHN CASTALDI 11443 114820 JOHN R CARR 11444 114837 MICHAEL C BEASLEY 11445 114844 JEFF TRIM
11446 114851 CHRISTOPHER J FOWLER 11447 114868 TANYA BURKE 11448 114875 WILLIAM BOGAN
11449 114882 FRANCIS F CHIMENTO 11450 114899 JOHN L JENKINS 11451 114905 ROBERT YERBY 11452 114912 ALFRED H PETE
11453 114929 IVORY JEROME JACOBS SR
11454 114936 AARON KEITH ELLIS 11455 114943 SCOTT GUIDRY 11456 114950 RONALD E CARRAL 11457 114967 RODNEY MURICE TURNER 11458 114974 ERIC JONES 11459 114981 JED GUIDRY 11460 114998 CEDRIC HAMMOND 11461 115001 GARY OGEA 11462 115018 CHAD ROY 11463 115025 EMILE JARMARD NORTON 11464 115032 IRY MARCEAUX III 11465 115049 ANTHONY RIVERA 11466 115056 IONE BERRY
11467 115063 TONY DEAN MOSLEY

Company Name 1
MEQUET ENTERPRISES INC D & T COURIERS LLC

Company Name 2

KALANTHA WEBER DSD EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FONTENOT TRUCKING
RICHARD HAMPTON TRUCK DELIVERY SERVICE INC ALBIN ENTERPRISES INC R D LANCLOS INC

MULKEY TRANSPORT

TRIM & TRIM LLC; TRIM, TRIM LLC 6 FOWLERS LOC

TRIM & TRIM OF LOUISIANA, INC

ALPHA 4 ENTERPRISES LLC

ALPHA 4 ENTERPRISES,

INC

FRANCIS F CHIMENTO ENTERPR INC

YERBY ENTERPRISES INC HERMAN PETE CONTRACTING SERVICE CORP GREENER PASTURES OF LOUISIANA, INC AK ELLIS ENTERPRISES, INC SLG4 DELIVERY INC

T WILL'S TRUCKING, INC

THE ESTATE OF CHAD ROY ARIES DELIVERY SERVICE INC
GET READY 60, INC IONE BERRY TRUCK DELIVERY SVC INC MOE'S EXPRESS LLC

Page 184 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 192 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11468 115070 KEVIN J SMITH
11469 115087 CORY JOHN CLOPHUS 11470 115094 LYLE TERELL MARTIN 11471 115100 ANDRES MARTINEZ 11472 115117 TERRY DIGILORMO 11473 115124 WANDA K NEAL 11474 115131 CHARLES HOLT 11475 115148 CEDRIC PAUL GASPARD 11476 115155 ROBERT FONSECA 11477 115162 BERNARD GREEN JR 11478 115179 ADRIAN MARCUS FRANCIS 11479 115186 JAMAL AMIN FRANCIS 11480 115193 JEFFERY ALAN WALKER
11481 115209 MILTON MORGAN 11482 115216 DAVID PAMLANYE 11483 115223 ALVIN V FAULSTICH 11484 115230 BETTY D WEAVER 11485 115247 TERRI SUE RIVERA 11486 115254 MICHAEL BELLARD 11487 115261 TERREL FONTENOT 11488 115278 JIMMY WILLIAMS 11489 115285 MIKE PADILLA 11490 115292 WILLIE L MACK JR 11491 115308 CRAIG C KORKOSZ 11492 115315 CHRISTOPHER LAVELLE WILLIAMS SR 11493 115322 ERNEST CARRIE 11494 115339 TIMOTHY TOTZECK 11495 115346 DONALD GLYNN WILLIAMS 11496 115353 ALBERT HALL 11497 115360 THERESA NOBLE 11498 115377 SANDRA W ENGELS 11499 115384 BYRON ANTHONY BLAND 11500 115391 KATRINA DIANA BREAUX 11501 115407 JASON PINKINS 11502 115414 FRANK DOUGLAS RANDLEJR 11503 115421 ROBERT ROSENWEIG 11504 115438 DWAYNE BUTLER 11505 115445 PRESTON PATRICK PRICE JR 11506 115452 ANGELA SYLVESTER 11507 115469 KERRICK K WILLIAMS 11508 115476 ELMON BROOKS 11509 115483 BARBARA BROOKS
11510 115490 BEN AARON CORBITT 11511 115506 RICHARD BADEAUX 11512 115513 BRETT MARTIN BERGERON 11513 115520 DEXTER P FOUNTAIN 11514 115537 KEVIN BRUCE INGO 11515 115544 CLINTON HEBERT 11516 115551 CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS 11517 115568 MARIE A CORDONE 11518 115575 MARCUS PENNYWELL 11519 115582 RANDALL HANKS 11520 115599 DAVID RYAN LOCKHART 11521 115605 EUGENE COLLINS SR 11522 115612 ERNEST RICHARDSON 11523 115629 ERIC LEE MORRIS 11524 115636 TERRELL BANKS 11525 115643 ELIJAH DRUMMER 11526 115650 LUTHER J FAGAN 11527 115667 PHILLIP GERALD DONALD 11528 115674 JIM BERARDI

Company Name 1 NEW BEGINNING COURIER SERVICE LLC
ON THE GO DELIVERY SERVICE L M DRIVE TIME, INC

Company Name 2 NEW BEGINNINGS DELIVERY AND COURIER SERVICES INC

Company Name 3

WKN INC
CPG INC R J FONSECA TRANSPORT INC
ON TRACK ENTERPRISES, INC
JEFF WALKER DELIVERY SERVICES INC

ALS DELIVERY SERVICE INC
THR EXPRESS TONYA ENTERPRISE INC
JIMBARB LLC

JIMBARB TRUCKING INC

EXPEDITED DELIVERIES INC
D G WILLIAMS INC A&L TRANSPORTATION

BYRON BLAND INC POSITIVE AFFIRMATION, LLC COLLINS DELIVERY SERVICE, INC
ROBERT ROSENWEIG INC D&T EXPRESS, INC P3 PARCEL SERVICES, INC GOOD NUFF DELIVERY LLC
BROOKS & BRIDGES, INC B BROOKS MZ FEDX LLC
SERVICE SECTOR INC RICHARD BADEAUX ENT INC

SYLKIM INC
BROOKS & BRIDGES, INC A BROOKS INCORPORATION

INGO CORP

HANKS ENTERPRISE INC
LEE E M INC LJF ENTERPRISE INCOROPORATION PDA, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 185 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 193 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11529 115681 DALE WILLIAM ROBERTS II 11530 115698 SARA M LOTT 11531 115704 MARK ROBIN 11532 115711 RAYMOND GRIFFIN 11533 115728 EDWARD P WESLEY 11534 115735 MAX RAYMOND PERDUE 11535 115742 BILLY ROY CARPENTER 11536 115759 GREG GILLIAM 11537 115766 EDWARD CHARLES FOSTER 11538 115773 BRIAN KEITH BOYD 11539 115780 TIMOTHY J BELLOW 11540 115797 JAMES WILSON 11541 115803 JACKIE PRIMEAUX 11542 115810 MELVIN TRAHAN 11543 115827 MICHAEL A LAWRENCE
11544 115834 MARLON KYLE BURRELL 11545 115841 DERICK EDWARD JOHNSON 11546 115858 HENRY RAYFORD 11547 115865 HARRIS TURNER 11548 115872 ROBERT M BUTLER 11549 115889 GEORGE DOUCET 11550 115896 ANTHONY SHERMAN SCOTT 11551 115902 DESMOND WATTS 11552 115919 TONY ORLANDA BOYD 11553 115926 DARRYL RAY SUMBLER 11554 115933 DEMOND LAKEITH THOMAS SR
11555 115940 IAN WILLIAM KOWZA 11556 115957 BOBBY VINCENT 11557 115964 FARRELL J ROBERTS 11558 115971 TRENT STEPHEN MURPHY 11559 115988 COREY ANDRE COVINGTON
11560 115995 MICHAEL COPELAND 11561 116008 JEREMY STJULIEN 11562 116015 LESLIE DEWAYNE REEKS 11563 116022 NATHANIEL DAVIS JR 11564 116039 JASON PERRY 11565 116046 GARY E THORNE 11566 116053 WILLIAM A WOOD 11567 116060 DAVID PINKINS 11568 116077 ERIC KIDD 11569 116084 JAMES DOBENSKY 11570 116091 BRIAN H JOHNSON 11571 116107 CARLOS D ODELL 11572 116114 IVORY JOHN SIMON SR 11573 116121 JAMES PIERCE 11574 116138 AARON MCCRAY 11575 116145 ADRIAN HORNER 11576 116152 TIMOTHY J BESTA 11577 116169 SHIRLEY RUSSO 11578 116176 BRUCE WILLIAMS 11579 116183 HUGH S CUNNINGHAM 11580 116190 GARY SCHARFF 11581 116206 PHILLIP MERVYN WILLIAMS 11582 116213 JIMMY WASHINGTON 11583 116220 DENNIS RAMEY 11584 116237 FORREST G DECUIR JR 11585 116244 RICHARD TAYLOR 11586 116251 WARREN RATCLIFF
11587 116268 RACHAL DESILVA 11588 116275 BARRY LACOMBE 11589 116282 GARY W TYNES

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

CROSS WHEELS INC GRIFFIN TRANS & TRKG INC
PERDUE TRANSPORT, INC

S & G DELIVERY INC ANOTHER CHANCE EXPRESS INC T J BELLOW DELIVERY SERVICE JAMES THREE SONS PRIMEAUX EXPRESS INC BMV TRUCKING INC MICHAEL A LAWRENCE LLC
BURROW ENTERPRISE, INC D JOHNSON, INC RAYFORD TRANSPORT INC

MICHAEL A LAWRENCE INC

BIG DOOLEY'S EXPRESS C & C DELIVERY SERVICE INC

WATTS DELIVERY, INC

THOMAS ENTERPRISE BATON ROUGE LLC
BMV TRUCKING INC

CLASSIC COURIER SERVICE LLC GRAHAM EXPRESS INC

CLASSIC COURIER SERVICE INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JASON PERRY TRANSPORT, INC THE TRANSPORTER TOO, INC

EXPRESS SHIPPING LLC

A CORP LLC

TJB LOGISTICS, INC SHIRLEY'S WHEELS INC BRUCE WILLIAMS COMPANIES INC HUGH S CUNNINGHAM LLC

PHILLIP WILLIAMS COMPANY JR P&D CONTRACTING INC J & SKAGGS LLC

D&J CARRIERS INC

R D C R ENTERPRISES LLC

R D C R ENTERPRISES INC

WARREN RATCLIFF TRUCK DELIVERY

SERVICE, INC

Page 186 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 194 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11590 116299 KEVIN D WOMACK 11591 116305 TERRANCE CAMPBELL 11592 116312 DAVID MICHAEL GOODLY 11593 116329 DREW HERRICK 11594 116336 SCOTT BORDELON 11595 116343 TERRY WILLIS 11596 116350 KATRINA ROSELLA 11597 116367 ANTHONY CARL BOWERS 11598 116374 BRIAN LOCKETT
11599 116381 MCGREGORY WEBSTER 11600 116398 ANTONIO HULL 11601 116404 BRIAN FIRSTLEY 11602 116411 SHARON COBB 11603 116428 DANNY WASHINGTON 11604 116435 TOD HUVAL 11605 116442 DAVID COURVILLE 11606 116459 KEVIN V MCCOY 11607 116466 TYRONE KIDD 11608 116473 TONY DUFFY 11609 116480 COURTNEY DEWAYNE WEBSTER 11610 116497 CEDRIC ANTHONY MOORE 11611 116503 RICKY LEE VIDRINE 11612 116510 THAD ROYCE 11613 116527 STERLING TREMELL GREEN 11614 116534 FREDERICK JOHNSON 11615 116541 BERNARD LATUSA 11616 116558 STEVE NEAL 11617 116565 SCOTT ARSENEAUX 11618 116572 JAMES HOLLINS 11619 116589 ARTHUR RAY FRANCIS 11620 116596 LOUIS FOUQUET III 11621 116602 TONYA DISOTELL 11622 116619 JULIUS LESTER 11623 116626 RANDALL MCGEE 11624 116633 MICHAEL SERIO 11625 116640 GREGORY BRIAN ANDERSON 11626 116657 MARC ANTHONY BOUTTE 11627 116664 RODRICK T JORDAN 11628 116671 KENNETH FROST 11629 116688 JASON LEVETTE CALDWELL 11630 116695 DETRIC JOHARI NICHOLSON 11631 116701 TORREY V JOHNSON SR 11632 116718 DAVID JOSEPH LEBLANC 11633 116725 GAYLEN PELLERIN 11634 116732 ACHELIN CLEOPHAT 11635 116749 RONALD C PATRICK 11636 116756 DIANNE F MCGUIRK 11637 116763 KARLEEN BISHOP 11638 116770 GEORGE J FOURNET 11639 116787 FELTON PINKINS 11640 116794 SIMMIE TAYLOR 11641 116800 ROBERT TERRENCE BREWIN
11642 116817 DREXTER J ISTRE 11643 116824 TERRENCE N JEANSONNE 11644 116831 REBECCA SAULS 11645 116848 MICHAEL A SEYMORE 11646 116855 KELLY B HUTCHINSON 11647 116862 IRA W CARTER 11648 116879 RICHARD LANDECHE 11649 116886 TROY SIMONTON 11650 116893 DOLLEY A JOUBERT 11651 116909 JUAN HAYES

Company Name 1
CAMPBELL KINGS, INC GOODLY'S CONTRACTING, INC

Company Name 2

T WILL'S TRUCKING, INC

BRIAN LOCKETT TRUCK DELIVERY SERVICE, INC; BRIAN LOCKETT TRUCK DELIVERY SVC INC

360 DEGREES LLC

360 DEGREES INC

WASHINGTON ENT OF ALEX INC

MCCOY ENTERPRISE INDUSTRY INC TYBALL INC C D WEBSTER, INC RICKYS DELIVERY SERVICE INC GREEN EXPRESS INC BERNARD J LATUSA INC JORDAN'S DELIVERY, INC J I HOLLINS TRANSPORT INC LTK&S LLC LESTER ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DETRICK J NICHOLSON INC TRIEUX INC
BAS PACKAGE SERV ACG SERVICES INC
D-MAC INC
RED RYDER DELIVERIES INC PINKINS DELIVERY SERVICE, INC BESS COMPANY DELIVERIES BREWIN ENTERPRISES CORPORATION

BREWIN ENTERPRISES CORPORATION

SEYMORE MONEY LLC KBH CONTRACTING SERVICES INC
XCELR8, INC
D J DELIVERY SERVICES, INC J&B BULK INC

Page 187 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 195 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11652 116916 MICHEL BOITEUX 11653 116923 MICHAEL HARDIN 11654 116930 SHELDON VEALS 11655 116947 ARNOLD JOSEPH GUSSMAN JR 11656 116954 ANGELA DUCOTE 11657 116961 MICHAEL BRANDON HANDY 11658 116978 ROBERT K SIMON 11659 116985 GERALD PROCTOR 11660 116992 RONALD R MCGEE 11661 117005 MARLON SIMS 11662 117012 DARRELL ADAM DUHON JR 11663 117029 TROY GIVENS 11664 117036 COKOMA WILLIAMS 11665 117043 HERBERT WILLIAMS JR 11666 117050 CURTIS R WATKINS 11667 117067 JASON BRISCOE 11668 117074 DANIEL VAULT 11669 117081 AUTHOR RAYMOND 11670 117098 SEAN MICHAEL COLEMAN 11671 117104 JOE D BOWIE 11672 117111 MARK S SAVOY 11673 117128 DAVID READO JR 11674 117135 TERRY LACOUR 11675 117142 GREGORY EUGENE MCQUEEN 11676 117159 JOHN J DELANEY 11677 117166 WAYNE SWEET 11678 117173 JOSUHA ONEAL WEED 11679 117180 CHRIS MORGAN 11680 117197 MICHAEL BRADY 11681 117203 JAMES F BENTON 11682 117210 MARCUS YOUNG 11683 117227 KENNETH ARNAUD 11684 117234 ANDREI N DOUBRO 11685 117241 DANIEL WAYNE GOODE 11686 117258 PATSY POOLE 11687 117265 ROBERT C DRAPER 11688 117289 REMZI OZTURK 11689 117296 ALAN WAYNE BOUDA 11690 117302 JULIAN KIVELIYK 11691 117319 BEN OWENS 11692 117326 BILLY J ROBERTS 11693 117333 WILLIAM G SMART 11694 117340 DEBORAH BENNETT 11695 117357 MONTY COBURN 11696 117364 THOMAS ROUNDTREE 11697 117371 STEVEN HEINRICHS 11698 117388 GREGORY T HEATH 11699 117395 KIMBERLEY E DRAKE 11700 117401 TOBY ROBERTS 11701 117418 JAMES CHAD FLOYD 11702 117425 JOSE CANTU JR 11703 117432 JASON PHILLIPS
11704 117449 TERRY GENE HARRELSON 11705 117456 MICHELLE BARNETT 11706 117463 DAVID OGLE 11707 117470 CHARLES DAVID CLERE
11708 117487 TYSON WOLF STEPHENS 11709 117494 JAMES HEERWALD 11710 117500 KENDALL GARTON 11711 117517 JARA MCCOY 11712 117524 DEMONT L BAGBY 11713 117531 WILLIE CHRICSIN GILLIAM 11714 117548 SEAN PATRICK MCMILLAN

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

SHELDON VEALS ENTERPRIZE INC EG OPERATIONS LLC 4 - PAWS LLC MBH TRANS INC

RON MCGEE INC

313 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SAVOY COURIERS, INC
C&T TRANSPORT INC JF BENTON EXPRESS INC D-KEN INC ROCKIN P ENTERPRISES INC

ROUNDTREE INC S&S HEINRICHS INC
TASS TRANSPORTATION

PHILLIPS DELIVERIES LLC
OGLE PARCEL DELIVERY INC CLERE SOLUTIONS, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
JUST DELIVERING, INC GARTON ENTERPRISES INC JMAC'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC FRANKLIN & BAGBY INC GILLIAM LOGISTICS INC MCMILLAN DELIVERIES INC

PHILLIPS DELIVERIES CORPORATION

Page 188 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 196 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11715 117555 RONALD GENE FLICKINGER 11716 117562 CORY JON HARMAN 11717 117579 JIMMY RAY OGLE 11718 117586 STEPHEN MATTHEW MCALESTER 11719 117593 RYAN MICHAEL HOHLIER 11720 117609 RODNEY EUGENE REYNOLDS 11721 117616 PHILLIP ALLEN SCHELECHT 11722 117623 THOM D MAIER 11723 117630 COURTNEY BROWNING 11724 117647 HURLEY G FORD 11725 117654 GILBERT BILLS 11726 117661 CANDICE GRAHAM 11727 117678 ANGELA KAY OXLEY 11728 117685 JAMES EDWARD BROWN 11729 117692 ROY MICHAEL CHANEY 11730 117708 DAVID DENNEY 11731 117722 JOHN MORRISSEY 11732 117739 GERALD WAYNE MCCLEAVE JR 11733 117746 TERRY G WATT 11734 117753 RICKY LADELL ROBINSON 11735 117760 ROBERT DAUMUNABO 11736 117777 JOSEPH KYLE MARTIN 11737 117784 DUSTIN R SMITH 11738 117791 JAMES DACHILLE 11739 117807 JAMIE KOPP 11740 117814 PAUL LEO GAGNON 11741 117821 TOM L LANGWELL 11742 117838 AUDA KEITH KIRBY 11743 117845 STEVE MELOTT 11744 117852 ROBERT CRAWFORD 11745 117869 TOM OLDAKER 11746 117876 RICHARD D SCHMIDT 11747 117883 DUANE CASHWELL 11748 117890 JAMES D HARLEY 11749 117906 BOBBY RICHARDSON 11750 117913 COREY HAGEMAN 11751 117920 MICHAEL D TYSON 11752 117937 BILLS D LONDELL 11753 117944 TERRY RAY BILLS 11754 117951 MICHAEL WHITE 11755 117968 TRACY LYNN WHITE 11756 117975 DARRELL DEWAYNE DAVISON 11757 117982 ROBERT C BELL 11758 117999 JEDFREY GIBSON 11759 118002 PAUL ANDREW YORK 11760 118019 JAMES MICHAEL WARD 11761 118026 DAVID RUSSELL MYERS 11762 118033 RENEE FLETCHALL 11763 118040 DARYL R THOMAS 11764 118057 MICHAEL MEEKS 11765 118064 DANIEL HARRIS 11766 118071 GEOFFREY LYNN MCCLENAN 11767 118088 ANTHONY CHARLES BROWN II 11768 118095 GIRUM ALEMAYEHU GLMARIAM 11769 118101 DANDISON NALI 11770 118118 DAVID W HUGHES 11771 118125 LARRY LONG 11772 118132 KAREN L OOSAHWE 11773 118149 SCOTTY J EVANS 11774 118156 BRUCE DEWBERRY 11775 118163 ROBERT BOCKHOLDT 11776 118170 CRISTI HANKS 11777 118187 CHRISTOPHER PAUL CONDRIN 11778 118194 HAROLD GLAZIER 11779 118200 BILLY DALE DAWSON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JRAY ENTERPRISES LLC

OGLE TRANSPORTATION JEO EXPRESS INC

RYCORP LLC DOUBLE R DELIVERIES INC PHIL'S DELIVERY SERVICE

BROWNINGS PARCEL SERVICE, INC STEVE MELOTT, INC

D AND D DELIVERY, INC

WHITEOX INC

PLAN B DELIVERY INC

MORRISSEY DISTRIBUTING INC TCB LOGISTICS INC T & S PACKAGE SERVICE INC

MORHAD LLC

MORHAD INC

STEVE MELOTT, INC TVO INC RICK'S BRICKS INC
BJR INC
BNI DELIVERY, INC SPECIALIZED TRANSFER WHITEOX TRANSFER INC
SATURDAY WAFFLES INC JAMIN PACKAGE SERVICE INC TAYVA SERVICES, INC
DL HARRIS ENTERPRISES, INC

WHITEOX INC

S&J EVANS ENTERPRISES INC DEWBERRY DELIVERY C L DELIVERYS INC
BCD INC

Page 189 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 197 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11780 118217 ROMAN K TRNKA 11781 118224 JOHN DOYLE 11782 118231 MICHAEL GOYER 11783 118248 NATHAN DANIEL 11784 118255 ROBERT CHRIST 11785 118262 SHAUN COYNE 11786 118279 MICHAEL BRYANT 11787 118286 MICHAEL R FEATHERSTON 11788 118293 EDWARD ROY MANGRUM 11789 118309 WILLIAM CARPENTER 11790 118316 SCOTT DUNKIN 11791 118323 SCOTT HESS 11792 118330 KYLE M ZINK 11793 118347 PAUL CHIAPPA 11794 118354 RON WRIGHT 11795 118361 WAYNE LAWRENCE 11796 118378 BRENT J CUNNINGHAM 11797 118385 ALLEN LEWIS 11798 118392 BARRY HUDGINS 11799 118408 ROLAND GOWDY 11800 118415 DAVID CHAUVIN 11801 118422 GARY SNYDER 11802 118439 DAVID BARNETT 11803 118446 DAVID OWENS 11804 118453 ANDY JOHNSON 11805 118460 JAYME THOMPSON 11806 118477 SAMUEL MICHEAL REEVES 11807 118484 JAMES BOWMAN 11808 118491 DAVID LEE HARDY 11809 118507 TIM FECHT 11810 118514 TOMMY HERNDON 11811 118521 WILLIAM BALBI 11812 118538 DANNY FOSTER 11813 118545 CHAD ERIC FOSTER 11814 118552 RICK STIFFLER 11815 118569 GARY SCOTT STOTTS 11816 118576 MICHAEL WILLIAM SKAGGS 11817 118583 RICHARD CARLSON 11818 118590 JOHN CROW 11819 118606 DANNY L GOFF 11820 118613 DOUG EASLEY 11821 118620 JUDY SLOAN 11822 118637 EARNEST JONES 11823 118644 JEFFREY RAY LITTELL 11824 118651 LILLIE WRIGHT 11825 118668 WALLY CRAWFORD 11826 118675 MARK S MACFARLANE 11827 118682 KEVIN COX 11828 118699 GARY BLUNT 11829 118705 ARTHUR PRUITT 11830 118712 SHERYL ANDERSON 11831 118729 RANDY JOE YOUNGBLOOD 11832 118736 MIKE ZACKERY 11833 118743 ANGELA YOUNG 11834 118750 MICHAEL D LOWE 11835 118767 KELLY D EDWARDS 11836 118774 MITCHELL NMN BAILEY 11837 118781 MATTHEW BRINTON JARED 11838 118798 PAULA GIBSON 11839 118804 DOUGLAS L RAY 11840 118811 CHAD FORBECK 11841 118828 RUBEN GALLEGOS VALDEZ 11842 118835 DAVID J BILLAM

Company Name 1
KUSTOM SERVICES INC MICHAEL SHANE GOYER LLC FREEDOM FREIGHT, INC

Company Name 2

HUMA TRUCKING INC SOONER TRUCKING & DELIVERY REM OF OKLAHOMA INC
DUNKIN PACKAGING SERVICE INC

SCOVILLE HILL ASSOCIATES LLC R T WRIGHT INC CELWAY DELIVERY INC

DPC TRUCKING, INC GDS INC
OWENS DELIVERY SERVICE
THOMPSON SPECIALTIES INC
CREEKLAND LLC MJM TRANSPORTATION CO INC

RANGE VIEW INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SKAGGS TRANSPORT INC
SEMAC INC J-T INITIATIVES INC
COXCO ENTERPRISES INC
RAYCO INC A YOUNG TRUCKING, INC
T PIKE INC JARED SERVICES, INC THE GALLERY GROUP INC STINGRAY DELIVERY INC
SOONERHAWK INC; SOONERHAWK LLC

Page 190 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 198 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11843 118842 JEFF DAWSON
11844 118859 JEREMY CLAY WELLS 11845 118866 WILLIAM STEWART 11846 118873 JOHN P MANFORTE 11847 118880 RAYMOND BROWN 11848 118897 JAMES DAVID FRASER 11849 118903 JOSEPH A FRASER 11850 118910 GUNTHER DOUDERA 11851 118927 JOHN SCOTT MEAGHER 11852 118934 PHILIP BIRKENFELD 11853 118941 AARON WEDEL 11854 118958 JOHNNY RAYBURN ROY 11855 118965 CHRIS COOPER 11856 118972 NATHAN J BAY 11857 118989 GREGORY D DANIELL 11858 118996 ALLEN LEE DENNIS 11859 119009 CLINTON DUNNING 11860 119016 DAVID A WINN 11861 119023 DELMAR BURGE 11862 119030 RAYMOND SWINNEY 11863 119047 SCOTT THOMAS COULSON 11864 119054 JOSEPH MARTELL PHILLIPS 11865 119061 TERRY D HAWS 11866 119078 TODD W MERTENS 11867 119085 JON OLSON 11868 119092 JESSICA LEE 11869 119108 MARK DESORMEAUX 11870 119115 ALPHONSE GAMBARDELLA 11871 119122 LONNIE SPIVA 11872 119139 GREG JACKSON 11873 119146 BRIAN MILLS 11874 119153 KENNETH GUNN 11875 119160 CHAD PRITCHETT 11876 119177 TIMOTHY JON MILLER 11877 119184 RON W JOSEPH 11878 119191 MICHAEL GILCHREST 11879 119207 GILBERT ERNEST JOHNSON
11880 119214 JOHN SAGNELLA 11881 119221 DANA GOMEZ 11882 119238 RICHARD LINEBERRY 11883 119245 DANNY GARFIELD HUFFMAN 11884 119252 MICKEY FRAMPTON 11885 119269 JOE OWENS 11886 119276 WILLIAM B HICKMAN 11887 119283 G TODD WOOLERY 11888 119290 MATT WALLS 11889 119306 BRIAN CHRISS MCLAUGHLIN 11890 119313 KEVIN BOLING 11891 119320 GARY J SARTAIN 11892 119337 DARYLE R MCKINNEY 11893 119344 RICK HUDDLESTON 11894 119351 CRAIG ALAN SCOTT 11895 119368 ROBERT WALSH 11896 119375 RICHARD CASTILLO SMITH 11897 119382 DONALD C HENRY 11898 119399 JACK L ANDREWS 11899 119405 GARY SHARP 11900 119412 DOUGLAS A JOHNSON 11901 119429 DARRELL GENE ROSALES JR 11902 119436 COLLIN BLAINE HOLT 11903 119443 JASON M DUFOUR 11904 119450 JASON BAKER 11905 119467 JAMES W SIMPSON

Company Name 1 SOONER DELIVERY LLC; SOONER DELIVERY SERVICE CEDAR CANYON CARRIERS INC KLS DELIVERIES INC JPM PARCEL SERVICE, INC RAY BROWN INC FRASER TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

SOONER DELIVERY, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MERCEDES EXPRESS INC

GENOSEN ENTERPRISES INC DANIELL INCORPORATED A & C PACKAGING INC HAYLO ENTERPRISES INC
BURGE INC
S&K DELIVERY INC
TERRY HAWS TRANSPORT INC MERTENS INC

MAD DELIVERY INC
BURGE INC TNT DELIVERY INC

SPIVA TRANSPORTATION INC

GREEN LIGHT DELIVERIES INC

PRITCHETT TRANSPORTATION, INC T & L CONTRACTING, INC RWJ INC

PRITCHETT FARMS LLC

GIL JOHNSON HOME IMPROVEMENT LLC

J&S PARCEL DELIVERY SERVICE, INC BILLS FREIGHT INC WOOLERY AND ASSOCIATES LLC

J&B DELIVERY LLC

MAC HAULING INC

SARTAIN DISTRIBUTING INC MCKINNEY PACKAGE SERVICE INC

JW DELIVERIES, INC

FRESH'S PACKAGE DELIVERY INC CB HOLT TRANSPORTATION INC
SIMPSON TRUCKING INC

Page 191 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 199 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11906 119474 RYAN JOHN GAMBILL 11907 119481 VIET BRUCE HU 11908 119498 DONALD W MILLER 11909 119504 BRIAN H REDMUN 11910 119511 KEVIN TREMAIN KEASLER 11911 119528 DEMETRIUS JOYNER 11912 119535 JAMES FERRARO 11913 119542 NEIL WAYNE CORN 11914 119559 DENNIS MOORE II 11915 119566 MIKE ROSS 11916 119573 JAMES CARPENTER 11917 119580 JACK JONES 11918 119597 WALTER BEAN 11919 119603 PAUL BAILEY 11920 119610 LONNIE GRAHAM 11921 119627 JOHN B PULLEY 11922 119634 MARK BRYAN HICKEY 11923 119641 PERRI NORVELLE 11924 119658 PAMELA HARRISON 11925 119665 WESLEY HAYES DIETZ 11926 119672 TOMMY EARL RITCHIE 11927 119689 TOMMY GAMBILL 11928 119696 GUY DAVIS 11929 119702 JAMES WILLIAM LOCKE 11930 119719 LISA ALLEN 11931 119726 STEVE KELLEY 11932 119733 TONI GUILES-PICKARD 11933 119740 DAVID WELTY 11934 119757 EMEKA D OFFIAELI 11935 119764 SHELLY LYN COPPEDGE 11936 119771 JUAN C TORRES 11937 119788 SHAWN FISHER 11938 119795 JAMES A MAFFEI 11939 119801 THOMAS SEXTON 11940 119818 RICKY CAPPS 11941 119825 MICHAEL K MCCOMMON 11942 119832 MICHAEL THOMAS 11943 119849 RONALD L MASON 11944 119856 DANNY HUEY 11945 119863 KENNETH DEWITTE 11946 119870 DERRICK W MCMULLEN 11947 119887 HUBERT HUTCHINSON 11948 119894 STEVEN T DUNLAP 11949 119900 MICHAEL GOMEZ 11950 119917 DEBBIE JENNINGS 11951 119924 JEFFREY PARKE MARTIN
11952 119931 MICHAEL ANTHONY HENEGAN 11953 119948 STARLENE MAENETTE BLACK 11954 119955 GAVINO SALINAS 11955 119962 MICHAEL ANTHONY SALINAS 11956 119979 VERNON MALONE 11957 119986 GREGG HYMA 11958 119993 KEITH DAVIS 11959 120005 STEPHEN DURAN 11960 120012 COLIN LEE HEFFLEY 11961 120029 CHRISTOPHER MCCULLOUGH
11962 120036 RONNIE R LAMBRIGHT 11963 120043 RUDY NA SANCHEZ 11964 120050 HUMBERTO ESCOBEDO 11965 120067 ROCKY LEE MCCLAIN 11966 120074 DREW LIVERMAN 11967 120081 RICKY JUNIOR FLOREZ 11968 120098 TERRAE MARCELL STUBBLEFIELD

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

GAMBILL PACKAGING SERVICE, INC

REDMUN ENTERPRISES, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

ROSS PACKAGE SERVICES LLC
JONES PACKAGE SERVICE INC
LCG INC PULLEY PACKAGE DELIVERY INC UQP TRUCKING INC

RITCHIE PACKING INC
MARGUYLINDA CORPORATION JAPE INC LISA ALLEN ENTERPRISES INC

HLL PACKAGING INC

MKM ENTERPRISES INC

RLM DELIVERY ENTERPRISES, INC D M TRANSPORTATION

EXCEL EXECUTIVE ENTERPRISES INC

MICHAEL A HENEGAN LLC ASK INC

START INC

M SALINAS INC

DURAN DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

HEFFLEY INC

C MCC DELIVERY & PICKUP SERVICES

CORP

RDL ENTERPRISES INC

RUDY SANCHEZ VENTURES INC

HACC DELIVERY LLC

HACC 4 DELIVERY, INC

REJF, INCORPORATED E & D DELIVERY INCORPORATED

Page 192 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 200 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 11969 120104 BRANDON JONES 11970 120111 DAVID CALHOUN 11971 120128 PABLO CANSECO 11972 120135 JOHNNY D LEE 11973 120142 LEE KELLOUGH 11974 120159 QUINTON PERKINS
11975 120166 ROBERT P HOUK 11976 120173 CHRISTOPHER PENA 11977 120180 JUSTIN W KNIGHT 11978 120197 ZAFAR ANSARI 11979 120203 RONNIE STOCKWELL 11980 120210 LARRY LEACH 11981 120227 VIRGIE COOK 11982 120234 DOMUS EZULA GAMBRELL 11983 120241 GONZALO ARENIVAS 11984 120258 MONTE DAN ADAMS 11985 120265 TIFFANY P ROGERS 11986 120272 FRED MAYS 11987 120289 RONALD L CHRISTIAN 11988 120296 ZERRICK BUTLER 11989 120302 LONNIE D ARCENEAUX 11990 120319 PETER BASSET 11991 120326 CATHY JOYCE CERVANTES 11992 120333 EDWIN KEITH HARBER 11993 120340 RANDY PHILLIPS 11994 120357 REGINALD STRAIN 11995 120364 ALAN EUGENE WHITE 11996 120371 EDWARD C ANIOL 11997 120388 DANA ALAN DODD 11998 120395 ANTHONY BACY 11999 120401 BARRY STRICKLIN
12000 120418 MICHAEL MCCAIN 12001 120425 CURTIS WILLIAMS 12002 120432 TOMMY J BRISTER 12003 120449 WILLIAM GRAHAM 12004 120456 MICHAEL FITCH 12005 120463 TRAVIS MCKINLEY 12006 120470 SHAWN C LEE 12007 120487 GUADALUPE GARZA 12008 120494 ROBIN V HOOD 12009 120500 LAWRIE STEVENS WEINREICH SR 12010 120517 ARTHUR HENRY MCDONALD III
12011 120524 SERGIO LUNA 12012 120531 ELROY LEMELLE JR 12013 120548 REBECCA PETTIT 12014 120555 CLAUDE TALBERT GRAHAM 12015 120562 GREG W MCLAUGHLIN 12016 120579 JUAN A PORTALES 12017 120586 WARREN FLORENCE 12018 120593 JAMES JACOBSON 12019 120609 JOHNNY KEEFER 12020 120616 ALFONSO LUERA 12021 120623 ALEJANDRO GARZA 12022 120630 JAIME ESCALANTE 12023 120647 JAROSLAV MARCIN 12024 120654 JILL JORDON 12025 120661 REGINA NELL JORDAN 12026 120678 YERVANT S BALTAJIAN 12027 120685 KEITH WADE 12028 120692 RICKY GOODE 12029 120708 GEORGE ANTHONY PARSON JR

Company Name 1 BRANTASTIC, INC BLUE BAY LLC L A DELIVERY, INC TEN TRANSPORT GROUP INCORPORATED
RDS GROUND CORP DIXIE DO INC GAMBRELL-DIMES, INC GONARC EXPRESS INC TROG TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PERKINS TRANSPORTATION INCORPORATED

ALAN WHITE INC E A TRANSPORTATION INC

STRICKLY BUSINESS; STRICKLY BUSINESS, INC
C & A WILLIAMS INC; C&A WILLIAMS

MFX TRANSPORTATION INC LEE PARCEL SERVICE, INC AMG DELIVERY SERVICES INC TRANSPORT SERVE LLC CROSSROADS TRUCKING CO
ELROY LEMELLE LLC GROUND CONTROL LLC

TRANSPORT SERVE LLC CROSS ROAD TRUCKING, INC
GROUND CONTROL INC

GROUND EXPRESS PACKAGING INC

ALSKI88, INC A-N-J PACKAGE SYSTEMS INC JIMMY EXPRESS INC

RJ DELIVERIES INCORPORATED SHANTIG DISTRIBUTION LLC

SHANTIG SERVICES INC

G-ROE PACKAGE LLC

G - ROE PACKAGES INC

Page 193 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 201 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12030 120715 WALTER E WHITTEN 12031 120722 ORLANDO VALDEZ 12032 120739 JIMMIE DEWAYNE ROGERS 12033 120746 HOSEA III HARRIS 12034 120753 MARCO GRIMALDO 12035 120760 GEORGE ROGERS 12036 120777 EDDIE JOSEPH PRICE JR 12037 120784 EDWARD MARTINEZ LOPEZ 12038 120791 LOYD H SHROPSHIRE 12039 120807 SAMUEL SALINAS 12040 120814 RAYMOND TREVINO 12041 120821 BILLY GOREE 12042 120838 JONATHAN LUSTIG 12043 120845 MARSHALL GREEN 12044 120852 J C DENNI 12045 120869 BARRY GERALD OLIVIER 12046 120876 CURTIS E MCKINZY 12047 120883 VIRGIL FISHER 12048 120890 AMY GAY POPE 12049 120906 CASEY L CARTER 12050 120913 MICHAEL MESTAS 12051 120920 NOEL GUARDADO 12052 120937 GENE KELLEY JR 12053 120944 WALT NOSKO 12054 120951 JOSE A ALVARADO 12055 120968 TARA CRAWFORD 12056 120975 MICHAEL RYAN GILBERT 12057 120982 JORGE GOMEZ 12058 120999 GILBERT ALVAREZ 12059 121002 CARLOS BARRON 12060 121019 CLARENCE H ROBINSON II 12061 121026 CLIFF COCKRELL 12062 121033 ANDRE VILLASANA
12063 121040 SEAN S HOPKINS 12064 121057 WILLIAM TURNER 12065 121064 ROBERT GRIEGO 12066 121071 JEFFREY ADDINGTON 12067 121088 JACKSON CARRUTHERS 12068 121095 ELIZABETH RYAN 12069 121101 JOHN D CHAVEZ 12070 121118 JEFFREY P LAFLEUR 12071 121132 KATHRYN VENABLE 12072 121149 AUDIE WESTMORELAND 12073 121156 JAMES MERRITT 12074 121163 LARRY D MARTINEZ 12075 121170 JAMES MELAKIAN 12076 121187 MARIO GARZA 12077 121194 RAYMOND WILSON 12078 121200 WILLIAM C YOUNG IV 12079 121217 DARRELL BURT 12080 121224 EDUARDO ARAMBULA 12081 121231 BENJAMIN WEBBER 12082 121248 KELLY R PRICE
12083 121255 ROBERT E GORDON 12084 121262 WILL REYNOLDS
12085 121279 ANSELMO MARTINEZ 12086 121286 FRANK C MUNOZ 12087 121293 CHARLES KNODE 12088 121309 TODD W MORRIS 12089 121316 BRIAN PIERCE 12090 121323 DEREK FRANCIS

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PERKEVMAR INC PRICE DELIVERY INCORPORATED

SAMUEL SALINAS DELIVERY INC TREVINO P D INC

S&S DELIVERY INC

MAREDANO DELIVERY INC
JTE SW EXPRESS LLC ALVARADO AND GOLDEROS INC MONETTE'S IN MOTION M R G SERVICES INC GOMEZ PARCEL SERVICES, INC ALVA TRANSPORTATION LLC
RUNNING MAN INC VILLASANA DELIVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED

ALVA D-S INC

M&J EXPRESS INC

KELLY PRICE ENTERPRISES LLC MARICELAS INC

KELLY S PRICE ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED
A&W GROUND DELIVERY GROUND P&D INC INC

Page 194 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 202 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12091 121330 ANDREW G GOMEZ JR 12092 121347 FERNANDO I ORONA 12093 121354 BRUCE W COX 12094 121361 STEVE TUNG LE 12095 121378 ORVAL RITCHIE 12096 121385 BOUNTANG HIN VONGPRCHANH 12097 121392 DAMON CARROLL JOHNSON 12098 121408 DANIEL CASIANO 12099 121415 ROGER AJIZIAN 12100 121422 NOLAN D RINCKER 12101 121439 GERALD SPARKS 12102 121446 SHANE MICHAEL PRICE 12103 121453 LARRY WALKER 12104 121460 MICHAEL S JOBE 12105 121477 STEVE YOUNG 12106 121484 RUDY SLADECEK 12107 121491 JUSTIN HYDE 12108 121507 TED KIM 12109 121514 RODNEY JR BENOIT 12110 121521 ANTHONY OKPOH 12111 121538 ARLIE ELLIS 12112 121545 ELVIN MASSENBURGE 12113 121552 JOE PARKER 12114 121569 TONY FOX 12115 121576 MICHAEL SCOTT HOLMES 12116 121583 FRED C PEREZ 12117 121590 RILEY ADAMS 12118 121606 JOHN LANE SUBERBIELLE 12119 121613 JAMES WILLIAMS 12120 121620 TRAVIS GLASPIE 12121 121637 JIMMY L PARKER JR
12122 121644 DELENA HUNTER 12123 121651 JOSEPH SETH WHITWORTH 12124 121668 RYAN SANCHEZ 12125 121675 GERALD WHITSON 12126 121682 RENE MARCUS MARTINEZ 12127 121699 HARRY WINSTON CARVER 12128 121705 DIANE ARELLANO 12129 121712 TREY HOOTEN 12130 121729 JOE E DAVIS 12131 121736 GARY LENFEST 12132 121743 KEITH KRENEK 12133 121750 CLENARD BENFORD 12134 121767 CHRISTOPHER D RODRIQUEZ 12135 121774 JESSIE LANDIN 12136 121781 DAVID G JOHNSON 12137 121798 CARLOS SERGIO RODRIGUEZ 12138 121804 BARBARA MATTHEWS 12139 121811 AG SESSIONS III 12140 121828 MARIO TRIGO 12141 121835 MARY OWENS 12142 121842 JASON MATTHEW SALVATO 12143 121859 SHEILA M WYATT 12144 121866 RAMIRO RAMIREZ 12145 121873 WETZEL T HULCY 12146 121880 CESAR JIMINEZ 12147 121897 CHRISTOPHER J REYES 12148 121903 RUBEN AUSTRIA 12149 121910 SAM SEK 12150 121927 SCOTT DENTON 12151 121934 JODY REYES 12152 121941 MARVIN G HALL 12153 121958 TERRELL KOONCE 12154 121965 MICHAEL GUERRA

Company Name 1 F ORONA TRUCKING INC B W C ENTERPRISES INC
HINV INC
LE CEDRE, INC NOLAN RINCKER DEL'Y SVC INC

Company Name 2

JOBE DELIVERY INCORPORATED RES EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

E-MASS INCORPORATED

KRISTINA (KEP) INC

WILLIAMS COURIER SERVICE INC J & H PARKER ENTERPRISES

J & H PARKER ENTERPRISES INC

RAMD INCORPORATED
RMM INTERNATIONAL INC JIT DELIVERY INC
HOOTEN'S P&D SERVICES INC

AZS EXPRESS SHAKOPEE

MATTHEWS DELIVERIES INC S M W INCORPORATED

M G TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 195 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 203 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12155 121972 FRANCISCO J DEHOYOS
12156 121989 A DAVID PEREZ 12157 121996 JOEL ESCOBEDO 12158 122009 UBALDO M GONZALES JR 12159 122016 DARON J FETTIG 12160 122023 JOHNNY LEE JONES
12161 122030 DAROLD CHRISTIAN ATKINSON 12162 122047 ROBERT M AVENI 12163 122054 GILBERT RODRIGUEZ 12164 122061 ANDREW WILLIAMS 12165 122078 SOMBATH SAKDAVONG
12166 122085 DONALD ALLAN MCCLAIN 12167 122092 RAUL AGUIRRE 12168 122108 MICHAEL DAY HOLMES 12169 122115 LEON HOLLOWAY 12170 122122 OSCAR D MARTINEZ 12171 122139 MICHAEL BURNETT 12172 122146 JUAN GONZALES 12173 122153 CHRISTOPHER DEAN 12174 122160 ROBIN HANEY
12175 122177 BOBBY G MAINES 12176 122184 FRANK SEVIER 12177 122191 DANIEL MCCOY 12178 122207 SOLOMON KEAMMERER 12179 122214 RON DAVID GAVRANOVIC 12180 122221 DEBBIE CLAWSON 12181 122238 CALVIN JAMES LEE SR 12182 122245 RICKY LEE WEATHERS 12183 122252 MARK DELANEY 12184 122269 SHARON L DOVER 12185 122276 JAMES OVERSTREET 12186 122283 DOUGLAS EVERETT 12187 122290 COLLIN KING 12188 122306 MARTIN GONZALEZ 12189 122313 WILLIAM CRIS CANNON 12190 122320 THOMAS E WOODY 12191 122337 JOHNNY CRUZ 12192 122344 JIMMY ROGER GONZALES 12193 122351 RAUL DIAZ CALDERON 12194 122368 GUADALUPE Y PINEDA 12195 122375 RENE GAUNA 12196 122382 ARTURO JUAREZ 12197 122399 PATRICK SHIMEK 12198 122405 ROYCE A DAVIS 12199 122412 LAWRENCE P MARSHBURN 12200 122429 RICHARD DRENGA 12201 122436 CRAIG DRENGA 12202 122443 GARY W STEWART 12203 122450 JASON BROZOVIC 12204 122467 CHRISTOPHER JACOB ARMIJO 12205 122474 TONY LILJEQUIST 12206 122481 ALONZO HERNANDEZ 12207 122498 JAMES THORNHILL 12208 122504 EDUARDO OCHOA 12209 122511 JAMES DAVIS 12210 122528 SERGIO A CANTU 12211 122535 G W PAYNE 12212 122542 HAROLD LEE SIMPSON JR 12213 122559 DARRELL DAVIS 12214 122566 MARGARET A WEBSTER 12215 122573 DARREN BERNARD WILLIAMS

Company Name 1 DEHOYOS INC

Company Name 2 DEHOYOS PICK UP & DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JLJ & ASSOCIATES LLC; JLJ ASSOCIATES

RJJ ENTERPRISES LLC

R JONES ENTERPRISES, JOHNNY L JONES

INC

ENTERPRISES INC

PANAMA SWING, INC MILLENNIUM EXPRESS HOME DELIVERY INC
HOLMES DELIVERY INC

JAG DESART TRANSPORTATIONS INC BLUELINE TRANSPORTATION INC R HANEY TRANSPORTATION INCORPORATED
SEVIER'S TRANSPORT LTD

NODALODARANCH INC

THE DOG DID IT INC

BUDDYS PACKAGING INC

PRAX CORPORATION
GAUNA DELIVERY INCORPORATED ART JUAREZ INC
R A D TRUCKING INC

R A D TRUCKING INC

IFOCUS, INC

ALL THINGS DELIVERED INC KDT WILLIAMS INC

Page 196 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 204 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12216 122580 ARMANDO VILLARREAL 12217 122597 URIEL AZA 12218 122603 JOSE G VASQUEZ 12219 122610 MIKE WELLS 12220 122627 BRIAN MAXFIELD 12221 122634 CESAR CERDA 12222 122641 KIRPATRICK D RANDOLPH 12223 122658 MARC MCCABE 12224 122665 CHRIS KERBY 12225 122672 MARCUS WEST 12226 122689 AMANDA GONGWER 12227 122696 JAMES J MACH 12228 122702 SONYA HRIBAL 12229 122719 EDUARDO DANIEL PALACIOS 12230 122726 KRISS T BALLARD 12231 122733 HEATH RODGERS 12232 122740 BRENTON KEITH RAY 12233 122757 MICHAEL JOSEPH GONZALES 12234 122764 JAY M SMITH 12235 122771 STEVE PARKER 12236 122788 JOHN FISHER 12237 122795 VICTOR L HAMMACK 12238 122801 CHARLES DANIEL CHILLDRES 12239 122818 CHESTER REYNOLDS 12240 122825 ANTHONY MARTIN 12241 122832 GARY JOHN CHELLIS 12242 122849 RAMON RENTERIA 12243 122856 CINDY LOUISE PRICE 12244 122863 JOHN WELLS 12245 122870 ROGELIO HERNANDEZ JR
12246 122887 JIMMY VARGAS 12247 122894 LARRY W SMITH 12248 122900 LARRY D PAYNE 12249 122917 RAUL HERNANDEZ 12250 122924 THOMAS LUCIOUS LEWIS JR 12251 122931 DONALD H COONROD 12252 122948 TERRY W OUTLAW 12253 122955 JAMES R PETTERSON 12254 122962 STEVEN SASSER 12255 122979 RUBIN JOHNSON 12256 122986 JOHN COMPTON 12257 122993 LARRY SHEPPARD 12258 123006 CARLOS GUERRA 12259 123013 RAYMOND L SCHUTSKA 12260 123020 DONNIE R WALTERS JR 12261 123037 MICHAEL DOSS 12262 123044 BOBBY FRISKE 12263 123051 ARNOLD BROWN 12264 123068 ADOLPHUS JONES 12265 123075 DEBRA KAYE MORRIS 12266 123082 REGGIE HAMILTON 12267 123099 KENNY MCCRAW 12268 123105 DAVID NUNEZ 12269 123112 BRIAN STEHLING 12270 123129 CARLOS M MENDOZA 12271 123136 SCOTT SITTON 12272 123143 TONY KIETH ALEXANDER 12273 123150 ALBERT WOODS 12274 123167 WAYNE CAMPBELL 12275 123174 MARCUS LYNN BRANTLEY 12276 123181 BURTON JONES 12277 123198 GERALD ROBERT LANDRY 12278 123204 TRACEY MASSEY 12279 123211 LANCE PHILLIPS

Company Name 1 CYPRESS RUN, INC

Company Name 2

RANDOLPH EXPRESS TRUCKING INC MCCABE DELIVERY, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SPANISH INC JMVS HOLDINGS LLC

JMVS COURIERS INC

RENTERIA SERVICES, INC CINDY L PRICE INC AFTER MILE INC ROGELIOS CARRIERS INCORPORATED REDLION INC
COONROD FREIGHT SERVICES INC SASSER TRUCKIN INC LMJ VENTURES INC
RAYMOND SCHUTSKA DELIVERY, INC

GROUND MENDOZA INC TMA TRUCKING INC

Page 197 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 205 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12280 123228 KEVIN HUNT 12281 123235 OSCAR DAVID LIMON 12282 123242 KYLE MARK WILLIAMS 12283 123259 SENG SALANG 12284 123266 SAMIR G TAHA 12285 123273 SOPHAL P SAM 12286 123280 GINGER DIANE HILTON 12287 123297 MARK A WILKINSON 12288 123303 ALFREDO B RODRIGUEZ 12289 123310 ROBERT CORBETT 12290 123327 DAVID T WATTS 12291 123334 TIMOTHY LEE ALLAMONG 12292 123341 GLEN A MARTIN 12293 123358 WILL OBELE 12294 123365 JOSEPH WILLIAM DOYLE 12295 123372 CHIA CHANG 12296 123389 DANNY BRIGMON 12297 123396 CHRISTOPHER WEDDLE 12298 123402 LINWOOD G ROWE 12299 123419 CHRISTOPHER MARK HYDE 12300 123426 VANESSA OSTIGIN 12301 123433 CLARENCE APPLING 12302 123440 CHRISTOPHER LYNN HOWARD 12303 123457 JOSE ZAVALA 12304 123464 JIMMY WEBBER 12305 123471 JOE DAVID LEE 12306 123488 CORLIS JEAN CALDWELL 12307 123495 MARIO ALMEDAREZ 12308 123501 EDDIE JOE PEREZ 12309 123518 PATRICIA RAVEN 12310 123525 LONNIE TERRY 12311 123532 RICKY STRIBLING 12312 123549 MORGAN C ELDRED 12313 123556 JAMES HOOKER 12314 123563 JUAN A LOPEZ 12315 123570 TERRY LOWRY 12316 123587 LEROY LOCKE 12317 123594 ANDY THOMAS 12318 123600 ANTHONY WILGANOWSKI 12319 123617 VICTORSR ED JENKINS 12320 123624 RONALD NEWMAN 12321 123631 ROBERT PAUL WERBESKY SR 12322 123648 PAUL CANTU GARCIA 12323 123655 JOE ANGEL GUTIERREZ 12324 123662 MARK PEKAROVIC 12325 123679 ANTHONY JACKSON 12326 123686 LESLIE FREEMAN WILLIAMS 12327 123693 DELMON GREEN 12328 123709 BRENDA GAY CLIFTON 12329 123716 ROBERT C HERNANDEZ 12330 123723 ERNEST TUCKER 12331 123730 EDWIN THEODORE FEIGLE III 12332 123747 ELIAS E SOTO 12333 123754 CORETTA ALICIA PERRY 12334 123761 RANDALL LANE 12335 123778 DAVID MEREDITH 12336 123785 STACIE LEE ROURKE 12337 123792 DAVID DUKE MEDINA 12338 123808 TIMOTHY F GABRIEL 12339 123815 ENRIQUE SORIANO 12340 123822 MICHAEL FRIEND 12341 123839 MANUEL ORTIZ 12342 123846 HECTOR CARRIZALES 12343 123853 MARIA MAGDALENA RAMIEZ 12344 123860 JAY QUINTON LOFLAND

Company Name 1
KMW EXPRESS LLC SENG EPP INC SGT NATIONAL CORPORATION SAM KHMER CORPORATION
AROD TRUCKING, INC
D AND K VENTURES INC MAAD INCORPORATED
OBELE INC
E316 TRANSPORT INC BLD SYSTEMS, INC

Company Name 2 KMW EXPRESS LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KMW EXPRESS INC

MAAD INCORPORATED

CRT TRANSPORT, INC 3H'S DELIVERY ENTERPRISE, INC JR TRANSPORT, INC
CALDWELL HOME DELIVERY

TONY'S PACKAGE SVC LLC NEWMANIUM, LLC

TONY'S PACKAGE SVC INC

B CLIFTON DELIVERY, INC MADCOW INC FEIGLE & ASSOCIATES, INC CAPS DELIVERY SERVICE, INC
DOUBLE D DELIVERY INC JJVK SORIANO TRUCKING INC SERVICE DELIVERY ONTIME
JQL ENTERPRISES INC

PCG TRUCKING, INC

Page 198 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 206 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12345 123877 STEVEN BLEA 12346 123884 TONY A MAY 12347 123891 ROBERT GARZA 12348 123907 GUILLERMO C SANCHEZ
12349 123914 JUSTIN BROWN 12350 123921 KELLY THETFORD 12351 123938 BILLY CHRISTIAN DUEWALL 12352 123945 DAVID MANRIQUE 12353 123952 DUDLEY CECIL MEREDITHJR 12354 123969 EDWIN BROWN 12355 123976 FERNANDO HERNANDEZ 12356 123983 REGINALD WEBSTER
12357 123990 JOHN TORRES 12358 124003 WILLIAM GIBSON 12359 124010 REYNALDO CORTINAS 12360 124027 BRUCE J POIRIERBR 12361 124034 JOBY WINN HILL 12362 124041 EDGAR A RACICOT 12363 124058 JOHN RAMIREZ 12364 124065 ALBERT LANDERS 12365 124072 RON RAWLS 12366 124089 ROBERT GLENN HOPKINS
12367 124096 OSCAR RENE BEJIL 12368 124102 JAMES TARLTON 12369 124119 ROBERT COOPER 12370 124126 ROBERT TOLLEFSEN 12371 124133 ALEXANDER CHAVEZ 12372 124140 C ALLEN DOUGHTY 12373 124157 ABRAHAM N OGOJIAKU 12374 124164 COREY JONES 12375 124171 JAMES BULLER JR 12376 124188 TERESA MOORE 12377 124195 BRAD L LARGE 12378 124201 CHARLES RAY BUZAN 12379 124218 DOUGLAS FOLSOM 12380 124225 BRADLEY J VIGNEAUX 12381 124232 JANA DELL BEERS 12382 124249 KATRINA LEE 12383 124256 ROLANDO TREVINO 12384 124263 CHESTER SZULIMOWSKI 12385 124270 CHRIS WING 12386 124287 RUSSELL CONAWAY 12387 124294 ARTURO FONSECA 12388 124300 DON CLYDE BLACKMON 12389 124317 SCOTT ANDERSEN 12390 124324 JOSE GREGORIO CASTILLO JR 12391 124331 DOMINGO LANDA 12392 124348 CHRISTOPHER LEE ZIMMERMAN 12393 124355 HEATH RAY GOWIN 12394 124362 JOHN CHUN YEE 12395 124379 ARMANDO FLORES 12396 124386 RODOLFO HERNANDEZ 12397 124393 MAURO E LARA JR 12398 124409 ISABEL A VALDEZ 12399 124416 RALPH SMITH 12400 124423 JUAN C PATINO 12401 124430 FLORENCE DIANE ACKER 12402 124447 DAREN R BRADFORD 12403 124454 GARY ALAN STROUT 12404 124461 JAMES M BURNETT 12405 124478 MICHAEL DEXTER 12406 124485 DEBORAH D CARR

Company Name 1
SANCHEZ DELIVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

NORTHEAST P & D INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

WEB EX CORPORATION

NO LIMIT DELIVERIES CORPORATION

JRR FREIGHT, INC CONTRACT EXPRESS DELIVERY INC

BOBJACK ENTERPRISES INC

BOBJACK ENTERPRISES INC

MR T DELIVERY SERVICES INC

WHEN I GET THERE INC ALEX CHAVEZ INCORPORATED

HAMAK ENTERPRISES, INC

OFF DUTY DELIVERY INC BUZAN EXPRESS DELIVERY, INC

VENETIAN ROOM INC

CONAWAY P&D SERVICE INC ART'S PKG SYSTEM INC
J & G DELIVERY SERVICES LLC

ROLYNN'S TRANSPORTATION INC YELLOW TITAN TRUCKING INC
PATINO TRANSPORTATION INC D & W TRUCKING INC
M D DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

Page 199 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 207 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12407 124492 EDWARD G RAMIREZ 12408 124508 EDDIE FREE 12409 124515 TOMMY HENRY 12410 124522 JOHN JACKSON 12411 124539 DWAYNE C GILLESPIE 12412 124546 CARLOS REYNA 12413 124553 R CLAYTON HALL 12414 124560 FERNANDO STRADFORD 12415 124577 JOHN REYES ESTRADA 12416 124584 JONATHAN M JAMES 12417 124591 JOHN BOWSER 12418 124607 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GRANT 12419 124614 DALE D RICKER 12420 124621 JAMES D CAVINESS JR 12421 124638 JOHN SANCHEZ 12422 124645 ANTHONY RAMIREZ 12423 124652 DONALD RANDLE 12424 124669 WALDO HARNSBERRY 12425 124676 QUINTIN HERNANDEZ 12426 124683 ROLAND CAMACHO 12427 124690 JOHN DAVID COX 12428 124706 RUDOLFO M PEREZ 12429 124713 DAVID LEIJA 12430 124720 DALE RICKER 12431 124737 BEAU CHAD BROWN 12432 124744 RODERICK MARTIN 12433 124751 RANDALL SCOTT ROGERS 12434 124768 DARRELL WEDDLE 12435 124775 JOSEPH LOMBARDO 12436 124782 CYNTHIA JONES 12437 124799 CHARLES MCCRAY 12438 124805 WILLIAM ANTHONY FALLETTI 12439 124812 BRIAN ANDERSON 12440 124829 SHANNON MICHELLE HAGGARD 12441 124836 MORRIS RHODES 12442 124843 RODNEY LOPEZ 12443 124850 ANDY STOCKTON 12444 124867 JERRY LEE KAY 12445 124874 THOMAS JOHN NEER 12446 124881 ANDY VILLARREAL 12447 124898 BASSAM HASAN ABBAS 12448 124904 MITCHELL TRANTHAM 12449 124911 ARNOLDO TAMEZ 12450 124928 FRANK TOMER 12451 124935 ERNEST HENRY PIATTI 12452 124942 JOSE CASTRO
12453 124959 JAMES SHEEHAN 12454 124966 SHANE WALKER 12455 124973 ALFONSO CHAVEZ 12456 124980 BRANDON LAMASTER 12457 124997 SHAWN HEMMESTED 12458 125000 NATALIE GARZA 12459 125017 SAMMY TURNBULL 12460 125024 TAMMIE JACKSON 12461 125031 ROBERT BLAKE 12462 125048 RONALD W SCHAEFER 12463 125055 KEITH CONGLETON 12464 125062 STEVE SHAW 12465 125079 JAMES HALE 12466 125086 STEVEN JAMES CONLEY 12467 125093 MARSHAL GRANT VANHOOK 12468 125109 TIMOTHY P GOGAN 12469 125116 JAMES E JONES 12470 125123 ROY DWAYNE OLIVER

Company Name 1 FREEWAY'S TRANSPORT INC
HARD TIME TRUCKING

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DELIVERY MAN INC DR DELIVERY INC WHERE'S WALDO INC
CROSSROADS DELIVERY CORP RICKER SERVICES LLC BUSY BODIEZ DELIVERS, INC
WIDGEON TRANSPORT INC FALLETTI AND SONS TRUCKING, INC ROBA DELIVERIES INC S HAGGARD, INC
TAMEZ ENTERPRISES, INC CASTRO ENTERPRISES INC; CASTRO JCDEVILDOG INC INCORP SHEEHAN TRUCKING INC BABCLAM INC N R G ENTERPRISES
CONGLETON ENTERPRISES INC SDC DELIVERY, INC
LPG TRUCKING INC PINEYWOODS TRANSPORT , INC

Page 200 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 208 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12471 125130 GARY DENNIS 12472 125147 JOHN BENTLEY 12473 125154 GENE EDWARDS 12474 125161 VAN TURNER 12475 125178 BRANDON ROBERTS 12476 125185 MARK RAYMOND RATLIFF 12477 125192 LLOYD H GIPSON 12478 125208 GEORGE MORLEY 12479 125215 WILLIAM R BORCHERS 12480 125222 LESTER THOMAS BROWN 12481 125239 RENE OLIVARES 12482 125246 JAMES RICHARD HOOD 12483 125253 ROGER VILLANUEVA 12484 125260 RONALD MARRERO 12485 125277 CLIANTHUS TURNER
12486 125284 KRIS ARCHAMBAULT 12487 125291 ALONZO WARREN 12488 125307 STEVEN LIU 12489 125314 BENJAMIN LEWIS BATIE SR 12490 125321 RANDAL WADE JOHNSON 12491 125338 FRANK DUNGAN 12492 125345 KEITH HALL 12493 125352 JOHN J BELLARD JR 12494 125369 JOHN D ALVAREZ 12495 125376 PAUL BECK 12496 125383 EDWARD W SOUCIER JR 12497 125390 SANDIE LEANNE BARNETT 12498 125406 BOUNSONG CHOUNCHANTHARAT 12499 125413 GREG DAVIS 12500 125420 BRETT A THOMAS 12501 125437 NILO SERRANO 12502 125444 TONY LEONE 12503 125451 CHAD WILLINGHAM 12504 125468 CHRIS M COOPER 12505 125475 JAKE ARMANDARIZ 12506 125482 MARTIN CURLEY 12507 125499 DANIEL BOUFFARD 12508 125505 MICHAEL R MCNEILL II 12509 125512 RUDOLPH GARCIA 12510 125529 CHRISTOPHER THOMAS
12511 125536 CHAD WESLEY MAHAND 12512 125543 ANTHONY S AIELLO 12513 125550 ALBERT E KOSSAETH 12514 125567 LUIS FUENTES 12515 125574 CARL D SIMMONS 12516 125581 JUAN VILLARREAL 12517 125598 DAVID GRIER 12518 125604 BLAIN THOMAS 12519 125611 MICHELLE L DIXON 12520 125628 RANDY LYNN SCOTT 12521 125635 KAIKHAM SISOMPHANE 12522 125642 KHONSAVAHN SISOMPHANE 12523 125659 ARIC HULAND CHAMPAGNE 12524 125666 CHARLES THOMPSON 12525 125673 MICHAEL G PATE 12526 125680 CARVER ADAMS 12527 125697 GERARD RENTERIA 12528 125703 EMIL A GONZALES JR
12529 125710 RONNIE L HOOKER 12530 125727 SCOTT IMHOFF 12531 125734 JODIE JEROME CUNNINGHAM III

Company Name 1
GP DELIVERY INC EMERITUS ENTREPRENEUR, INC

Company Name 2 TRES NUEVE INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BROWN'S DELIVERY SERVICE, INC RENE'S PARCEL SERVICE INC

RTV TRUCKING INC

C C TRANSPORT & COURIER SERVICE TURNER TRANSPORT &

LLC

COURIER SERVICE INC

STEVEN LIU ENTERPRISE INC B BATIE INCORPORATED

J D ALVAREZ, INC

GCD LOGISTICS INC NO LIMIT TRUCKING # 11 INC 6903 GROUP, INC
757 EXPRESS INC
FEHD INC

DAATSRIGHT DELIVERIES INC

CHRISTOPHER THOMAS PICKUP AND C THOMAS PICKUP &

DELIVERY

DELIVERY, INC

HANDCO INCORPORATED

SIMCO COURIER INC

RS SWINGMAN INC SKWISE CORP
MGP DELIVERY INC
QUICK ROUTE TRUCKING; QWIK ROUTE TRUCKING LLC
YMM, INC DBA ACTION HOME DELIVERY

QWIK ROUTE TRUCKING PRO DRIVER, INC LLC

Page 201 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 209 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12532 125741 TITUS LATHEN 12533 125758 EDWARD JOHN MCGINN 12534 125765 RANDALL HOUSTON 12535 125772 PAUL MANNING 12536 125789 RAYMOND JR HAMILTON 12537 125796 RICKY LYNN FUQUA
12538 125802 KEVIN MAYNARD 12539 125819 ANGELO HADNOT 12540 125826 RANDY EARLE GILMORE 12541 125833 MARK EDWARD HARDIN 12542 125840 RAY LOPEZ 12543 125857 DEE A MONROE 12544 125864 JOHNNY RAY JORDAN
12545 125871 ROBERT PRUITT 12546 125888 FELECIANO DELEON 12547 125895 ANTHONY CANADY 12548 125901 FRANK A OWEN 12549 125918 GERALD G MOSELEY JR 12550 125925 BRENT SWENSON 12551 125932 DAVID SHAWN COX 12552 125949 MARK RACHAL 12553 125956 LONNIE DEWAYNE CANTRELL 12554 125963 BRIAN HAILEY 12555 125970 SERGIO R ZAMORA 12556 125987 JODEY FLEMING 12557 125994 FERNANDO ROBERTO LEMA 12558 126007 JAMES ROGEAU 12559 126014 GEORGE F SHEEHAN 12560 126021 JACQUELINE CORBELL 12561 126038 SCOTT GRIFFIN 12562 126045 JERRY PEREZ 12563 126052 CHARLIE EDWARD JONES 12564 126069 CHARLES WEBSTER 12565 126076 MARK ALLEN SHOFNER 12566 126083 LISA KAYE SMITH 12567 126090 KEVIN LEE PALMER 12568 126106 AUDIE MUNOZ 12569 126113 WILLIAM JEFFREY SADLER 12570 126120 CHRISTOPHER SOLOMON
12571 126137 JOHN W ZANCKETTI 12572 126144 ROBERTO R CASTANEDA 12573 126151 JUAN BRISENO 12574 126168 NEAL LEWIS 12575 126175 DEREK N SAULTER
12576 126182 HEATH SHANNON THACKER
12577 126199 JARROD HURD 12578 126205 TIMOTHY LAMAR MARTIN 12579 126212 GERARDO RODRIGUEZ 12580 126229 WAYNE ADKINSON 12581 126236 MICHAEL G PHILLIPS II 12582 126243 JESSE CRUZ SAENZ 12583 126250 HECTOR GUADALUPE GARAY JR 12584 126267 WILLIAM JEROD KENNARD 12585 126274 ARTHUR MILTON 12586 126281 RICHARD TAYLOR 12587 126298 MICHEAL DEAN JACKSON 12588 126304 WALTER LILLEY 12589 126311 QUIZON JONES 12590 126328 STEPHON EDMON MCMULLEN 12591 126335 HENRY GILBERT

Company Name 1 TITUS LATHEN CARRIAGE INC EJM DISTRIBUTORS INC HOUSTON P&D, INC IPJ DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

FUQUA INVESTMENTS, II, INC

HAMILTON TK ENTERPRISES, INC

AKADJA SERVICES, INC

EXPRESS LOGISTICS, INC RALO ENTERPRISES INC

JJ'S TRUCKING AND HOME DELIVERY CORPORATION

FELIX DE LEON, INC ONE TIME TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MAVERICK GROUND SERVICES, INC OL'RED LLC
HAILEY'S P&D INC; HAILEYS P&D INC TEAM HAILEY P & D INC ZAMORA P&D INC
F R LEMA, INC

BEDROCK

CWEB TRUCKING INC WAM ENTERPRISES, INC LKS DELIVERIES INC K L R B PALMER, INC

SEVEN D SERVICES INC NON-STOP COURIER SERVICES CORP

ZANCKETTI ENTERPRISES LLC ROBERTOS DELIVERY INC

DADDY'S TRUCK, INC

DNR TRANSPORTATION INC

DNRR TRANSPORTATION

LLC

THACKPACK DELIVERY SERVICES INC

T MARTIN ENTERPRISES INC 3RODZ DELIVERY, INC
BTP DELIVERY LLC
TOP NOTCH DELIVERIES INC KINGDOM HOUSTON EXPRESS LLC AMENT INC

Page 202 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 210 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12592 126342 MICHAEL BRIAN HAMPTON 12593 126359 CURTIS CALAWAY ALDREDGE 12594 126366 DAVID STEPHENS 12595 126373 DEREK VAIL 12596 126380 GAY MURRAY 12597 126397 MIKE TEAGUE 12598 126403 MICHAEL L RIDINGS 12599 126410 JEFFREY D DODGEN 12600 126427 WILLIAM LEON WARREN 12601 126434 HAROLD MOORE 12602 126441 JAMES BAKER 12603 126458 RITCHIE RODGERS 12604 126465 JOHN PATRICK DOUGLAS 12605 126472 NICHOLE CARTER-KRENEK 12606 126489 ANTHONY HOOD 12607 126496 HOTRADAT RAMLALL 12608 126502 JEFF EVERMAN 12609 126519 GARY PARSON 12610 126526 CARL GRAVES 12611 126533 OSCAR SOTO 12612 126540 STACY CORSI 12613 126557 GAYLON DOWNEY 12614 126564 MARC STANFORD 12615 126571 DANIEL HESKETT 12616 126588 JOSE ALFREDO MARTINEZ 12617 126595 RALPH M FUENTES 12618 126601 KEVIN KANE 12619 126618 JIMMY JOHNSON 12620 126625 DAVID L RINDFLIESCH 12621 126632 HAROLD SCOTT MILLER 12622 126649 JOSE TORRES 12623 126656 DENIS GUILLET 12624 126663 RODNEY MONTANDON 12625 126670 BUFORD COLEMAN 12626 126687 GILBERT REYES 12627 126694 ERNEST CAMARENA 12628 126700 KEN DENNING 12629 126717 ROBERTO CALDERON
12630 126724 RODERICK E MCLACHLAN 12631 126731 ELOY TORRES 12632 126748 MICHAEL GOMEZ 12633 126755 JAMES RAINWATER
12634 126762 GLEN MURPHY 12635 126779 CARL WAYNE ELDER 12636 126786 ANDREW WADE HARRIS
12637 126793 CONNIE DARLENE RAMSEY 12638 126809 ALFRED JERNIGAN JR 12639 126816 JOE FLORES 12640 126823 RANDALL SCHMIDT 12641 126830 DAN BENTON 12642 126847 KEITH CORTEZ BELT 12643 126854 EDWARD BIRD 12644 126861 TOMMY J HALL 12645 126878 JERAMY SHANE GRIFFITH 12646 126885 JOSE VALDEZ 12647 126892 AARON W BROWN 12648 126908 RICHARD L TURNBULL 12649 126915 MARK PARKER 12650 126922 VICTOR JENKINS JR
12651 126939 MIKE OLIVARES IV 12652 126946 MELISSA STEGALL

Company Name 1 MBH DELIVERY INCORPORATED CAL'S TRUCKING INC
PREVAIL DELIVERY SERVICES INC

Company Name 2 CAL'S TRUCKING INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BAKER EXPRESS, INC SHELLY'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC

RAMLALL DELIVERY INC PARSON EXPRESS INC OSCAR DELIVERY, INC GQD & SONS INC
MTZ INCORPORATED
J J EXPRESS, INC RUNNYS TRUCKING LLC

R T DELIVERY INC

DENNING ENTERPRISES INC CALDERON DELIVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED

TEXAS STRAIGHTWAY TRUCKING, INC

LIGHTIN EXPRESS HARRIS TRANSPORTATION LLC
CSRAMSEY INC
JT PARCEL, INC

AWHPEN TRANSPORTATION LLC

KCB CONTRACTING INC

AKA ENTERPRISES, INC ALL TOGETHER DELIVERIES INC

ALL TOGETHER DELIVERIES INC

Page 203 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 211 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12653 126953 TOM WIESE 12654 126960 BROCK EZER BLANTON 12655 126977 OSWALD REEDUS 12656 126984 SCOTT SEIBERT 12657 126991 MARC MARVIN 12658 127004 BRENT HOLT 12659 127011 EDUARDO RAYGOZA 12660 127028 KYLE BRYAN WATSON 12661 127035 LEONARD MARTINEZ 12662 127042 KJELL ANDERSSON 12663 127059 PHILLIP BREWER
12664 127066 RUSHFORTH WILLIAMS 12665 127073 TIQUIYO A JOHNSON 12666 127080 ROBERT B BENAVIDES 12667 127097 GREGORY S CLEM 12668 127103 JAMES D YOUNG 12669 127110 CHARLES DAVID POLAND 12670 127127 MARSHALL MURPHY 12671 127134 ALBERT FLORES 12672 127141 SHANE ELLIOTT 12673 127158 JUAN C MALDONADO 12674 127165 RENE RENDON 12675 127172 DEENA RENA LINDSAY 12676 127189 JUAN PEREZ
12677 127196 DAVID GREENLEE 12678 127202 JAMES G FOX 12679 127219 KYLE BURNS 12680 127226 TERRY BRANDT 12681 127233 RODOLFO G GARCIA 12682 127240 JASON D WILLIAMS 12683 127257 BRIAN MCKENNEY 12684 127264 ROY R CRUTCHFIELD 12685 127271 MICHAEL MATTHEWS 12686 127288 ERIC SCHAMS 12687 127295 LEON BINGHAM 12688 127301 GEOFFREY D MERRELL 12689 127318 PAUL JENKINS 12690 127325 REGINALD T LEFLORE 12691 127332 TOMMY JERKINS 12692 127349 RANCE VAN CRAIG 12693 127356 BOBBY JOE TURRENTINE 12694 127363 BRYAN CODY GOODWIN 12695 127370 GUSTAVO CAZAREZ 12696 127387 SERGIO RENE SANDOVAL 12697 127394 RONALD SHANE BLYTHE 12698 127400 OMAR DURAN 12699 127417 MARTIN SADA 12700 127424 JEFF BOYLES 12701 127431 STEVEN LEE LANGFORD 12702 127448 MICHAEL CHAPIN 12703 127455 BENJAMIN BENAVIDES 12704 127462 PATRICK MURILLO 12705 127479 ALBERT MARTINEZ 12706 127486 LEONARDO LUIS SALAZAR 12707 127493 JOHNNY DANE LEONARD 12708 127509 JOHN COLE 12709 127516 TERRY DON RANDOLPH 12710 127523 TRAVIS D REED 12711 127530 JEFFREY MICHAEL NEILL 12712 127547 ALLEN CHARLES BROWN III 12713 127554 JOHN DUNSON 12714 127561 EUGENE KOZELSKY 12715 127578 CLINT A MARION

Company Name 1 TOM'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC
O & D DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

QUALITY GROUND SERVICE INC

QUALITY GROUND TRANSPORT INC

ROBERT'S PACKAGE SYSTEM INC

ABO EXPRESS INC

ELLIOTTS MANAGEMENT INC MALDONADO TRANSPORTATION INC

PEREZ TRANSPORTATION LLC

JOHN PEREZ TRANSPORTATION INC

T-B ENTERPRISES INC R GARCIA DELIVERY COMPANY
BRIAN MCKENNEY INC ROY'S PACKAGE SERVICE INC
SCHAMS DELIVERY CO INC
G S C MERRELL ENTERPRISES INC
LEFLORE PROJECT, INC

BANDJT, INCORPORATED
A M RUSH INC SANDOVAL AND SONS INC S&J DELIVERY, LLC PNO INC MARTIN DANIEL INC

S&J DELIVERY, INC

DBA M A K TRUCKING

M A K TRUCKING, INC

NEILL TRANSPORTATION, INC

Page 204 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 212 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12716 127585 KRISTIAN MERCER 12717 127592 ROBERT JASON HESTER 12718 127608 GILBERT S FELAN 12719 127615 JAMES BLAIR MCCOLLUM 12720 127622 DUSTIN JAMES NASH 12721 127639 WAYNE A SCOVIL 12722 127646 RONALD E COYNE 12723 127653 ROBERT LAWTON PETERSON 12724 127660 JASON TEBOE 12725 127677 JASON TODD POTTS 12726 127684 JOSE LUIS VERA 12727 127691 SHAMERON KAY TURNER 12728 127707 SHARON G FORD
12729 127714 ROBERT F LYLE 12730 127721 CHARLES MORRIS 12731 127738 JULIE CAIRNS ALBRACHT 12732 127745 EDWARD WUISTINGER 12733 127752 DAVID AUSTIN JENKINS 12734 127769 RONALD DALE HARGIS 12735 127776 EULA KEYS 12736 127783 MALCOLM NUGENE ROBERTS 12737 127790 ROBERT L JACOBS 12738 127806 JAMES H BRANNON JR 12739 127813 DANNY ENGLE 12740 127820 DARRELL DEWAYNE BUREL 12741 127837 BRENT HAGAR 12742 127844 EFRAIN VILLARREAL 12743 127851 ANDRE TENNARD 12744 127868 HARRY SHANKLIN 12745 127875 DANNY MONCIBAIZ 12746 127882 JOHN EDWARD GARAY 12747 127899 CALVIN FRANKLIN 12748 127905 JAY W BEARDSLEE 12749 127912 MARCUS BROWN 12750 127929 CHARLES B CLATTENBURG 12751 127936 MONICA JEWEL CLARK
12752 127943 GARY TYRONE WEAVER 12753 127950 DUSTIN ROGER MOORE 12754 127967 ERIC L BRYAN 12755 127974 FRANCISCO JAVIER LOPEZ JR 12756 127981 GENE IRIS MCKINZY JR 12757 127998 AARON NEELY 12758 128001 ELOY REGELADO MENDEZ 12759 128018 DENNIS D BROWN 12760 128025 MICHAEL A MARTINEZ 12761 128032 JAMES E AUGUSTUS 12762 128049 JEFF SYLVESTER 12763 128056 BILLYJOHN GANN 12764 128063 JAMES JOSEPH GARCIA 12765 128070 MARK ANTHONY CARDENAS 12766 128087 TOMMY DEE SEXTON III 12767 128094 CARLOS GARZA 12768 128100 ALLEN LAMONT HENRY 12769 128117 MATTHEW RAY GREEN 12770 128124 MARCO QUELON SMITH 12771 128131 JERRY D BROWN 12772 128148 SIDNEY WILSON 12773 128155 BRIAN CARR 12774 128162 VICTOR CAPUCHINO 12775 128179 NICKY ZANE JOHNSON 12776 128186 HERNANDO C OBRYANT 12777 128193 JONATHAN AYUKU

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

R P EXPRESS INC; RPEXPRESS INC

JTP EXPRESS, INC

TURNER & SONS, INC PEE WEE OLDHAM INC; PEEWEE OLDHAM INC JR LYLE CORPORATION

PEE WEE OLDHAM INC

CAIRNS COMPANY INC STINGER DELIVERY INCORPORATED TOMCAT EXPRESS INC

MRBR, INCORPORATED

ASAP TRANSPORTATION, LLC

EFRAIN VILLARREAL INC TENNARD DELIVERY SERVICE INC

EFRAIN VILLARREAL INC

D & M VAN-MIR LLC

V-M EXPRESS INC

J&J TRANSPORTATION SERVICE LLC

LONGHORN LOGISTICS, INC

CLATTENBURG TRUCKING INC MONICA J CLARK DBA DREAM TEAM DELIVERIES

DREAM TEAM DELIVERIES INC

E & D DELIVERIES, INC
IRIS MCKINZY, INC COWBOY UP DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

M&T CARDENAS ENTERPRISES INC CG LOGISTICS, INC

OTUNDO INCORPORATED

Page 205 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 213 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12778 128209 RANDY B LUCKY
12779 128216 ANDREA LANDERS 12780 128223 RUBEN REYES
12781 128230 TRAVIS CHILDRESS 12782 128247 CELSO GUERRERO 12783 128254 SERAFIN GARCIA 12784 128261 DANIEL NORBERT BUSA 12785 128278 LORNE ALBERT KENNEDY 12786 128285 REGINALD V JOHNSON 12787 128292 BRADLEY L WATSON 12788 128308 DAVID G GRESHAM 12789 128315 JERRY STUTTS 12790 128322 BILL E MILLER 12791 128339 PAUL DICKERSON 12792 128346 REYNALDO DURAN 12793 128353 DOUGLAS R DEMPSEY 12794 128360 ROBERT EARL HODGE 12795 128377 RICHARD TALAMANTES 12796 128384 JAMES W HARVEY 12797 128391 WAYNE S SISTRUNK 12798 128407 ROCKY HARDIN 12799 128414 CARLOS GARCIA 12800 128421 KIRK KARIKER 12801 128438 FRANCISCO A MARTINEZ 12802 128445 STEVEN SAXTON 12803 128452 BOB A KEITH 12804 128469 SYLVIA SYLVESTER 12805 128476 RAFAEL SALAZAR
12806 128483 MICHAEL NELSON 12807 128490 JOHN K MURAYA 12808 128506 AHMAD A PARCHAMI 12809 128513 JOHN TYLER 12810 128520 DANA DALTON 12811 128537 ALVIN H ROSEN 12812 128544 CODY DALE TREADWAY 12813 128551 MARK MORROW 12814 128568 NORMA C SHERMAN 12815 128575 LIONEL ROGERS JR 12816 128582 HENRY CISNEROS GOMEZ JR 12817 128599 RICHARD DERWOOD PATTERSON 12818 128605 DANIEL SABEDRA 12819 128612 COURTNEY GLASPIE 12820 128629 ADOLFO RAY ALMANZA 12821 128636 KERRY LYNN MCSWAIN 12822 128643 PHILLIP HERNANDEZ 12823 128650 DONNIE ANDERSON 12824 128667 CHRIS SALAZAR 12825 128674 CLIFF MOBERG 12826 128681 JULIO SOLIZ 12827 128698 LYNDON ANASTOPOULOS 12828 128704 GILBERT OCHOA 12829 128711 KEITH BALDWIN 12830 128728 JERRY W HALL 12831 128735 SAMSON WOUBE 12832 128742 ENRIQUE RABAGO JR 12833 128759 ROBERT G SCRUGGS 12834 128766 BRADLEY C BARTLETT JR
12835 128773 GEORGE RILEY ANDERSON 12836 128780 TREVOR MOTT 12837 128797 MAXWELL OBIAZOR 12838 128803 HELEN GILBERT

Company Name 1 LUCKY PICKUP & DELIVERY INCORPORATED RUBEN'S TRUCKING LLC
SERAFIN TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RUBEN'S TRUCKING LLC SHOOTER'S EXPRESS TRUCKING INC

JAMES GRESHAM TRUCKING, INC BILL MILLER HOME SERVICES INC
HODGE & HODGE LLC TALAMANTES ENTERPRISES, INC HARVEY EXPRESS INC GROUND SLAM DELIVERY INC ROCKY R HARDIN, INC KARIKER SERVICES INC MARTINEZ EXPRESS INCORPORATED
RAFAEL SALAZAR DELIVERY SERVICES INC
HEAVENLY SENT DELIVERY SERVICE
TREDS, INC
KDR EXPORT, INC

ADOLFO ALMANZA INC

KBALDWIN, INC S-W TRANSPORTATION INC WOLFE TRANSPORTATION INC
PACKAGE LINE INC

WOLFE TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 206 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 214 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12839 128810 JOHN ISLER 12840 128827 ROGELIO ALANIS 12841 128834 CHRIS SALINAS 12842 128841 STEPHEN KUPKA 12843 128858 RICARDO VAGLIENTY 12844 128865 EDMUNDO MELENDEZ 12845 128872 JAIR TOVAR MARMOLEJO 12846 128889 SHANNON L KING 12847 128896 DOUGLAS EDWARD BEAMS 12848 128902 SERGIO SANCHEZ 12849 128919 ROCKY CLANTON 12850 128926 LARRY WAYNE BECK 12851 128933 JIMMY CANTU 12852 128940 VINCENT M REED 12853 128957 WILLIAM COLLINS 12854 128964 RUSSELL WITT 12855 128971 GILBERT RODRIGUEZ 12856 128988 GABRIEL M RANGEL 12857 128995 LEONARD DANTONIO 12858 129008 BENNY PENA JR 12859 129015 DENNIS R THOMAS 12860 129022 TOMMY JOHNSON 12861 129039 CARL LEVIAS GEORGE
12862 129046 ADAM GOODWIN 12863 129053 RODRICK BUTLER 12864 129060 JERRY GLENN CAMPBELL 12865 129077 DEANNIE ODEA 12866 129084 ELISEO A REYNA 12867 129091 JAMES BESAW 12868 129107 JOHN MEHARG 12869 129114 ARTHUR MORALES 12870 129121 JOHN D PEREZ
12871 129138 CHESLEY LEFTRICK 12872 129145 LUIS GARCIA 12873 129152 JAMES M NEWBERRY 12874 129169 DANIEL E EMRICK 12875 129176 KEVIN D LYTLE 12876 129183 SANTOS R CRUZ
12877 129190 ADEN DELACRUZ 12878 129206 QUINCEY COBBIN 12879 129213 DANIEL CONDON 12880 129220 CHARLES C LODEK III 12881 129237 CHRIS ELLEN CONNER 12882 129244 ROOSEVELT TERRELL 12883 129251 BRIAN KEITH WILTURNER SR 12884 129268 WILLIE JOE ARREOLA 12885 129275 CHARLES A WALKER 12886 129282 BOWER J FISHER 12887 129299 MICHAEL DEERING SHERIDAN 12888 129305 ROLAND JOSEPH GAUDREAU JR 12889 129312 WILLIE B BRIGHTMON 12890 129329 KEVIN RYAN WILCOX 12891 129336 CHARLIE WHITTEN 12892 129343 THOMAS W HANNA 12893 129350 JON ERIC COWAN 12894 129367 TONY RODGERS 12895 129374 ROGER LONG 12896 129381 SILBANIO HERNANDEZ 12897 129398 JOSEPH MARCELLIOUS HARDMAN 12898 129404 NICOLAS RAMOS JR 12899 129411 MIGUEL CORONADO

Company Name 1 ALANIS EXPRESS, INC BOCA-D PARCEL, INC VAGLIENTY FLEET INC
SAZ TRUCKING INC BEAM ME UP INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RUSSELL WITT ENTERPRISES INC
KI-KA-KO PARCEL SERVICE INC L & M EXPRESS INC
TJ ONE LOGISTICS INC C & L & G ENTERPRISES & DELIVERY, INC

LEX GROUND SERVICES, INC
3AM DELIVERY INC JAHANNAICA ENTERPRISE LLC

B&H EXPRESS DELIVERY INC

SANTOS DELIVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED DE LA CRUZ DELIVERY INC
CONCERTED LOGISTICS LLC

LA TRUCKING WALKER P&D INC

L A COURIERS INC

A BETTER WAY TRUCKING, INC K WS DELIVERY SERVICE INC AMC TRUCKING LLC
JECDEL ENTERPRISES, INC

AMC TRUCKING INC

MIGUEL & PATRICIA CORONADO ENTERPRISES INC

Page 207 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 215 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12900 129428 ORTA PAUL 12901 129435 LARRY DON KING 12902 129442 JENNIFER ANN GRIFFIN 12903 129459 JULIO PENAGOS 12904 129466 BRANDON HAMILTON 12905 129473 JAMES A PYKA 12906 129480 ELISEO VASQUEZ 12907 129497 JULIA LYNN COX 12908 129503 DAVID BRADLEY WARNER 12909 129510 MICHAEL DEMAAR 12910 129527 ALBERT PEDREGON JR 12911 129534 CHARLES E WILLIAMS 12912 129541 JACK WATSON 12913 129558 BRUCE HENTSCHEL 12914 129565 JAMES LARRY PRICE 12915 129572 RENE V MONTOYA 12916 129589 DAWN SASFY 12917 129596 RODNEY RUST 12918 129602 ROY LEON SPARKS 12919 129619 LARRY JOE HUNSAKER 12920 129626 WILLIAM WINTER 12921 129633 JOE A GARCIA 12922 129640 JEFFREY ROSS 12923 129657 MIKE MARSHALL 12924 129664 ALEJANDRO BARRON 12925 129671 FERNANDO RUBIO 12926 129688 ARTHUR C THOMAS 12927 129695 RANDAL LAFFERTY 12928 129701 JAMES MATTHEWS VRBA 12929 129718 LONNIE DEAN PEARSON 12930 129725 ROBERT DAVIS JR 12931 129732 HOWARD EDDY 12932 129749 STEVEN R KEELING 12933 129756 ERIC HATHMAN 12934 129763 ROLAND PELLETIER 12935 129770 TOM MURPHY 12936 129787 DAVID H HEIN 12937 129794 ANTONIO MENEFEE 12938 129800 GREGORY ROSE 12939 129817 FREDERICK SMITH 12940 129824 RONNIE THOMAS 12941 129831 RAFAEL PEREZ 12942 129848 GWENDOLYN NANCEJEFFERSON 12943 129855 ENRIQUE LOZANO 12944 129862 PATRICIA ANN VANVALEN 12945 129879 MICHAEL JOHN KUBELKA 12946 129886 STACY HODGE 12947 129893 CODY BRYAN FOSTER 12948 129909 BRIAN HAYDEN 12949 129916 ROBERT SEGURA 12950 129923 JAYSON MAY 12951 129930 DAVID L BROOKS 12952 129947 CLARENCE HOLDEN 12953 129954 THOMAS IAGROSSE 12954 129961 ROBERT BLACK 12955 129978 JAMES LEROY BURGESS JR 12956 129985 VENANCIO CARRERA 12957 129992 GERARDO CARRERA 12958 130004 TOMMY DELUNA 12959 130011 TIM W RUSSELL
12960 130028 THOMAS ROACH 12961 130035 JUAN J LOPEZ 12962 130042 MARCUS FIERROS 12963 130059 ERICK E BROWN

Company Name 1 KING TRUCKING INC WIT ENTERPRISES INC FDX DELIVERY SERVICE LLC
ROLLING, INC CAPSTONE CARTAGE, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JP DELIVERY SERVICE INC

LJ-JCK INC WFJW INC JAG DEL INC JBOL INC
RUBIO CARRIER SERVICES INC
LAFFERTY'S P&D SERVICES, INC
LVP EXPRESS, INC

CREATORS IMAGE INC
SEAN & KELLEY INC
A MENEFEE DELIVERY, INC GREGORY ROSE DELIVERY INC ESIR INC

M&T TRANSPORTATION INC ENRIQUE LOZANO INC

DNA DELIVERY LLC NXS LLC MMRW LLC R R SEGURA TRUCKING, INC JAYSON K MAY INC
HOLDEN DELIVERY SERVICES, INC ALBERTSON ROAD DELIVERY INC
EAST MOUNTAIN COURIER INC
GC RIVAS LLC TOMDEL INC DOUBLE R CONTRACTING LTD
KI KA KO PARCEL SERVICE

C & S EXPRESS INC NXS, INC MMRW, INC
RUSSELL DOUBLE R CONTRACTING, INC

MMRW, INC

Page 208 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 216 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 12964 130066 AHMAD RASHAD YOUNG 12965 130073 EDWARD LOUIS KALINOWSKI 12966 130080 JACK TOM PRIOLO 12967 130097 WILLIAM G BEADLES 12968 130103 WILL I ROBERTS 12969 130110 TODD JARRELL 12970 130127 HOWARD PAGE 12971 130141 CHARLES EDWARD CARTER 12972 130158 GUILLERMO PAQUIAN 12973 130165 JERINE BOGAN 12974 130172 RONNIE L REED 12975 130189 ROY LEE CLERKLEY 12976 130196 L CLAYTON HAVARD 12977 130202 SEBASTIAN MAULUCCI 12978 130219 JEANETTE THOMAS 12979 130226 ROBERT BURNHAM 12980 130233 ANTHONY JAMES 12981 130240 CORY L HENSON 12982 130257 ROBERT LYNDAL HOPE 12983 130264 JOSE GONZALEZ 12984 130271 T H CARR 12985 130288 RICHARD GANNOE 12986 130295 ROBERT LUIS DELAPENA 12987 130301 RAY C KILLEN 12988 130318 ROBERT TORRES 12989 130325 MATT RAHN 12990 130332 TERRY MONTGOMERY 12991 130349 JOSEPH ADAM BOGER 12992 130356 JOHN WATT 12993 130363 ADAN VALDEZ 12994 130370 FRANSISCO JAVIER ANGELES 12995 130387 WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ 12996 130394 DAMON HARRISON 12997 130400 VINCENT NEWMAN 12998 130417 TERRELL J WEGNER 12999 130424 TOMMY J BAILEY 13000 130431 RUDY ROMERO 13001 130448 ROGER A CRISSMAN 13002 130455 JEFFREY E MENEFEE 13003 130462 HOWARD WOODARD 13004 130479 DAN R BROOKS 13005 130486 TIMOTHY GONZALEZ 13006 130493 JOHN D ROCHA 13007 130509 GERALD L BURGESS 13008 130516 JOSEPH L MCBAIN 13009 130523 MELVIN SPILLER 13010 130530 BARRY DOTSON 13011 130547 BRUCE WHITMORE 13012 130554 JESSIE MARTINEZ 13013 130561 JOSEPH ARMSTRONG 13014 130578 KALECSKI D MURRAY 13015 130585 MARCO A ZARATE 13016 130592 RICHARD SANCHEZ 13017 130608 BRIAN STAPLES 13018 130615 JOHN VAL SLYKER JR 13019 130622 CHARLES ANTHONY SPRADLEY 13020 130639 DAN M STENDER 13021 130646 STEVEN E SMITH 13022 130653 JULIO C VASQUEZ 13023 130660 NICK B KHOXAYO 13024 130677 DAVE RAYMOND AYOTTE 13025 130684 DAVID GARDINO 13026 130691 JASON MEDINA 13027 130707 YOLANDA LONNETTE PHILLIPS 13028 130714 MITCH C HOLLEMBEAK

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RAR TRANSPORTATION INC
ADJ TRANSPORT LLC QUINTANA-LEE ENTERPRISES LLC
DELP ENTERPRISES, INC KILLEN DELIVERY INC BELLA LEO TRUCKING INC ALTOQUI INC BOGER PACKAGE SERVICE INC
THE ANGELES COMPANY

B & M PROCARRIER, INC
RICHARD'S PACKAGE SERVICE, INC ONTIME P&D, INC JOHN V SLYKER JR INC CHAZ AND BAY CORPORATION
VASQUEZ DELIVERY CORP AYOTTE CARRIERS INC MAJESTIC EXPRESS LLC
MITCHELL EXPRESS INC

Page 209 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 217 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13029 130721 FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZALEZ 13030 130738 BUNMI OLUGBOJI 13031 130745 TERRY JOSEPH BAKER 13032 130752 PANATIA CHIN 13033 130769 JAMES FULLILOVE 13034 130776 MICHAEL P PELLERIN 13035 130783 VINCENT ROSAS JR 13036 130790 ALFRED WINTERS 13037 130806 JAMES AUSTIN 13038 130813 BRANT BUNKER 13039 130820 JEREMEY JASON MYERS
13040 130837 EDWARD MASKOWSKY 13041 130844 KRISTEN JOHNSON 13042 130851 MICHAEL GARZA 13043 130868 KENNETH KOZLOWSKI 13044 130875 TIM MERSHON 13045 130882 CLAUDE C LOWERY 13046 130899 RONALD LEROY ROSENBOOM 13047 130905 JOHN WILLIAM STEIN 13048 130912 TREACHOR SANDLES 13049 130929 RICCI AMADOR 13050 130936 MIGUEL HERNANDEZ 13051 130943 DAVID D FRIMODIG 13052 130950 WILLIAM FREEMAN 13053 130967 ANTHONY LAURENCE MAXIE II 13054 130974 CB HESTER
13055 130981 MICHAEL MENDOZA 13056 130998 KASEY RONALD COOPER 13057 131001 ANDREW JASON MADDOX 13058 131018 JEFFEREY PARMENTIER 13059 131025 RUSSELL BOYD 13060 131032 JEREMY BAIN 13061 131049 LARRY TAYLOR 13062 131056 ANTHONY TYSON 13063 131063 AMBER GODLASKY 13064 131070 STEPHEN C ANDERSON 13065 131087 ROSS WADE EATON 13066 131094 WILLIAM ADRIAN LAROCHE 13067 131100 JEREMY BLANE RUSHING 13068 131117 SHANE MARTINEZ 13069 131124 DAN K UTLEY 13070 131131 ALBERT R ORR 13071 131148 TRAVIS REID 13072 131155 JAMES PROCHASKA 13073 131162 ALAN SVAJDA 13074 131179 PAUL LABBY 13075 131186 THOMAS JOSEPH BOBER 13076 131193 RICK NORMAN 13077 131209 LOUIS KEYS JR 13078 131216 BRENT ALDEN BAILEY 13079 131223 JAMES D GARZA 13080 131230 RODNEY B NEWTON 13081 131247 RUSSELL GANN GOLDSTON 13082 131254 JOHN LOWE 13083 131261 ALFRED V VELASQUEZ 13084 131278 KELLI A FINCH 13085 131285 ARTHUR MAHAGAN 13086 131292 MARK BURKHALTER 13087 131308 RODNEY C HOUSTON 13088 131315 VERTEE JACKSONJR 13089 131322 MICHAEL N CORREIA 13090 131339 JOHN F LIMBRICK 13091 131346 BRIAN HATTAN

Company Name 1
DAMASON COMPANY LLC TERRY J BAKER INC

Company Name 2

MAC DELIVERY, INC

JJM AND ASSOCIATES OF VIRGINIA INC
JEFF & KRIS LLC M&J GARZA TRANSPORT INC AVANZAR INC

J W STEIN & COMPANY

J W STEIN & CO

ON TIME DELIVERY SERVICE INC
BERTHA J'S PACKAGE SYSTEM; BERTHA J'S PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC

ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISTR INC

JDP, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

R & E DELIVERY SERVICES LLC LAROCHE TRUCKING INC
BERT ORR ENTERPRISES INC

QUICK PRO, INC
AB TRANSPORT INC JDGARZA EPRESS INC

MAHAGAN ENTERPRISES INC
BIG TIME DELIVERY, INC MNC DELIVERY LLC JCA-1 SERVICE LLC

MNC SIAM INC J C A -1 CORPORATION

JCA-2LK INC

Page 210 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 218 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13092 131353 MICHAEL ERIC GRACE
13093 131360 ISA DADER 13094 131377 JOHN HUMPHREYS 13095 131384 JAMES D MILLER 13096 131391 RICHARD WILLIAMS 13097 131407 CLOYCE DERRICK 13098 131414 CURTIS PAUL ABRAM 13099 131421 JOSEPH BRINGAS 13100 131438 GRANT NEEL 13101 131445 JON DAVID BARRY 13102 131452 ALEN LEE HONAKER 13103 131469 WILLIAM JONATHAN SCHWARTZ 13104 131476 MICHAEL RHOADES 13105 131483 SCOT HRBACEK 13106 131490 JAMES STANTON MCCASLAND 13107 131506 RANDY FLOWERS 13108 131513 JAIME SOTO 13109 131520 TODD MCNAMARA 13110 131537 STEPANION JAMES 13111 131544 TOU XIONG 13112 131551 JOE VALERO JR 13113 131568 GRADY L CLAYTON 13114 131575 MICHAEL LABONTE 13115 131582 BOBBY KEITH ALDERMAN 13116 131599 RUBEN MARTINEZ 13117 131605 FREDDIE ALLEN JR 13118 131612 LANCE ALLEN REED 13119 131629 CHAD CHAMBLEE 13120 131636 CHRIS MONTEZ 13121 131643 JAMES GARRETT EDWARDS 13122 131650 PAUL ANDREW RAMOS 13123 131667 BOBBY G JOHNSON 13124 131674 CURTIS BRYAN 13125 131681 JASON TANNER 13126 131698 GLENN DOUGLAS KUYKENDALL 13127 131704 MARK EASY 13128 131711 DON N CROFT 13129 131728 CHRIS MOSELEY 13130 131735 PAUL CASARES 13131 131742 CHRISTOPHER DAVIS 13132 131759 KRISTOPHER W FETZER 13133 131766 GERALD PELKEY 13134 131773 NEIL G DANIELS 13135 131780 SABINO J MARTINEZ JR 13136 131797 NICHOLAS STOKES 13137 131803 RICHARD MCCOMMON 13138 131810 RALPH WARNER HARDEMAN 13139 131827 FLOYD KENNETH COUNCILMAN 13140 131834 STEVEN STEINBERG 13141 131841 JOSHUA MCDONALD 13142 131858 ANTHONY J SMITH 13143 131865 RONNIE GLEN PENA 13144 131872 FARRIS L MATHIS 13145 131889 LARRY ZALUDEK
13146 131896 JARED UNRUH 13147 131902 KOREY PRATHER 13148 131919 PAUL LACHOWSKY 13149 131926 ROGELIO E RODELA 13150 131933 JOHN MURDOCK 13151 131940 JAY W HOLBROOK 13152 131957 ALBERT MARTINEZ 13153 131964 WILLIAM ELLIS 13154 131988 JORGE ROMO

Company Name 1 V A PACKAGE DELIVERY LLC; VA PACKAGE DELIVERY LLC INDEPENDENT DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2 VA DELIVERY CONTRACTOR INC

JAMES D MILLER ENTERPRISES INC BRENRIC INC

KURTS DELIVERY, INC

AIM HIGH LLC SCHWARTZ P&D INC

GGMTS INC J SOTO TRUCKING INC STEPANION JAMES TRUCKING INC

WMAB INC

CLAYTON DELIVERY INC

RM DELIVERY SERVICES INC

CHAMBLEE DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

BOBCO EXPRESS, INC G KUYKENDALL ENTERPRISES LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SM LOGISTICS INC MCCOMMON SERVICES INC

RONNIE'S DELIVERY INC LVNGINGRACE LLC

ZALUDEK TRANSPORT, INC

LACHOWSKY ENTERPRISES INC RML DELIVERY SERVICE INC

Page 211 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 219 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13155 131995 NIEBLAS T SILVA 13156 132008 JOHN MICHAEL THOMPSON 13157 132015 JOHN FRANK PELLICONE 13158 132022 JOYCE SULLIVAN 13159 132039 MARK A MARTINEZ 13160 132046 STEVEN RUNKEL 13161 132053 GILBERT CASTILLA 13162 132060 RICK BENSON 13163 132077 ERIC LYNN GARCIA 13164 132084 CURTIS DOWDLE 13165 132091 JEFF QUEBE 13166 132107 DAVID E KESSLER 13167 132114 MICHAEL S VANAUKEN 13168 132121 CHERYL L MEYERS
13169 132138 KEVIN COOK 13170 132145 TOMMY TIMMONS 13171 132152 MATHEW WARSENICK 13172 132169 OSCAR SALDIVAR 13173 132176 JOSEPH A MUNAR 13174 132183 WES CLAYTON MARTIN 13175 132190 REGINALD BECK 13176 132206 CHRIS DUNCAN 13177 132213 KIRBY DON HARDEN II 13178 132220 ANTHONY LEMOS 13179 132237 WILLIE POUNCY 13180 132244 STEVEN ANTHONY SCHROEDER 13181 132251 MIKE SCHROEDER 13182 132268 ISMAEL GUTIERREZ 13183 132275 VICTOR JR LOPEZ 13184 132282 JOSE HECTOR VILLARREAL III 13185 132299 SHAWN DEFRANCESCO 13186 132305 MICHAEL LEWAYNE WOSSUM 13187 132312 THOMAS MAGNO 13188 132329 GLEN MAXWELL 13189 132336 DOUG E SPOKES 13190 132343 SCOTT PARTRICK MORVANT 13191 132350 KENNETH M ROBERTS 13192 132367 CHRISTOPHER MCCOY 13193 132374 MATTHEW LEE MONTGOMERY
13194 132381 RUDY MARTINEZ 13195 132398 JAMES E GONZALEZ 13196 132404 CHARLES FRANKLIN COWART JR 13197 132411 HARDY W HENDERSON 13198 132428 MICHELLE CAHILL 13199 132435 EUGENE A HENDERSON 13200 132442 JEREMIAH G THOMPSON 13201 132459 GEORGE ROSALES 13202 132466 DANIEL SHINE 13203 132473 ERROL JAMES 13204 132480 MICHAEL MACHACEK 13205 132497 EDWARD D TAYLOR 13206 132503 MANUEL PENA 13207 132510 THOMAS HOLLINS 13208 132527 ELMO F MUNOZ 13209 132534 HADSANAY KHOUPHONGSY 13210 132541 CARL STEWART 13211 132558 PAUL JANIKOWSKI 13212 132565 DAVID JAMES CHRISTENSEN 13213 132572 DANIEL OWEN MALUM 13214 132589 JEREMY MATTHEW DRUMMER 13215 132596 CHARLES MARK CHOSE 13216 132602 JACK STEEN 13217 132619 JAMES WILSON TORRANCE III

Company Name 1 EP THOMPSON TRUCKING INC
SKR SERVICES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JRRJ INC
CSMC LLC
MATTHEW WARSENICK INC OS ENTERPRISES, INC WCM CONVEYANCE INC

C S K DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

TEXDEL INC

M A S K EXPEDITED, INC JC TRUCKING INC
CMM TRANSPORTATION INC 3M&K DELIVERY INC; K&M MONTGOMERY ENTERPRISES, INC

TAYLOR KWIK DISTRIBUTION INC
HOLLINS DELIVERY EFM ENTERPRISES, INC
FAITH IN MOTION TRUCKING LLC BOOHAN ENTERPRISES INC
DANNY O INC DRUMMER ENTERPRISES INC

HOLLINS DELIVERY, INC

NORTHERN COURIER SERVICE INC

Page 212 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 220 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13218 132626 GARY KAUFMAN 13219 132633 MUTASEM MURAWEH 13220 132640 ALVAH DANE ABBOTT 13221 132657 SONG XIONG 13222 132664 LOREN ADAM KRESKY 13223 132671 DAVID PATRICK WARNECKI 13224 132688 ANDREY BAXAY 13225 132695 ROBERT E GROVER 13226 132701 BRUCE LELAND KRAABEL 13227 132718 ROLLAND FEY 13228 132725 GAIL ELIZABETH NORDIN 13229 132732 TERRY ALLEN JOHNSON 13230 132749 JOHN KARLIN 13231 132756 STAN LESTER CLAUSEN 13232 132763 MILTON RICHARD BRANDT 13233 132770 DAVID LUBBERS 13234 132787 EBERTO RODRIGUEZ 13235 132794 MICHAEL DEAN LENZEN 13236 132800 STEVE CARLISLE 13237 132817 EDWIN STEVEN COLLINS 13238 132824 THOMAS GROVER 13239 132831 MICHAEL B MOLLNER 13240 132848 GUERIN MILLER 13241 132855 DALE ROBERT CARLSON 13242 132862 DONALD CHARLES HOPP 13243 132879 BENJAMIN T COLE 13244 132886 RYAN M EGGERT 13245 132893 JUDITH ZIGICH 13246 132909 TIMOTHY GRAHEK 13247 132916 GLENN JAMES CARLSON
13248 132923 JAMES KENNETH HOLUM 13249 132930 CHRISTOPHER L HAYNES 13250 132947 TERRY LEE GOKEE 13251 132954 JAMES T HARVEY 13252 132961 DARLA ANN FERN 13253 132978 JOEL A JORDET 13254 132985 RONALD MICHAEL CARLSON 13255 132992 DEBRA KAY LUND 13256 133005 ALAN JAY CHOUINARD 13257 133012 DAVID A WOLFF 13258 133029 KEVIN CLARK 13259 133036 FRED SPENCER 13260 133043 MICHAEL FRANZ 13261 133050 ROMAN DANIS 13262 133067 JAMIE SHEA 13263 133074 JAMES ALDEN SANDO 13264 133081 CHADWICK JOHNSON 13265 133098 JOHN DONLON 13266 133104 JACOB J ENGET 13267 133111 ANDRAE WORREL WHYTE 13268 133128 MAWUKO TENOU 13269 133135 EDDY FRANCISCO FLORES 13270 133142 HAROLD FREDERICK KLOSTER 13271 133159 MICHAEL T GREENE 13272 133166 GERALD HOVET 13273 133173 VINCE ELLERAAS 13274 133180 RICHARD PIWON 13275 133197 ALMON J HUGHES 13276 133203 GREG A PIERCE 13277 133210 CYNTHIA SHORE 13278 133227 JEAN ROOD
13279 133234 JOHN LANDWEHR

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

DOLPHIN DELIVERY EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BRIKICE INC NORTH TARRANT DELIVERY INC DERF DELIVERY LLC
JVK INC
MCB TRUCKING INC

TJB TRUCKING INC

MSL VENTURES INC

GROVER TRUCKING INC MD SIMPLE INC GLM INC PIONEER DELIVERY INC HOPP INC OF COSMOS DAWSON'S EXPRESS INC
ZIGICH EXPRESS INC
CARLSON DELIVERY SERVICE; CARLSON DELIVERY SERVICE INC JK DELIVERIES INC
TERRY GOKEE LLC J & C TRANSPORTATION LLC R I M S TRUCKING INC DIRT BROKE TRUCKING INC BIG DOG TRUCKING PA INC LUND EXPRESS INC

GLM INC
GRAND PORTAGE INC J & C TRANSPORT , INC

KLJ SERVICES INC FST FRDDY INC DANIS HOME DELIVERY SERVICE LLC ROAD KING, INC VIKINGWONDER INC WHYTE'S TRANSPORT INC

KLOSTER ENTERPRISES INC

ELLERAAS TRUCKING INC RNR SERVICES LLC

DRS EXPRESS INC DEJEROO ENTERPRISES
JKL INC

THREE D DELIVERY INC; THREE D DELIVERY INCORPORATED

Page 213 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 221 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13280 133241 RUSSELL LAMBERSON 13281 133258 ALAN SCHMIDT 13282 133265 STEVEN L BENNETT 13283 133272 ANTHONY ENDRES 13284 133289 CHRIS BELSHAW 13285 133296 MATTHEW MICHAEL ZAPPA 13286 133302 SERGEY KAZACHKOV 13287 133319 SHAWN R BLASING 13288 133326 MICHAEL LLOYD ZAWISLAK 13289 133333 CHAD MCINTYRE 13290 133340 KEVIN ORDALEN 13291 133357 DAWN MARIE NYEN 13292 133364 BEN ROBY 13293 133371 TERRY CASILLAS 13294 133388 DAN DAHLGREN 13295 133395 TROY D DILLABOUGH 13296 133401 JODY JOLLY 13297 133418 MICHELLE DAHL 13298 133425 BETH BUCKENDORF POOLE 13299 133432 RANDALL C BELYEA 13300 133449 JUSTIN JANNI 13301 133456 CHRIS LOKEN 13302 133463 TROY RICHARD SUNDVALL 13303 133470 FEMI ONAYIGA 13304 133487 MUSTAFA FARUK CINGILLI
13305 133494 JOEL HUBMER 13306 133500 RICHARD J PRAUSE
13307 133517 JAMES D ESTABROOKS 13308 133524 DOUGLAS BYSTEDT 13309 133531 RON ODELL PEDDYCOART
13310 133548 JOSEPH ENGEN 13311 133555 RON CARRIER 13312 133562 SCOTT LAMECKER 13313 133579 JOHN NELSON 13314 133586 JOHN JOSEPH LUTMER 13315 133593 KRIS E SANDVIG 13316 133609 RUBEN LYNN GREEN 13317 133616 MARK HENRY WALDELAND 13318 133623 VICTOR OLIVAREZ 13319 133630 ELDON SCHOCK 13320 133647 MICHAEL SEXTON 13321 133654 GREG TAYLOR 13322 133661 BARRY L SLAGTER 13323 133678 DAVID DONOVAN 13324 133685 KENT D MILLER
13325 133692 RYAN JONES 13326 133708 WILLIAM ERICKSON 13327 133715 DOUG STRENKE 13328 133722 MIKE SANDERS 13329 133739 SANKAY HENDRICKS 13330 133746 JEROME CONKINS 13331 133753 JOHN SHEEHAN 13332 133760 KEVIN D HAUGE 13333 133777 RANDALL EYSTAD 13334 133784 KIMBERLEY ANN STATHAS 13335 133791 NATHAN RICHMAN 13336 133807 THOMAS BIRD 13337 133814 MICHAEL ROBERT BROWN 13338 133821 JAMES CHRISTIAN ECKBERG 13339 133838 BRYAN HIPP 13340 133845 JEREMY JOHN WING

Company Name 1 SCHMIDT TOOL CONNECTION LLC ENDRES COMPANIES INC

Company Name 2

SOLEX LLC
KATIE INC
P O K INC MYLOTTIS INC

MZ DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

TRIP J TRUCKING INC

BELYEA ENTERPRISES, INC JLKPJ INC LOKEN TRUCKING INC

JLKPJ INC

STN DELIVERIES INC CINGILLI DELIVERY AND CONTRACTING LLC JH DELIVERS INC PRAUSE ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED PORT TRUCKING INC

CINGILLI DELIVERY & CONTRACTING LLC

R PEDCO PARCEL SERVICES INC; R PEDCO PARCEL SVCS

LAMECKER ENTERPRISES INC LUTMERS INC LYNN GREEN TRUCKING INC

GOING WEST EXPRESS INC MJ SEXTON TRUCKING INC DIAMOND DELIVERY INC SLAGTER INC DONOVAN COMPANY INC K D ENTERPRISES INC; MOLZHON ENTERPRISES INC
WCDM ENTERPRISES INC STRENKE ENTERPRISES INC
REAL PEOPLE SERVICES INC CONKINS TRUCKING INC
K M & A HAUGE INC J THRU W INC

TSB P&D INC
JAMES ECKBERG INC HIPP ENTERPRISES INC

CINGILLI DELIVERY INC

Page 214 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 222 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13341 133852 GARRET ANDERSON 13342 133869 ERIK KAITALA 13343 133876 CHRISTIAN HENDERSON 13344 133883 GENE KLINGENBERG 13345 133890 ROSS DAVID MATTSON 13346 133906 KEVIN GUDIM 13347 133913 ABDIRASHID MOHAMUD SAID 13348 133920 ADMIR OBRADOVIC 13349 133937 ANAS M MURAWEH 13350 133944 ROBERT W HANSON 13351 133951 TERRY WOOLLEY 13352 133968 RALPH KNAPP 13353 133975 THOMAS R BANWART 13354 133982 LOREN RAY JONES 13355 133999 JOHN FICKER 13356 134002 JOHN GUMTOW 13357 134019 DAVID OLSON 13358 134026 STEVEN GEORGE MCCORISON 13359 134033 CURTIS DAVIS 13360 134040 GARY JANNI 13361 134057 JIMMY LEE HAGEN 13362 134064 MARK D JOHNSON 13363 134071 ALLAN JOHN CORDES 13364 134088 MICHAEL R YUREK 13365 134095 MARJORIE E GIBSON 13366 134101 PAUL WARD 13367 134118 DARREN ZABROCKI 13368 134125 CHRIS MYERS 13369 134132 JEFFREY HAGADORN 13370 134149 JEFF HINTON 13371 134156 WADE ANDERSON 13372 134163 DANIEL JOSEPH LOVICH
13373 134170 BRADLEY NEIL MARGHEIM 13374 134187 JAMES A LENZ 13375 134194 RONALD REINHARDT 13376 134200 DANA BREEDING 13377 134217 JEFFREY KAMMERER 13378 134224 BILL ENHELDER 13379 134231 JAMES RAMSDELL 13380 134248 LISA ANNE MUHLE 13381 134255 RANDALL B CAPRETZ 13382 134262 EVETTE NICHELLE JOHNSONMARTINEZ 13383 134279 JACK W HETRICK 13384 134286 MICHAEL JOHN PETERSON 13385 134293 KURT MARTIN STROHMEIER 13386 134309 CHRISTOPHER JOHN RAMSDELL 13387 134316 MIKEL WILLIAMS 13388 134323 JAMES L LESHER 13389 134330 JOSHUA ALAN LASSILA
13390 134347 YA VANG 13391 134354 BRIAN ANDREW GIAUQUE 13392 134361 JASON SCHRANKLER 13393 134378 MARK FENLASON 13394 134385 BRENNAN OLSON 13395 134392 WILLIAM MORGAN 13396 134408 BRIAN KEOGH 13397 134415 RYAN WAYNE OSTLUND 13398 134422 STEVEN MEUCCI 13399 134439 TAY VANG 13400 134446 PETER TARDIFF 13401 134453 DEL LAPOINTE 13402 134460 DANIEL BEEMAN 13403 134477 BILL RAMSEY

Company Name 1
HENDERSON P&D INC KLINGENBERG INC RM TRANSPORTATION CORP
AFTERMATH TRUCKING INC OAZA TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

MEADOW RIDGE EXPRESS INC C AND V DELIVERIES LLC
HAGEN TRANSPORT, INC MARK JOHNSON INC
MY BIG CORP
BIRD MAN INC Z & A DELIVERY INC MYERS ENTERPRISES HAGADORN ENTERPRISES INC
W2002 INC DANLOV ENTERPRISES LLC
BNM INCORPORATED
R&R DELIVERY

C AND V DELIVERIES, INC
DANLOV ENTERPRISES, INC R&R DELIVERY

ENHELDER ENTERPRISES INC MOHAVE SERVICES, INC

BUTCH TRUCKING INC

STROHMEIER DISTRIBUTION INC

DUNGEON INC

L J ENDEAVORS LLC; LJ ENDEAVORS L J ENDEAVORS INC; LJ

LLC

ENDEAVORS INC

MILK AND HONEY INC
SHILOH ENTERPRISES INC KEY-O INC RYAN OSTLUND INC

DEL-IVERY OF BLAINE INC BEEMAN DELIVERY INC WILLIAM RAMSEY CORPORATION

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 215 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 223 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13404 134484 BRUCE JACKSON 13405 134491 KENNETH BERNING 13406 134507 KIM G WANGEN 13407 134514 DENNIS D DUBBELDEE 13408 134521 DOUGLAS OTTEN 13409 134538 DENNIS ANDERSON 13410 134545 FRANKLIN C WENTLAND 13411 134552 JOHN F DOYLE 13412 134569 CHARLES BUSIAHN 13413 134576 LARRY FILTER 13414 134583 STEVE FRIAS 13415 134590 DOUGLES ALLEN JACKSON 13416 134606 JEFFREY HANSON 13417 134613 ROY EDWARD GUSTAVSSON 13418 134620 ROGER DALE BLOCK 13419 134637 NICOLE CADOTTE 13420 134644 TIMOTHY J BARTELS 13421 134651 MARK NEUBAUER 13422 134668 RIC L HARTJE 13423 134675 SHAWN MATTSON 13424 134682 GREGORY S COLLINS 13425 134699 DOUGLAS RUTER 13426 134705 JEFF RUBBELKE 13427 134712 COREY WILLIAM FIRCHAU 13428 134729 JAMES JEPSON 13429 134736 CHAD ERICKSON 13430 134743 DOUG D NAGEL 13431 134750 JEFFREY ALLAN NIMIS 13432 134767 BRIAN D HOFFMAN 13433 134774 LONNIE J THOMPSON 13434 134781 CHRISTOPHER J DUBAY 13435 134798 CHAD R MORTENSON 13436 134804 ANDRIE NICHOLAS 13437 134811 CHRISTOPHER JAMES FIEGEL 13438 134828 MAGNUS CONROY 13439 134835 DAVID MAGARE 13440 134842 YAHYA MURAWEH 13441 134859 JAMES B SORUM 13442 134866 LARRY KANMACHER 13443 134873 GARY LARSON 13444 134880 ELDON HAUGE 13445 134897 CHARLES ALBERT MOTTONEN 13446 134903 JEFF DRIESSEN 13447 134910 JILL JOHNSON 13448 134927 BYRON C SCHOSSOW 13449 134934 TODD TARRAS 13450 134941 JOEL REIN 13451 134958 STEVEN D SPIESS 13452 134965 GARY FORTNEY 13453 134972 WILLIAM H OCHS 13454 134989 PAUL PETERSON 13455 134996 MAREK DRELICHOWSKI 13456 135009 MARK R PERRIZO 13457 135016 STEPHEN L SCHAFFER 13458 135023 LEE ALAN FRAHM 13459 135030 JOHN ROMENO 13460 135047 DARYN ROY LUUKKONEN 13461 135054 JEFFREY ARVIN REETZ 13462 135061 GLENN OLENE 13463 135078 DEBRA LEE HERSTAD 13464 135085 MARK SAWYER 13465 135092 JOE NEGRETE 13466 135108 TOM GUTTORMSON 13467 135115 CHAD TROE 13468 135122 BRIAN JOHNSON

Company Name 1 B JACKSON HOME DELIVERY INC KENJUD EXPRESS INC
DOUBLE D TRUCKING INC EXPRESS DELIVERY INC SUNSHINE DELIVERY CORP

Company Name 2

C&C DELIVERY SERVICES INC LARIAT ENTERPRISES INC FRIAS DISTRIBUTION INC DOUG JACKSON ENTERPRISES

CANYON DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

RDB INC

MARKEN INC SA INC RUTER INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PACE TRANSPORTATION INC
NIMCO CORP BDJRH INC
MORT'S TRANSPORT INC ANDRIE INC FIEGEL EXPRESS LLC BO'S TRANSPORT & TRAVEL INC GOOD SPEED EXPRESS INC
LAMACHER INC C&G SOFTWARE DESIGN INC DELIVERY BY ME INC THE A-TEAM LLC J A A J INC

NIMCO CORP PARCEL EXPRESS, INC

TRANSPORT LOGISTICS INC

FLASH FREIGHT INC
SSK DELIVERY SERVICE, INC
J & K SERVICES INC; J&K SVCS INC ROY & LILA INC REETZ ENTERPRISES INC G L O INC DEB INDUSTRIES LLC SAWYER TRUCKING INC NEGRETE DELIVERY INC ROPED, INC C TROE INC SHAFFER EXPRESS LLC

Page 216 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 224 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13469 135139 THOMAS J CARROLL 13470 135146 JASON JUDD 13471 135153 PATRICK LEE CHESTER 13472 135160 ROBERT MOEN 13473 135177 MARK ELDRED 13474 135184 JAMES DERRICK 13475 135191 ROBERT DERRICK
13476 135207 JEFFREY WARD
13477 135214 TERRY IRVIN EISCHENS 13478 135221 KIP DOUGLAS DREVLOW 13479 135238 MATTHEW EDWARD FOSTER 13480 135245 JASON LOWREY 13481 135252 AMBER C KANGAS 13482 135269 CRAIG ALLAN ANDREEN 13483 135276 JOHN LYDECKER 13484 135283 KIMBERLEE K DORE 13485 135290 SULIMAN HINDI 13486 135306 BENJAMIN GORNY 13487 135313 MICHAEL GILLIS 13488 135320 GREGORY DANIEL VANGHEN 13489 135337 VALERIE VINCENT SCROGGINS 13490 135344 ASHLEY PONTER 13491 135351 JAMES D LEAMY 13492 135368 BRUCE GANN 13493 135375 ALAN SMITH 13494 135382 RONALD FERKINGSTAD 13495 135399 VINSON CARLSON 13496 135405 AL GONSOROWSKI 13497 135412 MARLAN CAILLIER 13498 135429 PAUL MICHAEL DOUGLAS 13499 135436 JULIE HENDERSON 13500 135443 STEVE HIPPERT 13501 135450 MICHAEL GRIMES 13502 135467 KURT PAUL HOERTH 13503 135474 CHI KAILI 13504 135481 ELIZABETH ZURN 13505 135498 KERRY WARD 13506 135504 GARY ROBOKOFF 13507 135511 CHARLES WORTS 13508 135528 SCOTT ARHART 13509 135535 TODD BIRKLAND 13510 135542 CHARLES WILLIAM SENKO 13511 135559 JASON RISLEY 13512 135566 ROGER LEE GRADINE 13513 135573 ROBERT TODD WAGNER 13514 135580 THOMAS LYNN PHELPS 13515 135597 WAYNE JUAIRE 13516 135603 JEFFERY J RAK 13517 135610 JASON PLATH 13518 135627 RAYMOND R WENZEL 13519 135634 BARRY L MUSTAIN 13520 135641 ANTONIO GRAJEDA 13521 135658 BRENT ROBERT BOESCH 13522 135665 JEREMIAH VAD 13523 135672 JOHN MICHAEL EAST 13524 135689 JUSTIN SKIBA 13525 135696 CARL LARRY POWERS III 13526 135702 FLOYD CAMPBELL 13527 135719 JUSTIN KIRCHENWITZ 13528 135726 JASON STARR 13529 135733 DAVID J STUMVOLL 13530 135740 TIM DAMON 13531 135757 CHAD M WAAGE

Company Name 1 FED 1 INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

R MOEN INC M&E CONTRACTING INC FLASH DELIVERY LLC BIG DOGS RPS INC; BIG DOGS-RPS INC WARD DELIVERIES LLC
TIE HAULING LLC NORTHWEST 94 P&D LLC FOSTER DISTRIBUTING INC LOWREY TRUCKING INC AZABAR INCORPORATED ANDREEN INC

FLASH DELIVERY INC
JEFF WARD TRANSPORT, INC

PROMPT DELIVERY SERVICES LLC
RMG LOGISTICS INC
OBM INC AJP TRANSPORTATION INC L 24 INC

MVS INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MAPS SERVICES INC M A D TRUCKING INC HENDERSON TRUCKING INC G4 INC HOERTH INCORPORATED
K&K DELIVERY INC GOLD STAR DELIVERIES INC
EXECUTIVE SHIPPING INC JASON'S TRUCKING INC SILVER FOX COURIER INC
JUAIRE TRANSPORT INC
INTERGALACTIC INC MUSTAIN PACKAGE DELIVERY INC

POWER INVESTMENT INC THE CRICKETER'S BANAB INC
TFD INC

Page 217 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 225 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13532 135764 CHENG LEE 13533 135771 MARVIN R WINJUM 13534 135788 RICKY JOHNSON 13535 135795 GEORGE GAMALIEL WILSON 13536 135801 CLARK THOMAS BURDICK 13537 135818 KEVIN BLACKLER 13538 135825 OUMAR WAKO 13539 135832 FABIO ALBERTO SOFIA 13540 135849 WATSON FONG 13541 135856 ARLYNN SEATON 13542 135863 DOUGLAS W GEHRING 13543 135870 MARK MACCALLUM 13544 135887 STEVEN JAMES PETERSON 13545 135894 RALPH A PETRUCCI 13546 135900 STEPHEN ALLEY 13547 135917 MONTY SMITH 13548 135924 FLOYD ANGUS DAVIS 13549 135931 MELVIN CUKA 13550 135948 DAVID BEUTEL 13551 135955 JOHN R BOBLETT 13552 135962 ABBIE SHANKEL 13553 135979 MICHAEL A FATH 13554 135986 MAX LEROY FLACK II 13555 135993 KENT MARVIN RUSTEN 13556 136006 WANDA FAYE BAIRD 13557 136013 KEVIN WAGNER 13558 136020 ROBERT WENHOLZ 13559 136037 BENNET WICKLUND 13560 136044 PATRICK HERRON 13561 136051 COREY A JOHNSON 13562 136068 DONALD GEIL JR 13563 136075 BRET PEDERSON 13564 136082 KEVIN MCCLAREY 13565 136099 GARY BODIEN 13566 136105 TIM PASCHALL 13567 136112 JEFFREY KALLA 13568 136129 CHARLOTTE MEYER 13569 136136 BARRY WHITTEMORE 13570 136143 RANDY PIECHOWSKI 13571 136150 CHA YANG 13572 136167 TROY SMITH 13573 136174 CLAY DUBOVOY 13574 136181 JAMIE LIGHTHIZER 13575 136198 JOHN W BARHORST 13576 136204 KELLY L CHECKALSKI 13577 136211 THOMAS J KASPSZAK 13578 136228 JEROD ANDERSON 13579 136235 SCOTT A FOWLER
13580 136242 HEWAD WARDAK 13581 136259 MICHAEL HEDIN 13582 136266 STEVEN M CARLSON 13583 136273 SEAN CAPPALLA 13584 136280 SCOTT ALLEN DAWSON 13585 136297 GORDON JAMES GILBERT 13586 136303 WADE MILLER 13587 136310 STEPHEN VONENGEL 13588 136327 JASON FALCONE 13589 136334 KENNETH BLACKINGTON 13590 136341 ADRIENNE MOULTON MATER 13591 136358 RUSSELL S WILLIAMS 13592 136365 ASAD SAID HASAN 13593 136372 MICHELLE JONES 13594 136389 JAMES DARRAH

Company Name 1 LEE ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FABIO INC
MS MACCALLUM INC
ALLEY'S DELIVERY INC
FLOYDS TRUCKING SERVICE INC MELRAY TRUCKING INC FX HOM/SCV INC G-LINK LLC
S&M SERVICES OF WILLMAR INC MAXX ENTERPRISES LLC K & J INC OF RAYMOND
WAGNER DISTRIBUTING MAC ATTACK INC INTEGRITY ENTERPRISES LLC FULL LOAD INC
PEDERSON EXPRESS INC KEVIN MCCLAREY TRANS LTD
T & J TRUCKING SERVICE INC

JAC TRCKING INC
CRASH DELIVERY SERVICES INC KLC ENTERPRISES, LLC

SLF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC

SHENEEZ

JJC TRUCKING INC

SCOTT A DAWSON INC GILBERT INC
PAYITFWD LLC

PMS TRANSPORTATION LLC DARRAH ENTERPRISES INC

J DARRAH ENTERPRISES INC

Page 218 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 226 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13595 136396 JON HARRI 13596 136402 TERRY R SEBRING 13597 136419 JIM RICHARD ROGERS 13598 136426 GERALD DENNIS MCKENNA 13599 136433 WAYNE ROBERT WITTE 13600 136440 ALAN PATRICK LASSILA
13601 136457 CRAIG UHL 13602 136464 MICHAEL D TETNER 13603 136471 VICKY KRIESCHER 13604 136488 MICHAEL WALTON 13605 136495 RICK WEISPFENNIG 13606 136501 DAN DOLLERSCHELL 13607 136518 PAUL A SCHULTZ 13608 136525 MARK F SCHUTTE 13609 136532 GAYLE GAMMEL 13610 136549 WILLIAM G TRAVIS 13611 136556 TIMOTHY P HYNES 13612 136563 FREDRICK JEFF WEBER 13613 136570 MIKE JANISZEWSKI 13614 136587 MICHAEL LEE 13615 136594 THOMAS YANG 13616 136600 JONATHAN DANCKER 13617 136617 PETER M ESSER 13618 136624 DARIN MICHAEL WILMES 13619 136631 DANNY ALAN KOLLMANN 13620 136648 JASON RICHARD SPICZKA 13621 136655 DUSTIN LEE HEITMAN 13622 136662 JOSEPH ANTHONY POPPALARDO JR 13623 136679 SHAWN ANDREW STEGNER 13624 136686 JEFF KUNZE 13625 136693 CHAD FROST 13626 136709 COREY ATKINSON 13627 136716 GUY A LANDRY 13628 136723 CHAD ROBERT JOHNSON 13629 136730 AARON RUD
13630 136747 JOSE G ALVAREZ 13631 136754 CHRISTOPHER DAVISON 13632 136761 GEORGE LOKOU 13633 136778 KEVIN REBEIN 13634 136785 THO ALFEQAR ALDHAHRA 13635 136792 MIKHAIL ALEKSANDROV KOSTYUKEVICH 13636 136808 GARRETT ANDERSON 13637 136815 VERNON ELLINGSON 13638 136822 GARY MIYAZAKI 13639 136839 DONALD PFEIFFER 13640 136846 PETER CPIN JR 13641 136853 THOMAS JOSEPH LEARY 13642 136860 CHUCK WHEELER 13643 136877 JAMES H MEYER 13644 136884 JARY THOMPSON 13645 136891 JOHN KERSTING 13646 136907 RANDY NEREM 13647 136914 PERRY JOHN EIDENSCHINK 13648 136921 TOBY WADE PONTING 13649 136938 CESAR ISMAEL WATSON 13650 136945 DOUGLAS SPORRE 13651 136952 CHAD MATHERN 13652 136969 GARY MUHLE 13653 136976 DEAN P NALEWAJA 13654 136983 CAINE BELL 13655 136990 TIMOTHY ESTEY 13656 137003 BRAD GLEN BUKER

Company Name 1 NICO INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

MCKENNA COURIER SERVICE INC
PROTECTIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC CRAIG G UHL INC

PROTECTIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES INC

M&M WALTON ENTERPRISES INC DOLLERSCHELL ENTERPRISE INC

GROUND FORCE INC HYNES TRUCKING INC

RAIDER ENTERPRISES INC
DANCKER INC PME TRUCKING

DISTURBED DISTRIBUTION INC

SHAWN'S HOME DELIVERY INC JRK TRUCKING INC
CA TRANSFER LLC

CA TRANSFER INC

RUD'S PICKUP & DELIVERY INC; RUD'S RUD'S PICKUP AND

PICKUP AND DELIVERY, INC

DELIVERY, INC; TRIPLE M

PICKUP & DELIVERY, INC

AZAL INC GENTLE DELIVERY INCORPORATED

WARNER ROAD TRUCKING INC
PURE DELIVERY INC COBRA CONTRACTING INC PJE, INC
DS&J DELIVERY SERVICE INC EXODUS INC OLD TRAILS DELIVERY, INC
T A ESTEY TRANS INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 219 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 227 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13657 137010 JOSEPH J DUEVEL 13658 137027 MATTHEW JORSTAD 13659 137034 LARRY E THIEMAN 13660 137041 GARY NEESE 13661 137058 STEVEN LIEBHARD 13662 137065 BRAD REKWARD 13663 137072 DANNY WILLIAM PHILLIPS 13664 137089 BRIAN MICHAEL HEARITY 13665 137096 JAMES ALLEN LEACH 13666 137102 KENNETH LEE HIBBETS
13667 137119 ROBERT DANIEL 13668 137126 DAVID JAMES WETTER 13669 137133 SCOTT ERICKSON 13670 137140 DAVID A SCHULZ 13671 137157 DEENA GRAUSE 13672 137164 RANDALL STRUB 13673 137171 PETER LAVOIE 13674 137188 FLOYD JOHN FEIGE 13675 137195 MARK E MCMAHON 13676 137201 JOHN W STRADT 13677 137218 ROGER LOVISON 13678 137225 GEORGE JOHN FARAHJR 13679 137232 JUSTIN D MCLUEN 13680 137249 DAVID K MILLER 13681 137256 RODNEY DEAN AMES 13682 137263 KEITH R FRANA 13683 137270 PAYMON DOUSHIN SHAHRIVAR 13684 137287 JAMES MICHAEL WOODARD 13685 137294 KURT GLESNE 13686 137300 JUSTIN MULLER 13687 137317 DENNIS FLANIGAN 13688 137324 DWAYNE ODEAN THOMPSON 13689 137331 JUSTIN DEAN DAVIS 13690 137348 DANIEL G FEDERSPIEL 13691 137355 LON PARRISH PLAGGE 13692 137362 RICKY REEG 13693 137379 BRIAN NEWMAN TJELMELAND 13694 137386 KURT ANTHONY CORKERY 13695 137393 CORY DEAN WEIR 13696 137409 BRADLEY ALLAN STECKEL 13697 137416 STANFORD FRENZEL 13698 137423 JOEL A CHURCH
13699 137430 DON FERGUSON 13700 137447 LANCE A BAUER 13701 137454 LARRY TAYLOR 13702 137478 ROBERT HOSPER 13703 137485 JERRY M CHRISTENSON 13704 137492 JERRY MORDEN
13705 137508 KIMBERLY ANN WHITNEY 13706 137515 BRIAN BALLEW 13707 137522 KIM L STARMAN 13708 137539 JODY RIVES 13709 137546 BONNIE KASS 13710 137553 SPENCER DEDOR 13711 137560 KEVIN HAGER 13712 137577 JAY GILPIN 13713 137584 RICHARD JOHN HEINRICHS 13714 137591 JON ROBERT ZIERATH 13715 137607 JOHN IRWIN JORDAN 13716 137614 TIM MOORE 13717 137621 JIM ETRINGER 13718 137638 STEPHEN WILLIAMS

Company Name 1 DUEVEL TRUCKING INC FELBER INC; FELBER, INC LLT ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DWP TRUCKING INC HALF EMPTY INC
HIBBETS TRUCKING; HIBBETS TRUCKING, INC
FGH DELIVERY INC
HIGH & DRY ENTERPRISES INC D GRAUSE DELIVERY, INC RDS, INC

STRADT ENTERPRISES INC RRL DELIVERY INC
CLUE INC
ROD & ROD ENTERPRISES INC FRANA TRANSPORTATION INC

GR CLUE INC

GLESNE TECHNICAL SERVICES LLC
DM DELIVERY INC HAUL ALL INC JDD DELIVERY INC D&L DELIVERY INC
REEG DELIVERY INC B A T ENTERPRISES INC CORKERY EXPRESS INC

CENTRAL NORTH DELIVERY INC
IPSWICH INC LJ TAYLOR LLC
V & J INC; V&J INC JNM ENTERPRISES; JNM ENTERPRISES INC K WHITNEY INC G F C, INC

CENTRAL NORTH LLC

CENTRAL NORTH PARCEL INC

YUM YUMS INC; YUM-YUM INC HAGER TRUCKING INC

JIJK LLC ETS LOGISTICS INC

JIJK INC

Page 220 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 228 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13719 137645 RODNEY ALLAN WEITZEL 13720 137652 TODD ALLEN SCHRUM 13721 137669 GREGORY ALAN ANDERSON 13722 137676 DONALD E GOODWIN 13723 137683 COREY JAMES DENHARTOG 13724 137690 ROBYN MICHELLE MCDANIEL 13725 137706 JAMES SIMMONS 13726 137713 JEREMY STAUFFER 13727 137720 PHILLIP ROBERTSON 13728 137737 DAVID JAMES ABERNATHEY
13729 137744 TROY AVIS 13730 137751 JARED M SKILLINGS 13731 137768 CRAIG MURLEY 13732 137775 MAX L EVANS 13733 137782 ARNOLD R DETLEFSEN 13734 137799 WAYNE C JOHNSON 13735 137805 GERALD PETERSEN 13736 137812 JAMES MEYER 13737 137829 ARLEN BECKMAN 13738 137836 JOHN BARNTS 13739 137843 CARLOS NICOLAS RODRIGUEZ 13740 137850 PETER NORTON 13741 137867 JEFF D BOWLSBY 13742 137874 HANK R CAREY 13743 137881 JEFF A SCHRADER 13744 137898 STEVEN KOCH 13745 137904 GARY ALLEN MCFARLING 13746 137911 DANA ABELL 13747 137928 DIANE R ELLIOTT 13748 137935 LARRY W ROLAND 13749 137942 TROY HAMMOND 13750 137959 DENNIS SOAT 13751 137966 PATRIC BLACK 13752 137973 DONALD E FERRIS 13753 137980 STEVEN J SLATTERY 13754 137997 WALTER GRIMES 13755 138000 MATTHEW JOHN EVANS 13756 138017 KENNETH CRAMP 13757 138024 KAREN YOUNGBLUT 13758 138031 RONNIE GENE WOOD 13759 138048 CHAD FULLER 13760 138055 WAYNE ALLEN SANDS 13761 138062 DANA L BECKETT 13762 138079 MITCHELL J WIESE 13763 138086 MARK A MCDONALD 13764 138093 DENNIS W WOODS 13765 138109 SCOTT W HARDING 13766 138116 MARK ANTHONY LEMMON 13767 138123 TIM HESS 13768 138130 JOSEPH LINN ETTER 13769 138147 JASON MICHAEL BUMGARNER 13770 138154 RON NEPPEL 13771 138161 MICHAEL WELCH 13772 138178 DERECK THOMAS 13773 138185 BRIAN MCGOVERN 13774 138192 EUGENE ARNOLD 13775 138208 BILL WILLIAMSON 13776 138215 ROBERT A DREY 13777 138222 GARY HAMILTON
13778 138239 STEVE SILVEST 13779 138246 JANIE FOSTER 13780 138253 KURT HOLDREN 13781 138260 DONALD KEITH VIKSTEN

Company Name 1
TAS HOME DELIVERY INC
DEG INC DEN HARTOG DELIVERY SERVICE R & D HOME AND HUNTING INC JH SIMMONS INC MUTT, INC PR DELIVERY LLC ABERNATHEY TRUCKING, CORPORATION

Company Name 2 P R DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

R&P TRANSPORTATION INC WCJ DELIVERY SERVICES INC
MEYER DELIVERY SERVICE INC A BECKMAN INCORPORATED
UNICORN EXPRESS, INC FTL TRANSPORT INC C CAREY INC BANGARANG INC
GMAC INC
ROLAND ENTERPRISES, INC

BANGARANG INC

MASS INC; MASS, INC W & W DELIVERY INC MTE LTD KENTYKO INC
C&E TRANSPORT SERVICE INC WAYNE A SANDS, INC

CNE SERVICES LLC

S H TRUCKING INC MARK LEMMON ENTERPRISES INC T&H TRANSPORT INC ETTER ENTERPRISES INC

T AND H TRANSPORT INC NEPPEL INC

R BUSINESS INC ARNOLD ENTERPRISES INC WILLIAMSON INVESTMENTS INC
TRIPLE S INC KHOLD SERVICES INC DENNEX, INC

A-TEAM LLC H & H TRANSPORTATION INC
JBN ENTERPRISES INC

Page 221 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 229 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13782 138277 BRUCE COCKBURN 13783 138284 BRIAN WOOD 13784 138291 MICHAEL DAILEY 13785 138307 BRAD ROSS 13786 138314 GARY D WAGNER 13787 138321 STEVEN CRAIG MILTON 13788 138338 ROY EARL WARREN 13789 138345 DENNIS WAYNE MORTVEDT 13790 138352 THOMAS BELL 13791 138369 KENT FRY
13792 138376 RON DICKES 13793 138383 SCOTT ROBERT BEYER 13794 138390 JEREMY BEINING 13795 138406 SCOTT EDWIN HOHL 13796 138413 BRADLEY PRICHARD 13797 138420 MICHAEL J WILLIAMS 13798 138437 TIMOTHY JOHNSON 13799 138444 WESLEY EUGENE LANPHIER 13800 138451 JOSEPH D BROICH 13801 138468 AUDREY STACK 13802 138475 JOEL ARENDS 13803 138482 JEFFREY S RIEMENSCHNEIDER 13804 138499 DAVID NIELSEN 13805 138505 ROSALIE L GANGLOFF 13806 138512 DAVID P TINDALL 13807 138529 RANDY ALLSTEADT 13808 138536 SHAWN MICHAEL RETH 13809 138543 PIOTR BARTOSIK 13810 138550 RICHARD KEMP 13811 138567 TONY BURTON 13812 138574 LANCE NOBLE 13813 138581 MATTHEW SLYE 13814 138598 MATTHEW DAVID CRIMMINS 13815 138604 CHRISTY MARIE PARSONS 13816 138611 AARON VERSTEEG
13817 138628 ALAN J SCHULTZ 13818 138635 DANIEL J MCMENAMIN 13819 138642 CHARLES L JOHNSON 13820 138659 DAVID JELINEK 13821 138666 DOUGLAS STUFFLEBEAM 13822 138673 JOHN STEVEN FARNHAM 13823 138680 WILLIAM SPICER 13824 138697 CRAIG H MOSCH 13825 138703 DANN STRADLING 13826 138710 DANNIE TAYLOR 13827 138727 DALE ALAN BACKSTROM 13828 138734 BRIAN BLOOM
13829 138741 TERRY SCOTT 13830 138758 KEVIN WAUGAMAN 13831 138765 ROBERT PAUL GORTON 13832 138772 RICHARD EARNEST LAND 13833 138789 ROBERT MANNING 13834 138796 STEVE JEDLICKA 13835 138802 JASON A COSTELLO 13836 138819 LAURA REDDING 13837 138826 DAVE OLBERDING 13838 138833 SCOTT FORBES
13839 138840 ANDREW MCHUGH 13840 138857 GAVIN LEE STEFFEN 13841 138864 JIM BERGE 13842 138871 PAUL A THOMPSON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

3 D DELIVERY INC; 3D DELIVERY INC REX, INC
M & M DELIVERY WARRENS INC
BELLYUP INC K T F ENTERPRISES INC; KTF ENTERPRISES INC R & L DISTRIBURTORS INC

SCOTT HOHL ENTERPRISES INC PRICHARD ENTERPRISES INC COR-LYN ENTERPRISES INC

HAWKEYE DELIVERY INC

RIEMY INC NIELSEN TRANSPORT INC
ZOEMMITT LLC WARREN JAN & PROP MAINT INC RETH TRUCKING

ZE DISTRIBUTION, INC

BDD DELIVERIES, INC

WHITE TRANSFER & STORAGE
AARON'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC; ADS INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

YEL, INC ASD CORPORATION GRAMS AND PAPA EXPERIENCE INC SPICER ENTERPRISES LTD
MORE THAN A PACKAGE INC
BLB DELIVERY INC; BLB DELIVERY, INC
KEV INC VANDELAY DELIVERY INC
MANNING TRUCKING INC

FORBES RACING MCHUGH ENTERPRISES, LTD
PAT TRUCKING INC

NORTH CENTRAL IOWA (NCI) EXPRESS, INC

Page 222 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 230 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13843 138888 JUDGE L DIXON 13844 138895 GERALD L EARNEST 13845 138901 RICHARD ALDRIDGE
13846 138918 DARWIN EUGENE HAPPEL 13847 138925 DENNIS WAYNE MULLEN 13848 138932 RONALD M OHERN 13849 138949 JAMES FERGUSON 13850 138956 DAVID SAXTON 13851 138963 CRAIG A DARRINGTON 13852 138970 ROGER G ECKERT 13853 138987 RANDY L CRUM 13854 138994 DAVE PROUDFIT 13855 139007 PATRICK WALDRON 13856 139014 JAMES JOSEPH STONEHOCKER 13857 139021 DEBBIE MARXEN 13858 139038 MARK WILSON 13859 139045 RUSTY MOE 13860 139052 PAUL HEADLEY 13861 139076 BRIAN FISCHELS 13862 139083 TERRY CROW 13863 139106 KURT BURRAGE 13864 139113 SCOTT FULTON 13865 139120 DANIEL LIND 13866 139137 JOE RYAN 13867 139144 RANDY CUMPTON 13868 139151 MARTIN HOLLINRAKE 13869 139168 BRIAN P MIN 13870 139175 BEN REINEKE 13871 139182 DUANE A BODE 13872 139199 VICKI FOX 13873 139205 KEVIN JOSEPH CARROLL 13874 139212 MATTHEW THOMAS PEARSON 13875 139229 KAREN RODERICK 13876 139236 ROBERT J ELLIOTT 13877 139243 REX BAETKE 13878 139250 ALAN J NYIRI 13879 139267 JOHN LATTIMER 13880 139274 LAWRENCE R CHENKUS 13881 139281 JAMES SWITZER 13882 139298 DAVE G BAHR 13883 139304 MARK D VAVERKA 13884 139311 STEVE HOBBS 13885 139328 RICHARD UPTEGRAPH 13886 139335 DOUG KOERSELMAN 13887 139342 MICHELLE MEADER 13888 139359 ROGER ROBERT LETCHER 13889 139366 BRADLEY GENE KOENIGSBERG 13890 139373 JON CHISHOLM 13891 139380 BRADLEY ORRIS 13892 139397 MARK LOW 13893 139403 KEN M LOW 13894 139410 PAT ALAN MONDT 13895 139427 KEITH PITZEN 13896 139434 LLOYD PATTISON 13897 139441 KELLY HORSMAN 13898 139458 RYAN LENTZKOW 13899 139465 MARK AZNAVOURIAN 13900 139472 DANIEL ROGERS 13901 139489 JASON MURRAY 13902 139496 JEFFREY NOLTE
13903 139502 BRENT SCOTT ADAMS 13904 139519 BILLY BECHTEL

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

KYLE KERRY TRANSPORTATION; KYLE KYLE KERRY

KERRY TRANSPORTATION INC

TRANSPORTATION

D E HAPPEL, INC

RON M O'HERN COMPANY, INC

D D S INC

R & B TRANSPORT INC R J CRUM INC TALISMAN TRANSPORTATION INC WALDRON ENTERPRISES INC J D & SONS INC

M S WILSON INC; MS WILSON INC

CECAL

PONY TIME LLC SAF LLC
J R TRANSPORT; J R TRANSPORT INC

MIN TRANSPORTATION INC TEAM REINEKE, INC
KEN CORP KJOE INC

RJ ELLIOTT INC BAETKE ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

D&S DELIVERIES LLC F FIVE TRANSPORT INC

DDB DELIVERIES, INC

LETCHER INC FBD INC

LETCHER INC

2B DELIVERED OSAGE EXPRESS INC KEN CORP

RURAL EXPRES INC L J PATTTISON LLC KELTAM INC LENTZKOW ENTERPRISES, INC MAZNA INC ROGERS' SOLUTIONS INC

LOWER ARKANSAS DEL SVC LLC; LOWER ARKANSAS DELIVERY SERV LLC ADAMS FAMILY INC

RGN INC

Page 223 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 231 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13905 139526 STEVEN MESS 13906 139533 DREW DANIEL WALLER 13907 139540 ERIC E NOST 13908 139557 KEVIN CARR 13909 139564 SCOTT BLACKLEDGE 13910 139571 SHAWN T BEARCE 13911 139588 TODD WEISS 13912 139595 JASON KINSEY 13913 139601 WILLIAM K DARIES 13914 139618 CODY JAMES CARAWAY 13915 139625 MELISSA SUE CROZIER 13916 139632 TIMOTHY HERRICK 13917 139649 FRANK COSSETTE 13918 139656 DAVID FRANTZ 13919 139663 JAMES KESSLER 13920 139670 DARROL E JOY 13921 139687 JAY PETER JOHNSON 13922 139694 ALLAN EDWIN SHAW 13923 139700 DUANE PLEIS 13924 139717 JOSEPH DINUZZO 13925 139724 RAYMOND WASTENEY 13926 139731 ALAN J SIMONSON 13927 139748 MONTE CUBIT 13928 139755 KEITH PATTERSON 13929 139762 VICKIE JOHNSON 13930 139779 BILL R GARDNER 13931 139786 ROBERT WEATHERLY 13932 139793 DAVID MORGAN 13933 139809 MARK BRADBURY 13934 139816 SANDRA D DIERENFELD 13935 139823 RONALD H THILL 13936 139830 STEVE SMITH 13937 139847 JOHN JOSEPH ELLIOTT 13938 139854 DAN DEVINEY 13939 139861 MICHAEL MCGEE 13940 139878 JAMES BECKER 13941 139885 DAVID W MOORE 13942 139892 JERRY L KERBY 13943 139908 TIMOTHY JAY BAUER 13944 139915 CHAD A FOSTER 13945 139922 RODNEY JAMES CORNELISON 13946 139939 MARK LORENGER 13947 139946 WILLIAM STEELE 13948 139953 DIANE M LUNDBERG 13949 139960 RUSSELL JOHN RECKER 13950 139977 JOSEPH DAMON WALKER 13951 139984 STEPHEN C WOOD 13952 139991 DANIEL WHITE 13953 140003 MICHAEL SCOT HOLTZMAN 13954 140010 JAMES ARNOLD 13955 140027 STACY LYN MCBRIDE 13956 140034 MICHAEL LITTLE 13957 140041 ARTEZ CRAIG 13958 140058 NICK ANDREW WELLS 13959 140065 CHRISTOPHER A HENDERSON 13960 140072 JAMES HANSON 13961 140089 JOSEPH JEFFREY DOUGHERTY 13962 140096 MICHAEL A AMUSU 13963 140102 LORIANN ANDREWS 13964 140119 PAUL ALFANO 13965 140126 ROBERT MURPHY 13966 140133 DONALD C BROZ 13967 140140 NOEL OVERTON 13968 140157 GILBERT SIPES 13969 140164 BRUCE RYAN NELSON

Company Name 1
RINO INCORPORATED KEC SHIPPING, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

LADY HAWK EXPRESS INC
HERITAGE TRAILS INC BUCK CREEK DELIVERY, INC
ARC ENTERPRISES INC PATTERSON EXPRESS INC

RPTHILL INC; RPTHILL, INC TRANSMITH INC

M & K'S CORPORATION; M&K'S CORP JB DELIVERY INC DAVIC LLC KERBS PACKAGE DELIVERY INC T A BAUER INC

R C CARRIERS INC

SSF INC

RECKER INC TRISTAN EXPRESS, INC

3 D TRANSPORT, INC M-N-J EXPRESS INC J K A INC SL KERN INC LITTLE ENTERPRISES, LTD

3D TRANSPORT INC

WELLS EXPRESS LLC T & T EXPRESS INC

T & T EXPRESS INC

BELLA INC

PAUL'S PACKAGE SERVICE LLC DON BROZ DELIVERY, INC

Page 224 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 232 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 13970 140171 MICHAEL J JOST 13971 140188 PATRICIA LESTER 13972 140195 JAMES P BASSING 13973 140201 ROGER PEARL 13974 140218 ROBERT A ARBUTTI 13975 140225 ISAAC DARDEN 13976 140232 RICHARD MITCHELL 13977 140249 RYAN A FELIX 13978 140256 CHRIS BECKETT
13979 140263 JOHN WAYNE COOK 13980 140270 DON ELWOOD BOUGE 13981 140287 JAMMIE HILL 13982 140294 DARRIN MCNEW 13983 140300 PHILLIP HUEBNER 13984 140317 MIKE LITZAU 13985 140324 TERRY MCCULLEY 13986 140331 RICK HUMPHREY 13987 140348 KYLE DEREK WRIGHT 13988 140355 ELIZABETH COFFELT 13989 140362 SCOTT EUGENE RICHMOND 13990 140379 DAVID GLENN CUPP 13991 140386 BRENDAN T BECK 13992 140393 CLINT NEWTON 13993 140409 PATRICK VAN SIKES 13994 140416 WILLIAM FOREMAN 13995 140423 GEORGE W CAPPALLA 13996 140430 MARK BROWN 13997 140447 WILLIAM ROBERT GILSON 13998 140454 NEVILLE ROY EDWARDS 13999 140461 MOHAMMAD IQBAL 14000 140478 DARIUS JASMANTAS 14001 140485 TAMARA LAVONE FERRIS 14002 140492 GARY L CRANE 14003 140508 ALAN GAILEY 14004 140515 GARY CHIPPS 14005 140522 BENJAMIN SCOTT 14006 140539 MIKE PHILLIPS 14007 140546 JERRY KEVIN AMTHOR 14008 140553 BRETT LEE DALBY 14009 140560 TONY HARRIS 14010 140577 DONALD DOWNEY 14011 140584 LARRY RICHARDSON 14012 140591 ROBERT WALKENHORST 14013 140607 OLIVIA GARDNER 14014 140614 JULIE IROSE TOLMAIS 14015 140621 DOUG STOFER 14016 140638 CARL TUCKER 14017 140645 DANIEL FRANKS 14018 140652 DAVID B BEELER 14019 140669 TRAVIS GEAN OVERFELT 14020 140676 RONALD EDWARD ROBINSON JR
14021 140683 DAN RUSSELL 14022 140690 DANIEL L BRINER 14023 140706 JAMES MARTIN MALUGEN 14024 140713 MICHAEL D BARRETT
14025 140720 CLIFTON WILLIAM SUNDERMEYER 14026 140737 PAUL MICHAEL MANLEY
14027 140744 DANIEL PATRICK GRIFFIN 14028 140751 SEID HUSKIC 14029 140768 YERODIN THOMPSON 14030 140775 DOUGLAS X HOLLAND

Company Name 1
JIM'S PACKAGE BUSINESS INC ROGER GROUND EX LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

C&M BECKETT LLC BOUGE ENTERPRISES, INC

C & M BECKETT SERVICES, INC

T R MAC INC; TR MAC INC

B-BECK TRUCKING INC MATONG, INC SIKES EXPRESS INC WILLIAM J FOREMAN INC WESTSIDE DELIVERY INC FUZION EXPRESS INC
JASMA LLC
ASG, INC JBK RAPID SERVICES J&L DELIVERIES LLC TONY HARRIS DELIVERY INC 3DT INC
BLAZING TRAILS, INC

J & L DELIVERIES INC

OVERFELT EXPRESS LLC RONALD ROBINSON ENTERPRISES INC

MDB ENTERPRISES LLC
STREETLIFE LTD PAUL MANLEY LLC
BAR-H TRANSPORT INC

MDB ENTERPRISES COMPANY, INC ENTREGO INC PJM TRANSPORTATION INC

SIERRA IV LOGISTICS CORPORATION

Page 225 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 233 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14031 140782 TERRY LUDWIG 14032 140799 LARRY D KING 14033 140805 JAMES G KURTRIGHT 14034 140812 DAVID CHESTER 14035 140829 ANTHONY JOHNSON
14036 140836 DALE ADAMS 14037 140843 DIANNA STEVENSON 14038 140850 WILLIAM JOHN MARSELLOS 14039 140867 DAVE BUB 14040 140874 KEVIN L PRUETT 14041 140881 KENNETH NATIONS 14042 140898 LEONARD R BRATON 14043 140904 BRET MATHEW ODELL 14044 140911 ROBERT CLARK JR 14045 140928 KURT MANEVAL 14046 140935 CHADLEY SHAUN MELTON 14047 140942 MIKE RAMSEY 14048 140959 BRIAN BIRMINGHAM 14049 140966 MINDAUGAS KRUPSKIS 14050 140973 TASHEEN KAZMI 14051 140980 DOUG BELL 14052 140997 JAMES MEADOWS 14053 141000 STEPHEN STURM 14054 141017 DOUGLAS MCLAUGHIN 14055 141024 MAURICE MILLER 14056 141031 MILTON C FERGUSON 14057 141048 LEO VIOLETT 14058 141055 JAMES G CRAIG 14059 141062 STEPHEN R BURROW 14060 141079 RICHARD INGELS 14061 141086 ADRIAN TAYLOR 14062 141093 TERRY HENDREN 14063 141109 GREGORY VAUGHN 14064 141116 PEGGY LYNN BUHRMAN 14065 141123 GERALD SCARBROUGH 14066 141130 SEAN SANDERS 14067 141147 TIMOTHY PAUL NORRIS 14068 141154 JARED FUNK 14069 141161 MICHAEL MCGINNIS 14070 141178 WESLEY MILLER 14071 141185 JOSEPH F THOMAS 14072 141192 MATTHEW CHARLES CRAMPTON 14073 141208 JEFFERY FOSTER 14074 141215 KEVIN TRAVIS KELLER 14075 141222 JEREMY J BROWN 14076 141239 JEFF BROWN 14077 141246 TIMOTHY ROBERTSON 14078 141253 TERRY ALLEN HUNT 14079 141260 JACK NICKLAUS TAYLOR 14080 141277 RONALD S VASSALLI III 14081 141284 PATRICIA BARBOUR 14082 141291 BRAD KENNEDY 14083 141307 DUSTIN ARNOLD 14084 141314 MALIK SHERWANI 14085 141321 BOBBY LEE BAKER 14086 141338 GARY GLENN BEST 14087 141345 TIMOTHY GRANT FRAZIER 14088 141352 DOUGLAS ROGER TEESLINK 14089 141369 PAUL DAVID JORDAN 14090 141376 MARVIN LEE BOWDEN 14091 141383 WESLEY ALTERAUDGE 14092 141390 SHAWN HARTER 14093 141406 MICHAEL A LIGHT

Company Name 1 TRIPLE L CONTRACTING INC

Company Name 2

JOHNSON TRANSPORTATION SVC LLC ADAMS & SONS PACKAGE INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

O'DELL PACKAGE TRANSPORT CLARK EXPRESS LLC
SAILOR - SAINT INC KRUPSKIS LLC
STURM ENTERPRISES INC

RC'S, INC MK TRANSPORTATION INC

INGELS INC
LINCOLN DELIVERY SERVICES LLC THE RUNNING MAN, INC TCN ENTERPRISE LLC MCGINNIS ENTERPRISES INC FDX DISTRIBUTING INC JF THOMAS INC MSC EXPRESS, INC BANA HOME CRAFTERS LLC
ROBERTSON TRKG INC
R&P SERVICES INC
MIDWEST HOME DEL SVC LLC PRESS ON INC DRT ENTERPRISES INC
WA PACKAGE & DELIVERY SERV INC SHAWN HARTER ENTERPRISE INC

Page 226 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 234 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14094 141413 WANDA LOUISE RUFFIN
14095 141420 THOMAS MALCINSKI 14096 141437 MARK PUGH 14097 141444 TIMOTHY ROBERT DIXON 14098 141451 JEREMY S MCCANNON 14099 141468 DAMON PAGE 14100 141475 REGINALD HUNTER 14101 141482 THERON CARMICHAEL 14102 141499 REGINALD GRAY 14103 141505 JAMES CAPPETTA 14104 141512 DOUGLAS VANCE OWEN 14105 141529 LORI BLAKE 14106 141536 CRAIG CONNER 14107 141543 TIMOTHY ALAN DAUTEN 14108 141550 STEVE R SPRECHER 14109 141567 KIRT MATTHEW RUEHLING 14110 141574 JEFFREY A STRANGE 14111 141581 SHAUN RIGGINS 14112 141598 KEITH FRANKLIN DAKE 14113 141604 SHANE WRIGHT 14114 141611 BRADLEY HAWKINS 14115 141628 AMBER MCCAULEY 14116 141635 JEFF GOSSETT 14117 141642 JASON WAYNE HANNSZ 14118 141659 KWESI A BONDZIE 14119 141666 LEON ST AUBYN HART 14120 141673 JOHN LEONARD LORAINE 14121 141680 JAMES VANN 14122 141697 ROBERT MICHAEL STANTON 14123 141703 LORENZO RIDLEY 14124 141710 JOHN CLARK 14125 141727 CARL DENNIS HARING 14126 141734 RALPH W PENNINGTON
14127 141741 BRADLEY HOWARD 14128 141758 CHRIS MICHAEL SULLIVAN 14129 141765 MARK CHARLES HAMILTON 14130 141772 ROBERT J CERUTTI 14131 141789 CLINTON D HALL 14132 141796 KEVIN MARCUS JACKSON 14133 141802 TRAVIS HOLCOMB 14134 141819 JEROME BROUK 14135 141826 SEAN BRATTEN 14136 141833 JOHN R THORNTON 14137 141840 STEVEN R JACKSON 14138 141857 ANITA SILKETT 14139 141864 KENNETH STIBOR 14140 141871 MICHAEL ST JOHN 14141 141888 SEAN MICHAEL JOHANSON 14142 141895 CHAD MARRIOTT 14143 141901 MICHAEL MORMINO 14144 141918 MARK ALAN TWEEDY 14145 141925 GEORGE SANDER 14146 141932 PATRICK KELLY DOWNEY 14147 141949 EDWARD SHAW 14148 141956 JOSEPH WARTTS 14149 141963 KEN BECK 14150 141970 YVETTE WYNNE 14151 141987 LAMAR JACKSON 14152 141994 BOB EMMETT OKEEFE 14153 142007 LEONARD CORNEL ANDERSON 14154 142014 WILLIAM F BERGHAGER 14155 142021 KEVIN JOSEPH MENZEL 14156 142038 GARY KIMBALL

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

P A W ENT INC; P A W ENTERPRISES; P A W ENTERPRISES

P A W ENTERPRISES INC

MSP INC

D A P INC MADA COURIERS
R GRAY ENTERPRISES LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CONNER TRUCKING LLC SMB SPRECHER LLC JS DISTRIBUTION LLC
WRIGHT AWAY DELIVERY LLC

SRS SPRECHER, INC WRIGHT TRUCKING, INC

MARANATHA GROUP INC JLN TRANSPORTATION LLC

W D LEE TRUCKING INC A & C DELIVERY SERVICES LLC PENNINGTON DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

C&E DELIVERIES INC BROUK DELIVERY INC JACKSON AND SON TRUCKING INC EAGLE EXPRESS INC

DOWNEY EXPRESS ROLLA METRO EXPRESS INC HAPPY GOPHER PARCEL

G FACTOR TRANSPORTATION INC
KPM LOGISTICS INC DOUBLE K ENTERPRISES INC

Page 227 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 235 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14157 142045 ROGER LANCASTER 14158 142052 SCOTT A NEVINS 14159 142069 CRAIG MAUER 14160 142076 MIKE NEELEY 14161 142083 JAMES APPLEQUIST 14162 142090 KENDALL SHARP 14163 142106 ROBERT STULCE 14164 142113 NATHAN THOMAS 14165 142120 JAMES BURNS 14166 142137 RAY DAVIS 14167 142144 ROBERT L TEMPLES 14168 142151 JOSEPH PATRICK MCCARTHY 14169 142168 KEVIN BOZZAY 14170 142175 JEFF HEIDEMAN 14171 142182 PAUL COMBS 14172 142199 ROLF R CROCKETT 14173 142205 ROBERT HARRIS 14174 142212 DAVID A UKMAN 14175 142229 PAMELA DENISE JONES 14176 142236 RICHARD N HENDRICKS 14177 142243 WILLIAM H MORROW 14178 142250 KIRK D FARR 14179 142267 RONALD UEHLIN 14180 142274 ELLERY DUDLEY
14181 142281 DENNIS W CONES 14182 142298 BINA BUFORD
14183 142304 CHARMAINE ANNE GUNN
14184 142311 SCOTT GRAVES 14185 142328 JAMES GREEN 14186 142335 JEFFREY D AMOS 14187 142342 JAMES CHARLES VESSELL 14188 142359 CHRISTOPHER BOGERT 14189 142366 KEN JAMES URBAN 14190 142373 LEN R FLETCHER 14191 142380 JEFFREY BLES 14192 142397 RICHARD KNIGHT 14193 142403 THOMAS A PARSONS 14194 142410 GREG ALLEN WILLENBRINK 14195 142427 W SCOTT STINE 14196 142434 MATTHEW CLARK MEADOWS 14197 142441 WILLIAM WADE BOWER 14198 142458 CHRISTOPHER M SHUMAKE
14199 142465 CHAD MICHAEL STEELMAN 14200 142472 JEFFREY DAWSON 14201 142489 JEREMY PRESTON WALKER 14202 142496 DION ARABSHAHI 14203 142502 RICHARD P OBLINGER 14204 142519 PHILIP CHACE 14205 142526 CURTIS SPAFFORD 14206 142533 GARY SHROPSHIRE 14207 142540 JOHN M HANAN 14208 142557 DENNIS SHARKEY 14209 142564 ROCKY DEES 14210 142571 ROYCE GILYARD 14211 142588 RITA J BECKHAM 14212 142595 DAVID SOMSELLONGMORE 14213 142601 JEFFREY HAWTHORNE 14214 142618 MARK BREWER 14215 142625 MARK DELANEY 14216 142632 PHILIP VOGT 14217 142649 MICHELLE A BUSCH

Company Name 1 ROGER LANCASTER INC WHITE KNUCKLE EXPRESS INC MAUER DELIVERIES, INC TEDEX INC

Company Name 2

HOHO-MAN, INC JAMES BURNS DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

HEIDEREM INC SAND-BAR TRUCKING INC RRC CONTRACTED SERVICES INC
D & M DELIVERY SERVICES INC
ANCHORAGE GROUP INC MORROW ENTERPRISES INC CEDAR ROCK INC
ED'S TRANSPORT & DELIVERY INC

EDS PND ENTERPRISE INC

BINA'S SPEEDY DELIVERY SERVICE, INC GUNNER ENTERPRISES LLC
GRAVES ENTERPRISES INC

GUNNER ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

JKA ENTERPRISES LLC

BOGEY'S TRANSPORTATION INC U R TRUCKING, INC

THREE-W ENTERPRISE, INC SS DELIVERY INC MATT INC
CHRISTOPHER CREATIVE CORPORATION SM TRUCKING INC
JEREMY WALKER TRUCKING
TEVY LOU DISTRIBUTION INC
SHARKEY DISTRIBUTING INC KRIS-BEC DISTRIBUTING INC RND TRANSPORT INC RED BALL EXPRESS LLC SOMSELLONGMORE INC
VOGT DELIVERY INC BUSCHH TRUCKING LLC

MIKMAR GROUP INC B & B TRANSPORT, INC BUSCH TRUCKING INC

Page 228 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 236 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14218 142656 GENE GUTMAN 14219 142663 PAUL FICKBOHM 14220 142670 STEVEN PFANNENSTIEL 14221 142687 HUSSEIN SALAM 14222 142694 DOMINICK BROGOTO 14223 142700 LITA G DAVIS 14224 142717 STAN L WHITENER 14225 142724 MICKEY WOLFSKILL 14226 142731 JOHN DUKE 14227 142748 GUY WILLIS 14228 142755 JOHN ROBERT MICHAEL JR 14229 142762 CHADDIE E CROOKS 14230 142779 KIMBERLY DIGIUSEPPI 14231 142786 WILLIAM DEAN BEARDEN 14232 142793 MICHAEL MCELWAIN 14233 142809 LATISHA QUENTELLA EARL 14234 142816 CHRIS MONTES 14235 142823 ROBERT P WILSON 14236 142830 CARNELL FREEMAN 14237 142847 MARK R BATES 14238 142854 KEITH JOSEPH IGNASIAK 14239 142861 ROBERT GOLINO 14240 142878 WAYNE M CHASE 14241 142885 KENNETH WAGNER 14242 142892 DAVID B STCLAIR 14243 142908 DARRELL L ANTHONY 14244 142915 JERRY W HAMM 14245 142922 JERRY LUIS NIEVES
14246 142939 RICKEY FLOYD 14247 142946 DARRYL L MUHAMMAD 14248 142953 DANIEL W HICKEY 14249 142960 ERIK BRAUN 14250 142977 JAMES KOMO 14251 142984 THOMAS A REDEL 14252 142991 DALE L MEISSBACH 14253 143004 JAMES GAY 14254 143011 JEFF MITTAG 14255 143028 PORTER ROBINSON 14256 143035 VAUGHN LEE BARNETT 14257 143042 KENNETH ROWE 14258 143059 STEVEN ADAM HOHE 14259 143066 JESSICA HALL 14260 143073 WILLIAM BRIAN GREEN 14261 143080 MARK SABATINO 14262 143097 ROGER RHODES 14263 143103 BRADLEY ANDREW HOWARD
14264 143110 DAVID SCOTT HALL 14265 143127 AUSTIN LEON SMITH 14266 143134 DANIEL TIMOTHY STEINMANN 14267 143141 JASON R BANWART 14268 143158 CHRISTOPHER ORILEY 14269 143165 MICHAEL VANCE 14270 143172 BRANDON R RESER 14271 143189 BRYAN A MAXA 14272 143196 TIMOTHY PETER HUNT 14273 143219 NORRIS WILSON 14274 143226 DAVID JOHN NORTHCUTT 14275 143233 ROBERT LATHAM 14276 143240 MARVIN COBB 14277 143257 ROBERT A WEBER 14278 143264 MARK MCCARTHY 14279 143271 THOMAS MARTIN

Company Name 1
S&S SERVICE COMPANY INC BROGOTO ENTERPRISES INC WHITENER ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BEARDEN ENTERPRISES LLC MICHAEL MCELWAIN LLC JORI CHASE SERVICES LLC
RPW LOGISTICS INC

MICHAEL MCELWAIN LLC

DMW DELIVERY LLC HAMM SERVICES INC NIEVES SOLUTIONS LLC
ASCENSION ENTERPRISE LLC
T & D ENTERPRISES, INC D&R TRUCKING, INC MITTAG ENTERPRISES INC ROBINSON DELIVERY LLC KROWE, INC HOHE TRANSPORT INC

CRUZ ENTERPRISES LLC
MOBILE PACKAGE SYSTEMS INC

ARROW EXPRESS LLC; ARROW EXPRESS, LLC
S&E PARCEL INC
JEB EXPRESS INC SWINGMAN ENTERPRISES INC

ARROW EXPRESS INC

HUNT'S EXPRESS LLC

EXECUTIVE DETAILING INC WEBER DELIVERY, INC MCCARTHY'S DELIVERY INC TSM ENTERPRISES INC

SUPERIOR DELIVERY SERVICE

EM TEAM LC

Page 229 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 237 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14280 143288 GARY KUHLMAN 14281 143295 STEPHANIE DIANE UPDEGRAFF 14282 143301 JEFFREY BATHGATE 14283 143318 MICHAEL PATRICK MCMULLIN 14284 143325 RANDALL SEIDENSTRICKER
14285 143332 CALVIN YECKEL 14286 143349 JAMES EDWARD ADAMS 14287 143356 ROY G WILLIS 14288 143363 CHARLES WILLARD 14289 143370 LEE EDWARD FLOWERS 14290 143387 GUERRIER JEAN 14291 143394 LARRY ALLEN BODE 14292 143400 ROBERT J MATERA 14293 143417 CHARLES A SCHWEAIN 14294 143424 MICHAEL J SHEFFER 14295 143431 PRESKUF WRIGHT 14296 143448 BRUCE BARBOUR 14297 143455 BRUCE BORBOUR 14298 143462 MARK MILLER 14299 143479 RONALD L DUDLEY 14300 143486 SCOTT WADE 14301 143493 RICKEY DOUGLASS 14302 143509 TERRY ANDERSON 14303 143516 DENNIS KING 14304 143523 DONALD MARK WILSON 14305 143530 JASON SCANLAN 14306 143547 SCOTT C SPIES 14307 143554 CHRISTOPHER LARRY CHANEY 14308 143561 JEFFERY MOLITOR 14309 143578 SETH BORDERS 14310 143585 SETH BORDERS 14311 143592 GEORGE RYBERG 14312 143608 JASON BRADFORD DICKINSON 14313 143615 ANTHONY LOVALLO 14314 143622 GERALD BECK 14315 143639 ARTHUR WHITMORE 14316 143646 RONALD JAMES THOMPSON 14317 143653 ROY PATTON 14318 143660 TODD SANTI 14319 143677 WILLIAM H L TAUBE 14320 143684 RONALD BLANK 14321 143691 JAMES KELLEHER 14322 143707 SHARION HARVEY 14323 143714 MICHELE HARKRADER 14324 143721 BRADLEY TURNER 14325 143738 HAROLD W SIMPSON 14326 143745 HOWARD HUNT 14327 143752 TROY BRIDGER 14328 143769 VALTARANCE KENDRICK 14329 143776 JAMES MAYS 14330 143783 NATHAN WILLIAM NIENKAMP 14331 143790 RYAN ADDIE 14332 143806 DONALD BRANDT 14333 143813 JAMIE L TENISON 14334 143820 DARREN NESSL 14335 143837 ROBERT LOBB 14336 143844 BRADLEY LUNA 14337 143851 ARTHUR EUGENE LEWIS 14338 143868 JOSEPH D SMITH 14339 143875 JERRY D PHILLIPS 14340 143882 KENNETH EFTINK 14341 143899 MIKE DEVANNEY 14342 143905 MIKEL COX 14343 143912 DANIEL MORRIS HOXWORTH

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

UPXPRESS INC

MCMULLIN DELIVERIES LIMITED, INC R & J SEIDENSTRICKER, INC; R&J SEIDENSTRICKER INC

J E ADAMS, INC

WILLARD TRUCKING INC

FOUR WINDS ENTERPRISES INC MATERA DISTRIBUTORS INC

B-TEK DELIVERIES INC B-TEK DELIVERIES INC GIT WOOD ENTERPRISES INC R & J DELIVERIES

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DON-WAN DIRECT DELIVERY INC SCANLAN TRUCKING INC
KRISCHAIN INC R & A LOGISTICS INC

JD'S DELIVERY LLC BAYVIEW TRUCKING LLC
R L THOMPSON, LLC ROY PATTON INC
GULF BREEZE, LTD

RL THOMPSON, INC

PREFERRED SERVICE INC C & H DELIVERY, INC TYL TRANSPORTATION INC
NIENKAMP INC

BLAST DELIVERY LLC LUNA EX INC

BLAST DELIVERY INC

MAKIM LLC

Page 230 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 238 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14344 143929 JASON PITTS 14345 143936 BRADLEY SPIEGEL 14346 143943 AMY NICHOLE THOMASON 14347 143950 BENJAMIN M SAMALUS 14348 143967 CHARLES J FRANKS 14349 143974 LARRY D WARREN 14350 143981 RONALD D DAY 14351 143998 FREDDIE GENE HICKS 14352 144001 DEBRA JEAN BAGGETT 14353 144018 KEVIN E BUCHMUELLER 14354 144025 JOSEPH R MCKENZIE 14355 144032 PAUL MANOFF 14356 144049 TERRY DALE HARRIS 14357 144056 BUDDY HENDRICKSON 14358 144063 KURT JOSEPH SCHOLDBERG 14359 144070 JOEL BOHNENSTIEHL
14360 144087 STEVE A THOMAS 14361 144094 JAMES LLOYD TICHENOR 14362 144100 KEVIN G HINDMAN 14363 144117 TERRY WAYNE STEINBAUGH 14364 144124 ROBERT LAURE 14365 144131 FRANK ALBERSON
14366 144148 BOBBY JONES 14367 144155 COREY LOVELACE 14368 144162 LARRY R REMIGER 14369 144179 DAVID KEITH SMITH 14370 144186 JACK SMITH 14371 144193 KIMBERLY A MICHAEL 14372 144209 AMANDA L PRICE 14373 144216 BRYAN VAUGHN 14374 144223 WAYLON ANTHONY FRIESE 14375 144230 STEVEN GENE FORSHEE 14376 144247 MICHAEL LAWRENCE 14377 144254 TIMOTHY A CONAWAY 14378 144261 MARK SITZES
14379 144278 SEAN MILLER 14380 144285 JASON CLARK 14381 144292 GREGORY SHERRY 14382 144308 CLIFFORD D HALVERSON
14383 144315 JACEK SCHEFFERA 14384 144322 JAMES JINES 14385 144339 MARK SPICKNALL 14386 144346 ROMIE FLASPOLER 14387 144353 ALBERT WAYNE SROUFE 14388 144360 LAWRENCE M MCCLAIN 14389 144377 STEVEN LEO MILLER 14390 144384 MICHAEL LUX 14391 144391 SUSAN TAYLOR 14392 144407 ELZA SAINTLOUIS 14393 144414 ROBERT J KINEALY 14394 144421 ADRIAN ANTHONY VANDERHOEVEN 14395 144438 ROBERT RULO 14396 144445 ROBERT CANDELA 14397 144452 JEFF DAVID EVANS 14398 144469 BRADLEY W RODGERS 14399 144476 JOSEPH DUTCHER 14400 144483 JEFF VANDEVEN 14401 144490 BRAD STINSON 14402 144506 ERIC L WATSON 14403 144513 KEVIN S JOHNSON

Company Name 1 JCKA EXPRESS LLC

Company Name 2 JCKA EXPRESS LLC

Company Name 3 J & K EXPRESS, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KKC DELIVERIES LLC JARHEAD INC
T &D SERVICES LLC

MY CLEANUP GUYS LLC HENDRICKSON EXPRESS INC
J BOHNENSTIEHL LLC

HARRIS & MINGLE, INC
BOHNENSTIEHL INC; J BOHNENSTIEHL LLC

KTH CO INC

S B ENTERPRISES INC; S&B ENTERPRISES; S&B ENTERPRISES INC
IVORLEE INC
R E M TRANSPORT

STAKZ ENTERPRISES INC

T & W SERVICES LLC SITZES ENTERPRISE INC; SITZES ENTERPRISES INC DHC TRUCKING INC JCLARK ENTERPRISES INC G P SHERRY II INC SE COLORADO SMALL PACKAGE DELIVERY
NEW ERA ENTERPRISES INC
WAY-CON DELIVERY LLC JEHOVAH JIREH INC SLM DISTRIBUTING INC
PKG DELIVERY INC
BRIT & TORI EXPRESS INC
RULO ENTERPRISES LLC CANDELA ENTERPRISES INC
BRADLEY RODGERS LLC

T & W SERVICES INC WAY CON DELIVERY, INC B J R INC

UNCLE WATTY'S TRUCKING LLC K J TRANSPORT SERVICES INC

Page 231 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 239 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14404 144520 MICHAEL MAYO 14405 144537 SCOTT EDWARD INMAN 14406 144544 CHRISTIAN ANDREW SHIFLETT 14407 144551 TONY JOSEPH RUSSO 14408 144568 ALLEN W STOCK 14409 144575 JOSEPH KELLY 14410 144582 RICHARD BAKER 14411 144605 LUTHER MCLAIN 14412 144612 MARVIN KNEEDLER 14413 144629 WANDA ROBINSON 14414 144636 CARL KELLER 14415 144643 MURRAY D KYLE 14416 144650 GARY WHEELER 14417 144667 DONALD C KEARBEY 14418 144674 RICK TIEMANN 14419 144681 THOMAS DUDENHOEFFER 14420 144698 KEVIN NOVAK 14421 144704 TODD HAZZARD 14422 144711 CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH ALBUS 14423 144728 TODD WELKER 14424 144735 JUSTIN URIAH HORNING 14425 144742 BRIAN DOUGLAS BENBEN 14426 144759 MICHAEL SANTOYO 14427 144766 DARREN LEE HELTON 14428 144773 GREGORY MICHAEL MROZOWICZ
14429 144780 BRIAN MASSEY 14430 144797 MIKE WATTS 14431 144803 MASON PARRISH ASHWORTH 14432 144810 STEPHEN MATHEW FLYNN 14433 144827 MICHAEL ANTHONY SCIMECA 14434 144834 ANTHONY DANE NELSON 14435 144841 JACOB MATHIAS WILLER 14436 144858 AARON DAHL 14437 144865 BRANDON JAY KLEIN 14438 144872 WILLIAM DAVID THOMPSON 14439 144889 RUSS BURCHILL 14440 144896 KARWAN A SALIH 14441 144902 ERIN REUSE 14442 144919 HOWARD BJERKE 14443 144926 ANN LOUISE BAGLEY 14444 144933 ROGER RIEGER 14445 144940 DENNIS WEIPPERT 14446 144957 KEITH ENGIE 14447 144964 LARRY OSHEA 14448 144971 CHARLES WANZEK 14449 144988 RICK HENDRICKSON 14450 144995 DEL MUND 14451 145008 CRAIG R HVIDSTEN 14452 145015 VIVIAN A MOLACEK 14453 145022 JULIE ORTIZ-CHIRINOS
14454 145039 RODNEY ALLEN MAULE 14455 145046 WARREN BJELKEVIG 14456 145053 LARRY SABBY 14457 145060 MICHAEL BIRKELAND 14458 145077 DANNY L PARTLOW 14459 145084 BRADLEY EVENSON 14460 145091 RICHARD THOMPSON 14461 145107 DAVID KOSCHNEY 14462 145114 RANDY MYRUM 14463 145121 JON GREGOIRE 14464 145138 ROLAND J HERSLIP 14465 145145 JEFF BRIAN DELZER 14466 145152 DAVID ALAN SAND

Company Name 1 MAYO ENTERPRISES INC INMAN TRUCKING LLC ALUCARD, INC
AJM TRANSPORT, INC SULLIVAN & KELLY INC

Company Name 2 INMAN TRUCKING INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

K C TRANSPORT INC
TIEMANNS DELIVERY SERVICE INC TCB CARRIERS INC S & B TRUCKING INC
ALBUS TRANSPORTATION LLC
J3C TRUCKING INC BEN SQUARED, INC

ALBUS EXPRESS, INC

MROZOWICZ TRUCKING; MROZOWICZ TRUCKING INC

MW TRANSPORT LLC MTMAA INC FLYNNCO INC SCIMECA61083 INC SIPAPU INC WILLER TRANSPORTATION INC

MW TRUCKING INC

KLEIN TRANSPORT LLC WDT TRANSPORTATION INC RUSS WESLEY BURCHILL INC SALIH CABRALES LLC SPOTTED DOG TRANSPORT INC W'S DELIVERY INC

HEADIN NORTH INC KARWAN SALIH INC

DBW INC ENGIE INC

DEL'S DELIVERY INC
V MOLACEK ENTERPRISES INC JULES PURPLE EXPRESS LLC
RANDT LLC
DAKOTA HAWK INC

JULES PURPLE EXPRESS INC RANDT, INC

63 STARS LLC

DAVID SAND, INC

Page 232 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 240 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14467 145169 DUANE HILLER 14468 145176 VERNON F DAVIS 14469 145183 RILEY LEMAY 14470 145190 BLAIR BACKES 14471 145206 DEAN MINETTE 14472 145213 JEFF WETZEL 14473 145220 KORY FLORY 14474 145237 LON OPDAHL 14475 145244 DAVID DUANE STEINKOPF 14476 145251 MELISSA WALTMAN 14477 145268 LORI LIZOTTE 14478 145275 BARTON HARRIS 14479 145282 JEFFREY THOMPSON 14480 145299 JOHN BRANESKY 14481 145305 DOUGLAS FLORY 14482 145312 TRAVIS WINNEGGE
14483 145329 TRAVIS WINNEGGE
14484 145336 SUE ANN MAXFIELD 14485 145343 DARREN PAUL REED 14486 145350 JOSEPH RICHARD WELLER JR 14487 145367 MARTI VOLZ 14488 145374 RICHARD M BAUS 14489 145381 IVER HENSRUD 14490 145398 JOEL DANIEL NILLES 14491 145404 MILAN MITROVIC 14492 145411 ART KNUDSON
14493 145428 LARRY M PEDERSON 14494 145435 DAROLD LEE KLEIN 14495 145442 RANDALL ORKE 14496 145459 DAVID STEINKE 14497 145466 STAN WHITEBIRD 14498 145473 RENEE GRACE KING 14499 145480 ALFRED ALLEN WALD 14500 145497 JAMES PATRICK KASPER 14501 145503 ERNIE GISSELQUIST 14502 145510 RONALD HEUPEL 14503 145527 DEAN NILES EASTON 14504 145541 MYRON GEFROH 14505 145558 EDDIE JR KRAMER JR 14506 145565 ALFRED LIZOTTE 14507 145572 ROBERT E ALBERT 14508 145589 RANDY ALAN KREIE 14509 145596 JEFF J LINKE 14510 145602 ALAN FURAN 14511 145619 GRANT WESLEY RETZLAFF 14512 145626 EDDY J HERZ 14513 145633 RICHARD P SCHILKEN 14514 145640 JOHN MACK 14515 145657 JEFFERY FJELLANGER 14516 145664 RUSSELL STEVE HAUGE 14517 145671 JIM JAHNER 14518 145688 CLAY PERMAN 14519 145695 TODD GILLISPE 14520 145701 TROY J FISHER 14521 145718 PETER ALLEN 14522 145725 SHARI DAVIS 14523 145732 JANIE OLDERBAK 14524 145749 PAM SCOTT 14525 145756 BRADLEY DEAN REITEN 14526 145763 MICHAEL J BELING 14527 145770 TRACIE MARIE BRONSON 14528 145787 SHANE NIEUWSMA

Company Name 1 DR TRANSPORT INC WHITEKNUCKLE EXPRESS BUG-N-MO INC BACKES INC

Company Name 2

JETZEL INC FLORY EXPRESS INC DAKOTA EXPRESS LLC KUTTERS INC WALTMAN CONTRACTING INC

TALLYHE HUGHE INC JLT TRANSPORTATION INC UNDERGROUND SERVICES, INC DK FLORY INC TRAVIS WINNEGGE TRANSPORTATION INC TRAVIS WINNEGGE TRANSPORTATION INC

REED P AND D INC JOECO INC

ENOW INC

BAUS TRANSPORT, LLC

BAUS, INC

NILLES DELIVERY INC MITROVIC, INC ARTHUR KNUDSON ENTERPRISES INC

PETE & REPETE INC

JAKE & JOE INC WORKIN' MAN INC

JAKE & JOE INC

AK DELIVERY LLC

AK INC

FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GEFROH ELECTRIC INC KRAMERS DELIVERY INC GROUND SERVICES INC
FALNCRY INC; FALNCRY, INC LINKSTER INC
SPRINTER INC HERZ CORPORATION RS DELIVERY SERVICE INC JAM ENTERPRISES INC JF ENTERPRISES INC
JKRW INCORPORATED
SHOELACE, INC
BIG GREEN CONTRACTING INC B&P TRANSPORT, INC REITEN P & D SERVICE, INC
DUTCH BOY DELIVERY INC

GEFROH EXPRESS INC

Page 233 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 241 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14529 145794 CHAD VIERECK 14530 145800 RYAN OLSON 14531 145817 JOHN ALLEN CARLSON 14532 145824 BRAD JASON EARLL 14533 145831 CELSO A VALENCIA 14534 145848 BRYAN A CRAWFORD 14535 145855 WILLIAM SHULER 14536 145862 DANNY WILLIAMSON 14537 145879 STANLEY LARSON 14538 145886 DAVID T PRITCHARD 14539 145893 ROGER HANSON 14540 145909 WALLACE DAHL 14541 145916 STEVEN W ANDERSON 14542 145923 ROBERT JOHNSON 14543 145930 DALE T TROTTER 14544 145947 DENNIS N FINLEY 14545 145954 JAMES BUNDE 14546 145961 MARK KOBERNUSZ 14547 145978 MARVIN L HEGGEM 14548 145985 CHARLES C CHARLES 14549 145992 GREGORY L JOHNSON 14550 146005 TIMOTHY M WAITE 14551 146012 THOMAS BERG 14552 146029 KEVIN MILLER 14553 146036 RANDY E WHITING 14554 146043 DARRELL ENGBRECHT 14555 146050 FREDRICK A STRASSER 14556 146067 KEITH HOWARD HARRIS 14557 146074 DELVIN MARTIN 14558 146081 DOUG JELDEN 14559 146098 KEVIN GRAVE 14560 146104 GREGORY PAUL KROEKER 14561 146111 MICHAEL GENE KNUTSON 14562 146128 BEVERLEY MORRIS 14563 146135 ROBERT FERNANDEZ
14564 146142 GREG NELSON 14565 146159 MICHAEL MILLER 14566 146166 CARL HAWKINSON 14567 146173 KIM BUNGER 14568 146180 TODD CROOKS 14569 146197 MATT OWENS 14570 146203 DUSTIN DEAN HOUSKA 14571 146210 TROY FEARING 14572 146227 JASON JOEL HART 14573 146234 LYLE SIMMONS 14574 146241 DELBERT L KIENOW 14575 146258 DILIAN IVANOV BABIKOV 14576 146265 RUSSELL POPPE 14577 146272 BRIAN L NELSON 14578 146289 JAY HEINTZ 14579 146296 RANDY BYINGTON 14580 146302 STEVE PERSING 14581 146319 RANDY PHILLIPS 14582 146326 LEVI GREENE 14583 146333 CHERYL FEIST 14584 146340 EUGENE KALINOWSKI 14585 146357 JODEYL Y KOWALSKI 14586 146364 ROBERT W BEASLEY 14587 146371 BEIRNE THOR JOHNSON 14588 146388 DORIN LONEHILL 14589 146395 RANDY UKEN 14590 146401 NICK PRICE 14591 146418 DUSTIN RAY NELSON 14592 146425 RANDY HILLS

Company Name 1 RYANO EXPRESS INC BRAD E EXPRESS, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DPW II INC S & M LARSON ENTERPRISES INC ROLLING BONES INC HANS INC WJD EXPRESS INC

SOON COME DELIVERY INC BUNDE INC MLM HEGGEM INC
TMW ENTERPRISES INC

D AND H DELIVERY, INC FRED EX LLC HARRIS LOGISTICS INC FED X-MEN LLC
SADDLEBAGS EXP LLC KROEKER KONTRACTING INC MNS DELIVERY INC
ROBERT CARE TRUCKING INC; ROFESA TRUCKING LLC SIOUX FALLS EXPRESS INC M&M DELIVERIES INC FOUR STARS INC
QUIET & SHY INCORPORATED

SADDLEBAGS EXP INC
ROBERT CARE TRUCKING INC

DSI TRUSTED DELIVERY
BMBC CARRIER SYSTEMS COMPANY
SAVANA EXPRESS INC STONI EXPRESS INC RP EXPRESS INC
T AND T TRANSPORTATION INC
BEASLEY TRUCKING INC
TRIPLE BAR U INC SIMPLICITY COMPANY NELSON INC OF SVEA RBH INC

Page 234 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 242 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14593 146432 GLENN F WRIGHT 14594 146449 RUSSELL DEAN KAMERZELL 14595 146456 SCOTT A ANDERSON 14596 146463 DANNY DENHOLM 14597 146470 MICHAEL KILEY 14598 146487 JAMES TIMOTHY LIDEL 14599 146494 DAVID A WOLF 14600 146500 DAVID NORGAARD 14601 146517 CODY SIHARATH 14602 146524 JASON FRANCIS NEISES 14603 146531 JERRY LEWIS VEGA 14604 146548 GREGORY ROJAS 14605 146555 SHAD EKSTRUM 14606 146562 ERNEST WHITING 14607 146579 RONALD W SHONSCHECK JR 14608 146586 DAVE DEAN FERGUSON 14609 146593 DARRIN RAY SAHS 14610 146609 MICHELLE LYNN VANHOOSER 14611 146616 SHAD NEWTON 14612 146623 ANTON JOSEPH HALAMAR III 14613 146630 RODNEY MICHAEL CHRISTENSEN 14614 146647 TOM R HOFFART 14615 146654 WENDI SIMEONE 14616 146661 JESUS A HERNANDEZ 14617 146678 STEPHANIE VINTON 14618 146685 BENO BABINSZKI 14619 146692 PHILIP ACOSTA 14620 146708 ARNOLD B RUBEY 14621 146715 ROBERT GREGG 14622 146722 SAM NOCITA 14623 146739 TERRY JONES 14624 146746 CHESTER C CASTOR 14625 146753 LEROY BERNHARDT 14626 146760 JAY D GARRENS 14627 146777 GARY L OSBORN 14628 146784 THOMAS CHOUTKA 14629 146791 TERRY L BAUMANN 14630 146807 DICK R SPORLEDER 14631 146814 RICKY ABBOTT
14632 146821 MICHAEL WALSH 14633 146838 HOWARD JONES 14634 146845 DAVID WAYNE KIMBLE 14635 146852 KENNETH J MADEJ 14636 146869 KEN ANDERSON 14637 146876 RICH KOSMICKI 14638 146883 HOWARD EDWARD ZIMBELMAN 14639 146890 MIKE SAMPLES 14640 146906 ROCKFORD M HOLMES 14641 146913 MICHAEL J MORRIS 14642 146920 BRENT WALKER 14643 146937 JOHN F KILMER 14644 146944 KYLE CLARK HOLEN 14645 146951 TODD SAPPENFIELD 14646 146975 CHAD E LONG 14647 146982 CHARLES FRED CROWE JR 14648 146999 TAYLOR SNYDER 14649 147002 JASON HANWAY 14650 147019 SHAWN PONDS 14651 147026 BEN RAY HODGES 14652 147033 JIM S OCONNOR 14653 147040 RYAN MICHAEL TURCO 14654 147057 JAIMEY RANDALL HOLDORF 14655 147064 RACHEL ROSSEL 14656 147071 ROBERT KEITH JONES

Company Name 1
KAMERZELL TRUCKING INC DS DELIVERIES LLC EXCEL EXPRESS INC
LIDEL TRANSPORTATION, INC DAVID A WOLF CONTRACTING INC NORGAARD EXPRESS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DASH FREIGHT INC

DDF INC DARRIN DELIVERS, INC VANHOOSER EXPRESS INC NEWTON TRANSPORT INC HALAMAR LEASE INC
TRHOFFART INC WEGO INC

BENO INC
RUBEY INC HARVESTLAND INC

CAAD CO INC BERNHARDT ENTERPRISES INC
G L OSBORN ENTERPRISES INC CHOUTKA INC BAUMANN P&D INC SPORLEDER DELIVERY INC ABBOTT INTERNATIONAL; ABBOTT TRUCKING INC MICHAEL WALSH LLC HOWARD & HOOTIE INC
KENEX, INC
WILDCAT EXPRESS INC ZOOM, INC M E S CORP Q P S INC PACMORR INC MCC EXPRESS LLC
GBI, INC
CNR INC

ABBOTT TRUCKING INC PACMORR INC

HANWAY INC; HANWAY, INC SROCK TRUCKING INC

Page 235 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 243 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14657 147088 VLADIMIR FELDMAN 14658 147095 BRUCE ELLIS 14659 147101 ROBERT ALLGOOD 14660 147118 DONALD R KEITHLEY 14661 147125 FRED MARCHESE 14662 147132 HENRY F JOHNSON 14663 147149 ROLAND D HAMMER 14664 147156 RICHARD SVITAK 14665 147163 LARRY D LACROIX 14666 147170 JEAN T NEMORIN 14667 147187 TIMOTHY KALASEK 14668 147194 MARION DALE RHOADES 14669 147200 WILLIAM DEAN REHDER 14670 147217 JAMES FAY 14671 147224 JAMES BRYAN FAY 14672 147231 MARK S POLONCIC 14673 147248 SCOTT CRONIN 14674 147255 JAMES L SANER 14675 147262 RICARDO L BACANI 14676 147279 CHRISTOPHER PAVLIK 14677 147286 RICHARD WESSLING 14678 147293 BRIAN D RICH 14679 147309 BILL L HILL 14680 147316 GILBERT L AGAN 14681 147323 WILLIAM JAMES JENSEN
14682 147330 WILLIAM JAMES BAIRD 14683 147347 JEREMY J HRUBSKY 14684 147354 JUSTIN RICHARD VOYCHESKE 14685 147361 KAREN LORRAINE SALENSKY 14686 147378 BRIAN FARMER 14687 147385 PATRICK ALEXANDER 14688 147392 MICHAEL GRIESSE 14689 147408 MATTHEW B EPPENAUER 14690 147415 JAMES SCOTT DULIN 14691 147422 BRANDON J PRIEFERT 14692 147439 JOSEPH JUAREZ 14693 147446 CLEON GRANT 14694 147453 THEODORE BRENNEN SMITH 14695 147460 MICHAEL J DRAKE 14696 147477 KEITH KANTER 14697 147484 MICHAEL HITCH 14698 147491 DONALD E FRENCH 14699 147507 RICHARD PABEN 14700 147514 BRIAN L METTSCHER 14701 147521 DEAN DILLON 14702 147538 FRANK T RAY 14703 147545 ALVIN A PAULY 14704 147552 DEBORAH L CUMMINGS 14705 147569 MICHAEL L WHITNEY 14706 147576 G VAN FROELICH 14707 147583 PAT DENNIS CORDELL 14708 147590 ALAN J KALLHOFF 14709 147606 HARRY WOODWARD 14710 147613 JERRY FACKLER 14711 147620 ERIC HAMRE 14712 147637 KEVIN E CLARK 14713 147644 JEFFREY ZIMMER 14714 147651 JOHN T CHRISTLIEB 14715 147675 DWIGHT YORK 14716 147682 RAFAEL BARRAZA 14717 147699 JAMES GREGORY THOMSON 14718 147705 GARRY ODDO 14719 147712 JAMIE MEYER 14720 147729 JON PETERSON

Company Name 1 E AND P ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

TKALASEK INC
REHDER TRANSPORTATION INC FAY TRUCKING INC FAY TRUCKING INC ROBNIK, INC
B&B SERVICES
PAVLIK P&D, INC RUGEN SERVICES, INC DRIVING TO DELIVER INC
JENSEN LOGISTICS, INC
BAIRD ENTERPRISES INC JJH INC JRV EXPRESS INC 23KAB, INC B&T OF WINFIELD INC ABARGO TRANSPORTATION, INC GINGER'S BOSS
DULIN DELIVERIES, INC JNB INC

GO BIG RED LOGISTICS INC

KANTER ENTERPRISES INC HITCH INC; HITCH, INC

METCHS INC DILLON BUSINESS INC
PAULY TRANSPORT GROUP L L C
MAD PACKAGE SERVICE INC
LLEDROC INC K-5 TRANSFER LLC
RELKCAF CONTRACTING INC AACE ENTERPRISES INC
BIG RED EXPRESS INC
YORK LLC
J GREGORY'S SERVICE DELIVERY ON THE GO INC

PAULY TRUCKING, INC K5 ENTERPRISES INC YORK INC

Page 236 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 244 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14721 147736 JOHN T SUTTON 14722 147743 MARK E FOLLMER 14723 147750 BRENT STREEKS 14724 147767 JEFFREY SHANE JACOBS 14725 147774 SHANNON ADLER 14726 147781 GERALD MARK FILLBACH 14727 147798 JULIO C BENCID 14728 147804 NICHOLAS A CHELEWSKI 14729 147811 JEFFREY RYAN MCCOY 14730 147828 BRET ARENSDORF 14731 147835 BRADLEY SCOTT VONASEK 14732 147842 MATTHEW YOPP 14733 147859 DARREN MITCHELL MUSSER 14734 147866 JULIAN OCAMPO 14735 147873 JAMES ALLEN FRIEDRICH 14736 147880 MOHAMED TAMART 14737 147897 ROYCE FRANKLIN BUNNER 14738 147903 RICHARD KLECKNER 14739 147910 CONNIE JEAN PRICE 14740 147927 WILLIAM LAMM 14741 147934 LAWRENCE RUSSELL WAUGH JR 14742 147941 BRIAN HOAG 14743 147958 LEROY A JESS 14744 147965 ALBERT SAYER 14745 147972 BRUCE R EMIG 14746 147989 LINDSAY KUCERA 14747 147996 BRUCE KOENINGSMAN 14748 148016 ROBERT HOLBROOK 14749 148023 CASEY SCHMID
14750 148030 LARRY WEAVER 14751 148047 TODD MICHAEL COOKE 14752 148054 ROGER FRITZ 14753 148061 KAMIL TOZUN 14754 148078 NANCY J FAURE 14755 148085 WILLIAM MURCEK 14756 148092 STEVE BIERMA 14757 148108 LAWAYNE KLEIN 14758 148115 LAWAYNE KLEIN 14759 148122 STEVE HOFFMEISTER 14760 148139 MARK J STERNS 14761 148146 JASON KUBIK 14762 148153 TODD SMITH 14763 148160 KURTIS COLLIER LAMB 14764 148177 MICHAEL MIZEL 14765 148184 ALIAKSEI MILASHEVICH
14766 148191 JEWEL NASH 14767 148207 RONALD L KARST 14768 148214 CAMELIA ANN LAUGHLIN 14769 148221 RONALD OSWALD 14770 148238 CHRIS CARTER 14771 148245 KEVIN ROTH 14772 148252 RANDY L ALEXANDER 14773 148269 STEVEN R HANNA 14774 148276 BOB D BENOIT 14775 148283 RICHARD PATRICK KRIFTEWIRTH 14776 148290 ROBERT C FULLINGTON 14777 148306 JERALD E JENNINGS 14778 148313 LARRY WAYNE JENNINGS 14779 148320 GREGORY SCOTT HANNA 14780 148337 PATRICK SHANE SAWYER 14781 148344 BRIAN JAMES BLAKELY 14782 148351 LANCE LEE LINDQUIST

Company Name 1 SUTTON KOBZA INC MARK I TRUCKING, INC MALBEC INCORPORATED

Company Name 2

JULIO & SONS CORP TRANSINERTIA INCORPORATED JEFF MCCOY INCORPORATED
VONCO LLC
MUSSER, INC

VONCO INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

WAUGH DELIVERY INC

MOUNTAIN KING INC KOENINGSMAN TRUCKING INC
SCHMID TRANSPORTATION LLC

SCHMID TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED

WILLIAM MURCEK INC
KLEIN FAMILY TRUCKING INC
KUBIK INC AUTUMN WIND ENTERPRISES, INC KC LAMB INC MMB SERVICES ALEKSEY NYC TRANSPORTATION, INC
DESTINY'S WAY SERVICES LLC
CAM EXPRESS, LLC
K1 ENTERPRISES INC ROTH PACKAGE SYSTEMS INC ALEXANDER TRUCKING CO INC

LINDQUIST TRUCKING INC

Page 237 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 245 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14783 148368 REGINALD JEROME WILLIAMS 14784 148375 KENT KREUTZER 14785 148382 JOHN VEACH
14786 148399 JAMES MARTIN 14787 148405 ALAN MINOR 14788 148412 KENT WHISTLER 14789 148429 MARK PETERSON 14790 148436 SCOTT HALFHIDE 14791 148443 STEVEN SMITH
14792 148450 MATTHEW L COOK 14793 148467 STEVE HANSEL 14794 148474 JAMES P REID 14795 148481 RICHARD DELZEIT 14796 148498 TODD WEATHERD 14797 148504 BJ ROSS 14798 148511 LANCE M RENKEN 14799 148528 MURRAY L MUSSER 14800 148542 TRAVIS DEAN BALDWIN
14801 148559 DOUGLAS HAWKINS 14802 148566 ROBERT MILLER 14803 148573 JOSHUA PAUL EATON 14804 148580 PRESTON K PIERCE 14805 148597 DANNY BEVER 14806 148603 VINKO VINCE OMAZIC 14807 148610 DAVID JENKINS 14808 148627 MARTIN THOMAS 14809 148634 DIMITRIS STAMATIS 14810 148641 ROBERT L OVERTON 14811 148658 ROBERT E LEHMAN 14812 148665 WILLIAM MCCONATHA 14813 148672 DANIEL J ROBBEN 14814 148702 MIKE SAUNDERS 14815 148719 CLARENCE GAMBER 14816 148726 MICHAEL CHARLES NEILL 14817 148733 SYLVIA OBRIEN 14818 148740 JIM HARNAR 14819 148757 RICHARD WOODS 14820 148764 TERRY LEE DENNISTON 14821 148771 RICHARD A WONDRA 14822 148788 THOMAS L REIFSCHNEIDER 14823 148795 CHRISTOL DEMPEWOLF 14824 148801 LAWRENCE LAIBLE 14825 148818 JEFFREY J BRAMLAGE 14826 148825 ANGIE K PRATT 14827 148832 BRAD JASON SHELTON 14828 148849 DANIEL KELLER 14829 148856 ADAIR PIMENTEL 14830 148863 ROY ALLEN MCBRIDE JR 14831 148870 STEVEN A SABIN 14832 148887 NAI SAELEE 14833 148894 ERIC L CHARLES 14834 148900 JEREMY SCHILTZ 14835 148917 CHARLES A LAWSON 14836 148924 AMBER JARRIEL 14837 148931 RON SCANTLIN 14838 148948 BRANDON DUWE 14839 148955 CURTIS JAMES MCCLURE 14840 148962 RICHARD MELLON 14841 148979 WILLIAM NESBIT 14842 148993 JOHN A HALL 14843 149006 MARGARET HOGAN 14844 149013 WILSON R GORDON

Company Name 1 KINGDOM TRANSPORT INC
VEACH INDUSTRIES; VEACH INDUSTRIES INC MARBLES INC POOR BOYS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GRACE ALONE DELIVERS INC

DELIVERED FOR ETERNITY INC

FXG EXPRESS INC

DELZEIT ENTERPRISES INC

ROSS PACKAGE SERVICES LLC

L AND D TRANSPORTATION LLC

KARKAM INC

KARKAM INC

CROSSROADS DELIVERY SERVICE INC

BLUE SKYZ ENTERPRISES INC

PIERCE PACKAGING INC DJBEVER, INC
JENKINS ENTERPRISES INC MARTIN THOMAS INC DIMIS INC OVER THE TOP INC

FORT FLETCHER INC
H&HW INC NEILL ENTERPRISES, INC O'BRIEN ENTERPRISES INC

DENNISTON DEL TEAM LLC SHOTGUN, INC LINDSEY JO INC

RMF ENTERPRISES, INC RAM AND ASSOCIATES SAELEE INC

RAM DELIVERY INC

JARRIEL DELIVERY ENTERPRISE, INC
DCJ ENTERPRISES INC R C J TRANSPORT INC JOHN A HALL INC

Page 238 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 246 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14845 149020 DAN BENNETT 14846 149037 AARON L COSBY 14847 149044 THOMAS DALE CASTELLANI 14848 149051 WILLIAM R TOOTHAKER 14849 149068 MONTY R CALDWELL 14850 149075 JAMES E SALES 14851 149082 RICHARD BROWN 14852 149099 TERRY STAFFORD 14853 149105 MICHAEL R PARKER 14854 149112 RANDALL SCOTT RODVELT 14855 149129 JASON WALLACE 14856 149136 DUSTIN M LAUDICK 14857 149143 WILLIAM A PATRICK 14858 149150 RONALD EVANS 14859 149167 TROY MARTIN 14860 149174 TERRY GOODMAN 14861 149181 WESLEY FRITZ 14862 149198 LEANN WHITENACK 14863 149204 TIM D SPRAGUE 14864 149211 RAY MILES 14865 149228 FAYEZ F TURKMANI 14866 149235 SCOTT RICHARDSON 14867 149242 MATTHEW J WOODWARD 14868 149259 SCOTT MURPHY 14869 149266 GREGORY LONG 14870 149273 TODD KREHBIEL 14871 149280 RYAN MICHAEL MCCOY 14872 149297 AMANDA MARIE FOSTER 14873 149303 DERIK LYNN UNRUH 14874 149310 RAYMOND EUGENE LEEDY JR 14875 149327 RYAN VANDERFORD 14876 149334 ISAIAH MICHAEL TETUAN 14877 149341 SAMUEL EVAN GARRISON 14878 149358 PAULETTE CAIN 14879 149365 KAY TAPPENDICK 14880 149372 FRANCES MARSHALL 14881 149389 DAVID N NEISES 14882 149396 DON FAGRE 14883 149402 MARK CULVER 14884 149419 RICHARD WILSON 14885 149426 MIKE MOORE 14886 149433 DUANE SPIES 14887 149440 DAVID A WELLS 14888 149457 DOUG CORNETT 14889 149464 STEVE BOSWORTH 14890 149471 CHARLES A SPICER 14891 149488 NORRIS N COLE 14892 149495 JENIFER KOLEEN HESTING 14893 149501 JOHN R HARRIS 14894 149518 WALTER L GIBSON 14895 149525 RICHARD CLEARY 14896 149532 FRANK GORDON KARBER 14897 149549 STEVE KAUFFMAN 14898 149556 BRETT KEVIN BUTLER 14899 149563 CHEREE LEE 14900 149570 KENNY MARTINEZ 14901 149587 STEVE CONLEY 14902 149594 JOSEPH WAYNE ROBINSON 14903 149600 TAMMY K RODVELT 14904 149617 LARRY PROCKISH 14905 149624 TAMI KOESTER 14906 149631 DONALD R REIMER 14907 149648 JUAN TETUAN 14908 149655 DAVID COX 14909 149662 ANTHONY CHRISTOPHER VANN

Company Name 1 ALC SERVICES INC TOOTHAKER INC REHOBOTH DISTRIBUTING INC
TLS TRANSPORTATION LLC
WALLACE PARCEL INC LAUDICK ENTERPRISES INC WAP INC
GOODMAN'S TRANSPORT INC T J B & E LLC LEANN W DELIVERY INC
BARADA EXPRESS INC
MIKAI INC TAK VENTURES LLC CARE SERVICES, INC AT & R ENTERPRISES LLC RDL INC I & S TRANSPORT INC
K & D EXPRESS, INC NEISES PARK INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

W & C PLUS 6 INC AT&R ENTERPRISES INC

ROYAL CONCEPTS INC WELLS TRUCKING INC
S & I ENTERPRISES, INC CHUCK SPICER LLC N C ENTERPRISES INC
RT#4 CORP GIBSON HOLDING COMPANY INC

MAXX TRUCKING, INC

GOLEM INC
BUTLER TO GO INC TAMMY'S PONY EXPRESS, INC PROCKISH TRUCKING COMPANY
TETUAN ENTERPRISES INC DAVID A COX INC

Page 239 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 247 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14910 149679 PERRY WADE STOUFFER 14911 149686 CHAD E LANG 14912 149693 CHRIS TODD SWARTZ 14913 149709 PETER TRAN 14914 149716 GREGORY CLINTON WILLIAMS 14915 149723 RYAN KUGLER 14916 149730 JEFF KRUG 14917 149747 JOSHUA LIPPOLDT 14918 149754 ADEAR BESSA JR 14919 149761 SARA ELIZABETH SEILER 14920 149778 ROBERT C MCREYNOLDS 14921 149785 ROBERT FRANK HAYES 14922 149792 JEAN ROSE 14923 149808 JOHN BURNS 14924 149815 RICK GRIMES 14925 149822 VERLE SMITH 14926 149839 FRED HAMILTON 14927 149846 ACE GREGORY PHILLIPS 14928 149853 NEAL B BERGKAMP 14929 149860 DEWEY A PARKER 14930 149877 STEVE KUHN 14931 149884 BRIAN A FISCHER 14932 149891 IRVIN W ROBINSON 14933 149907 KATHERINE CROUCH 14934 149914 RICHARD HINKLE 14935 149921 JESSE HALL 14936 149938 JOHN RAY THEEL 14937 149945 CLIFFORD MARK JENNINGS 14938 149952 RANDELL VOWELL 14939 149969 WALLICE SUMMERS III 14940 149976 MICHAEL RUSSELL 14941 149983 PATRICK HILL 14942 149990 CRAIG RUSSELL 14943 150002 BRENT MIKE STONE 14944 150019 MARK FORTUNE 14945 150026 DAVID HOWARD 14946 150033 KEVIN ATWOOD 14947 150040 DANIEL ZIMBLEMAN 14948 150057 JASON LEE PROCKISH 14949 150064 ANTHONY HAAS 14950 150071 BRANDON LEVI CRUSE 14951 150088 BRIAN THOMAS WEST 14952 150095 SAMUEL E ANLIKER 14953 150101 GEOFFREY HANNA
14954 150118 JOEL KERNS 14955 150125 TERESA ANN JOHNSON 14956 150132 AARON JAMES BASGALL 14957 150149 TRAVIS B OLDEN 14958 150156 PETER FOX 14959 150163 PATRICIA A OLSEN 14960 150170 ZIBA SOLEIMANY 14961 150187 LAURA HAWLEY 14962 150194 THOMAS GILKERSON
14963 150200 ART BROSIUS 14964 150217 DONALD LEE STREIT 14965 150224 VERNON L MOORE 14966 150231 DONALD L LANG 14967 150248 LARRY WAYMIRE 14968 150255 STANLEY MURRAY 14969 150262 JOHN BOERSMA 14970 150279 YINKA ROWLAND 14971 150286 AMOS WILLINGHAM 14972 150293 TONY NIXON

Company Name 1
ALPHA GRACE INC CHRIS SWRTZ LLC

Company Name 2 ALPHA GRACE INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KRUG TRUCKING INC LIPPOLDT INC

R HAYES INC
JKM SERVICES INC G & L DELIVERIES INC
FEECH INC
WINARK INC DEW-PAR DELIVERY INC NORMAG ENT LLC
ROBINSON DELIVERIES INC
R & E DISTRIBUTION INC TEN FORWARD INC OCO LLC

KAYLABOB, INC

M & S RUSS INC

PIKNMUP INC HOWARD TRANSPORTS INC
DJ'S DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

CRUSE INC

W & J TRUCKING INC

EMPORIA EXPRESS LLC

EMPORIA EXPRESS INC

BIGPOPPA HANNA; BIGPOPPA HANNA HANNA DISTRIBUTING INC

LLC

J & K KERNS DELIVERIES INC

BASGALL INC

ZIBA TRANSPORT INC
GILKERSON ENTERPRISES; GILKERSON ENTERPRISES INC
D L S LOGISTICS INC VERNON L MOORE TRUCKING LLC

Page 240 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 248 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 14973 150309 EDMUND ANTHONY HENSAS SR 14974 150316 RONALD EUGENE ISOM 14975 150323 WENDELL LEE DONNELL 14976 150330 CHARLIE MITCHELL 14977 150347 DAN WHITED 14978 150354 MARK TUCKER 14979 150361 ANTHONY JOHNSON 14980 150378 JAY JOHNSON 14981 150385 DARCY BROWN 14982 150392 TRACY TAYLOR 14983 150408 ARBY KARNES 14984 150415 LANCE E BOYER 14985 150422 BRAD SNYDER 14986 150446 KELLY HALLING 14987 150453 TROY A JERAULD 14988 150460 LEE COQUILLETTE 14989 150477 KEITH FLOWER 14990 150484 JERRY MCKINNEY 14991 150491 GREGORY B EDMONDS 14992 150507 ERIC NEUGEBAUER 14993 150514 LINK DODD ESTES 14994 150521 KEITH BERRY 14995 150538 TRAVIS JEFFREY SHAFT 14996 150545 KIMBERLEE MCELHANEY 14997 150552 RUDY DIDOMENICK 14998 150569 DAVID PETER FRIGON 14999 150576 KEVIN L GRIGG 15000 150583 HEIDI LAW 15001 150590 COURTNEY HAYNES 15002 150606 JOHN BRADLEY MARTIN 15003 150613 PAUL BLISSENBACH 15004 150637 VINCENT WILLIAM WESTON JR 15005 150644 MARKUS DANIEL MCCORMAC 15006 150651 JEREMY SCOTT BOLTE 15007 150668 JOHN MUNOZ 15008 150675 STEVE GRESS 15009 150682 RYAN MCAVAY 15010 150699 JAMIE DREW ELTING 15011 150705 DAVID K WILLIAMS 15012 150712 BONIFACE KAMAU 15013 150729 CENK KARASAPAN 15014 150736 FRED F GORGES 15015 150743 MIKE VONLINTEL 15016 150750 JOHN WILLIAM DYE 15017 150767 DENNIS ANTHONY TRAFFAS 15018 150774 BILL L MARKER 15019 150781 WILLIAM G DAVIS 15020 150798 GREGORY ALLEN BARRETT 15021 150804 GARY STANDAU 15022 150811 THOMAS MARTIN HANKS 15023 150828 LEON SMITH 15024 150835 CHUCK DRASKOVICH 15025 150842 PAUL KAISER
15026 150859 JUAN B SOTO JR 15027 150866 ERIC SHEEDY
15028 150873 DANIEL LAFRANCA 15029 150880 LUCAS WAYNE SCOTT 15030 150897 RANDELL J PROTHRO 15031 150903 ROBERT KERSCHEN 15032 150910 KENNETH I SPEER II 15033 150927 GEORGE E DOAN 15034 150934 WILLIAM JOSEPH MOON SR 15035 150941 JOHN RYAN

Company Name 1 REI EXPRESS INC
M & T ENTERPRISES INC
DA & SON INC
LANKAT ENTERPRISES LLC SNYDER & CO INC K K H INC

Company Name 2 REI EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3 REI EXPRESS INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BERRY TRUCKING INC
DAVID FRIGON LLC L & M TRANSPORT, INC
VINCENT WESTON INC A & M EXPRESS BOLTE INC JC EXPRESS, INC
ELTING INC
FCG INC
TRANQUILITY BAY, INC

BIG FRIG INC

LTS LOGISTICS, INC DRASKO , INC TEQUA CARTAGE INC; TEQUA ENTERPRISES

P&D PACKAGE DELIVERY SERVICES INC LAAN CORP L AND S SCOTT LP

L & S SCOTT, INC

W J MOON TRANSPORT INC BEELINE DELIVERY INC

Page 241 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 249 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15036 150958 VERLON L FRAZIER 15037 150965 RUSSELL KUTZ 15038 150972 RAY W INIGUEZ 15039 150989 JEFFERY S BEULLENS 15040 150996 TODD W DORPINGHAUS 15041 151009 EDWARD JOHNSON 15042 151016 TOBY JORDAN MENTZER 15043 151023 LONNIE L STOFFERAN 15044 151030 MATTHEW RYAN DANNER 15045 151047 HOWARD E MANCE IV 15046 151054 KEVIN BELL 15047 151061 SANDRA KAY STOPPEL 15048 151078 JOHN WAYNE DOSS 15049 151085 RENE MONISMITH 15050 151092 SHAWN LEE DEARING 15051 151108 RANDAL HENRY THOMAS 15052 151115 ELMER A CANALES 15053 151122 KEVIN HARDIN 15054 151139 KEITH PLASTERER 15055 151146 JOSEPH MCCULLOUGH 15056 151153 JASON BROWN 15057 151160 JEFFERY S ANDERSON 15058 151177 TALLIESIN DODD HAYDEN 15059 151184 ROCKY E KRAMER 15060 151191 JEREMY LOWERY 15061 151207 PATRICK CASAS 15062 151214 SUSAN STREEFF 15063 151221 JUSTIN STANFORD 15064 151238 ALBERT MALTESE 15065 151245 RAY NAY 15066 151252 PENNY MASSA 15067 151269 TERESA ROMANGNOLI 15068 151276 TERRY L BERTRAM
15069 151283 NOEL D COLLINS III 15070 151290 VEN SAVAGE 15071 151306 MARK HERNANDEZ 15072 151313 DAVID LAWRENCE SILVEY 15073 151320 NELSON CORREA 15074 151337 DOUGLAS THOMAS RIDENOUR 15075 151344 KENNETH S BURT 15076 151351 RICK R OIKLE 15077 151368 CINDY L WILLFORD 15078 151375 MARK BOLTZ 15079 151382 TIMOTHY STEINER 15080 151399 JAMES DALY 15081 151405 GREGORY JAMES ZIMBRIC 15082 151412 WESLEY MURRAY BIRD 15083 151429 JOHNATHAN RICHARD GOSS 15084 151436 KENT BELCHER
15085 151443 CRAIG L FINSAAS 15086 151450 ROBERT CARLSON 15087 151467 ROBERT SCOTT SHOLEY 15088 151474 ERIK WESSBERG 15089 151481 TONY ELZIE RAND 15090 151498 ARMANDO RAMIREZ 15091 151504 TIMBER TURNER 15092 151511 VERDA RAE HUBER 15093 151528 TRACY EDWARD LASALLE 15094 151535 JAMES PANTOJA 15095 151542 BRUCE K VANKIRK 15096 151559 LANE KEVEN BUSCH 15097 151566 DENNIS GLOYD SALLEE 15098 151573 SHERRY ANN CLEM

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

EVENSONG INC WYANDOTTE TRANSPORTATION LLC MENTZER ENTERPRISES INC LLS OF DODGE CITY, INC
S & C STOPPEL DELIVERY INC
BOX-MAN, INC CANALES DELIVERY INC
SKY LIMITED; SKY LIMITED INC JNL BROWN TRUCKING CORP ANDERSHOOT LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

AJM SHIPPING INC J&C TRANSPORTATION INC
BERTRAM & SONS INC

BERTRAM CHAN AND NGUYEN

SEBRAN INC PURPLE SAGE DELIVERY KJB LLC

CLW ENTERPRISES INC

STEINER TRANSPORT &LEASING INC

ZIMBRIC ENTERPRISES INC

GOSSAMER INC H B TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

P&K ENTERPRISES

FINSAAS ENTERPRISES, INC

P&K ENTERPRISES

P&K ENTERPRISES LLC

EXCELSIOR DELIVERY SERVICES TURNER TRANSPORT LLC

TURNER TRANSPORT INC

ERLEE ADVENTURES INC OLD DIRT ROAD INC DLS CONTRACTING INC DOUBLE T TRUCKING LLC

Page 242 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 250 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15099 151580 WILLIAM PINKERTON 15100 151597 JOYCE E ESTERBY 15101 151603 GORDON W LANE JR 15102 151610 DALLAS J CRNICH 15103 151627 KEVIN ROMO 15104 151634 DAVID ALLEN TAYLOR 15105 151641 TERRI BIBEAU 15106 151658 STEVEN SHOLEY 15107 151665 MIKE RYAN KNAPP 15108 151672 TANYA SPENCE 15109 151689 TODD VICE 15110 151696 CALEB RYAN CLEMENTS 15111 151702 JAMES GARRETT CHEFF 15112 151719 JOEL E BAN
15113 151726 PHILLIP GEORGE RICHTER 15114 151733 RICHARD JOSEPH NELSON 15115 151740 ALAN KENNETH BRISTOL 15116 151757 JONATHAN H MURRAY 15117 151764 DENNIS GEORGE KEASTER 15118 151771 DEBRA LANG 15119 151788 ED CHEBUL 15120 151795 ROD ROBSON 15121 151801 KELLEY O CONNOR 15122 151818 GREGG J BOEHM 15123 151825 PAUL DUANE MUNDSCHENK JR 15124 151832 STEVE JAY BRENNER 15125 151849 CAROL L MURPHY 15126 151856 CHARLEY JOHNSON 15127 151863 DAVID GABLE 15128 151870 DALE L MORRIS 15129 151887 JAMES R ALLEN 15130 151894 CHONGBOM LEE 15131 151900 JOHN HYNDMAN 15132 151917 BRENT KRAHN 15133 151924 ERVIN HANSON 15134 151931 THOMAS GEORGE GUNDERSON 15135 151948 VICKI JO LEACHMAN 15136 151955 BEN FRANK ROY 15137 151962 MICHAEL CALAHAN 15138 151979 KYLE GABLE
15139 151986 RICHARD ROBINSON 15140 151993 COREY MICHAEL PLUTE 15141 152006 TODD EDELEN 15142 152013 DAWN CHANDLER 15143 152020 JOEL NATHAN NUNN 15144 152037 RICHARD KNUTSON 15145 152044 WALLACE V KOEHMSTEDT JR 15146 152051 PAUL R BUTCHER 15147 152068 JAMES FINLEY 15148 152075 SHAWN W PENROD 15149 152082 GEORGIA A FISHER 15150 152099 MICHAEL JAMES WISE 15151 152105 RODNEY S CLACK 15152 152112 JEFF ROHRER 15153 152129 KEVIN MOE 15154 152136 BRAD SWARTZENBERGER 15155 152143 HENRY GILDERSLEEVE 15156 152150 TIMOTHY CLINE 15157 152167 RICHARD WHITE 15158 152174 DAVID EUGENE CATO 15159 152181 MYRON ROBINSON 15160 152198 DAVID STEVEN MONSON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

KLR TRANSPORTATION INC
SS CARRIER INC
R-T DELIVERIES INC
LINDSAY EMERSON ENTERPRISES LLC RICHTER DISTRIBUTING LLC BLUE J LEASING, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

G & C BOEHM INC FEDEL SERVICE LLC SJAYBEE TV INC M & C EXPRESS INC

BELL TIGER INC

T & C ENTERPRISES INC

RAPID AND COURTEOUS EXPEDITING

MAC TRUCKING INC

GABLE TRANSPORTATION INC

G & M TRANSPORTATION

SCI DELIVERY SERVICES CORPORATION

TPEX INC

SCI DELIVERY SERVICES CORPORATION

BFD-BUTCHERS FREIGHT DELIVERY JMF INC LASSOS & LACE INC
JEFRO INC HOWDY TRANSPORT INC

D MONSON INC

Page 243 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 251 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15161 152204 JEFFREY COSGROVE 15162 152211 GREGORY D PRICKETT 15163 152228 BRYAN WITT 15164 152235 CLIFF L SERMON 15165 152242 BRYANT J BARNES 15166 152259 JEFF BELNAP 15167 152266 LARRY D HONEYCUTT 15168 152273 ROBERTO CARLOS JAMETT 15169 152280 DAVE MICHAEL COPELAND 15170 152297 ADAM JARDINE 15171 152303 ADAM JARDINE 15172 152310 JEREMY JOY HARTLEY 15173 152327 LARS OLSON 15174 152334 ROGER BRYAN MUIR 15175 152341 BEN FIALKOWSKI 15176 152358 VICTOR STANLEY 15177 152365 MICHAEL WARTH 15178 152372 BERNARD D DOUGLAS 15179 152389 SAMUEL J GARBI 15180 152396 ARMEN DEEN ALENDAR
15181 152402 DEON ROY ANDERSON
15182 152419 RAYMOND LLOYD TRUSSELL 15183 152426 B ALAN SMITH 15184 152433 DON WILLIAMS
15185 152440 DAVID RAWLINGS 15186 152457 GLEN V FRANDSEN 15187 152464 FRED WALTON 15188 152471 MICHAEL MCCOY 15189 152488 JERRY LEE HEALY 15190 152495 JOHN HUNTSMAN 15191 152501 DAVID SCHWARTZ 15192 152518 ROY DROTT 15193 152525 VICTOR HARRISON 15194 152532 JARED EVANS 15195 152549 HARLEY RIDDLE 15196 152556 RICK SEDILLO 15197 152563 TRACEY JAMES 15198 152570 JOHN MANUEL HUERTA 15199 152587 BRYAN RAY FORD 15200 152594 SHANE PASSEY 15201 152600 JOHN D GRIGSBY 15202 152617 DANIEL ALBERT TEELE 15203 152624 PAUL SCHERLING 15204 152631 KIRT WILLIAMS
15205 152648 SAMUEL BUTLER 15206 152655 PATRICK R CLARK 15207 152662 MICHAEL ALEXANDER 15208 152679 MONTE PAUL REYNOLDS 15209 152686 TOBY TENNYSON
15210 152693 JOAB ESTEVA 15211 152709 CORY K HAZELBUSH 15212 152716 SCOTT RANDALL GARNER 15213 152723 JOSHUA STEPHEN DENULLY 15214 152730 TIM SNOOKS 15215 152747 BRAD LOREN CAMPBELL 15216 152754 LINC WAY 15217 152761 TRAVIS G PALMER 15218 152778 TRAVIS CHRISTENSEN 15219 152785 JASON DON SOUCIE 15220 152792 BRANDON FREDERICK

Company Name 1 COSGROVE ENTERPRISES INC SIERRA ENTERPRISES INC WITT LOGISTICS INC SERMON COMPANY BM BARNES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CFI INC

SUNSTONE INC ZOOP INC M7 TRUCKING INC

RUSTIC RENDITIONS INC

GARFIELD LTD AMIB LLC
D AND E VENTURES, INC

DINANTRANS INCORPORATED ANDERSON VENTURES INC

KODIAK COURIERS, INC

MED FAMILY ENTERPRISES LLC
RAWLINGS P&D INC FRANDSEN PICKUP & DELIVERY, INC FSW INC

MED FAMILY ENTERPRISES INC

HEALY INCORPORATED

TDS DELIVERY INC

EAGLE VENTURES LLC JK TOKLAT INC

TOKLAT LLC

SAVAGE FREIGHT INC

JAYBIRD DELIVERY COMPANY GROUND RUNNER, INC
SHAPASS P&D LLC GARRID ENTERPRISES INC

WILLIAMS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC
RIDE CORPORATION

SKYVIEW LANDSCAPE INC
J & H ESTEVA INC
GARNER, INC
PARCEL & POST INC KL & A LLC LINC WAY LLC

TENNYSON DISTRIBUTION INC
GARNER EXPRESS

SR TECH INC

Page 244 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 252 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15221 152808 KEVIN BURKE ANDERSON 15222 152822 NOE VILLAVICEBCIO 15223 152839 DOUG THORNOCK 15224 152846 BILL WHITELEY 15225 152853 TERRY MICHEAL HEARTBURG
15226 152860 BILL H WHITTEN JR 15227 152877 MARTY BASSETT 15228 152884 GREGORY MOSER 15229 152891 BURNELL HYDE HALL 15230 152907 SHANE R STODDARD 15231 152914 RANDY TAYLOR 15232 152921 PATRICK G WARBURTON
15233 152938 TIMOTHY WATTS 15234 152945 TODD STEVEN SPOONER 15235 152952 TROY HAZELBUSH 15236 152969 TODD DORIUS 15237 152976 MICHELLE K KIRKMAN
15238 152983 GORDON RILEY FULLER 15239 152990 JOYE FAYE TORREY 15240 153003 TRAVIS WAGES 15241 153010 GRANT PORTER 15242 153027 ROBERT WARBRICK 15243 153034 SCOTT WILLIAM WINTERS 15244 153041 DARREN WILLIAM ONISHI 15245 153058 MICHAEL CALEB COLLINS 15246 153065 JEFF ALLEN CATEY 15247 153072 KENT CLARK 15248 153089 DIANE ELAINE HARVEY 15249 153096 KEVIN CLIFF JESSEN 15250 153102 BRUCE LAMONT 15251 153119 JONATHAN FLAGLER 15252 153126 DAN LORENZEN 15253 153133 WILLIAM ELDREDGE 15254 153140 WADE REINEMER 15255 153157 MICHAEL JORDAN 15256 153164 JEFF HOLMES 15257 153171 JOHN HAGADORN 15258 153188 KEITH GUS WILLIAMS 15259 153195 THOMAS C EGGLESTON 15260 153201 ANTHONY RICHARD CASAD 15261 153218 MARK RYAN PEARSON 15262 153225 HARVEY DALE ZELLER 15263 153232 THOMAS RUPE 15264 153249 DENNIS PETTIGREW 15265 153256 JERALD W SCHWARTZKOPF
15266 153263 DOUG WARD 15267 153270 REED STOKES 15268 153287 DEWEY DAVEY 15269 153294 EDWARD EUGENE COX 15270 153300 ROBERT KEVIN WICKLAND SR 15271 153317 REX LEE WILSON 15272 153324 JOSEPH L SNYDER 15273 153331 GREGORY SCOLLARD 15274 153348 KEVIN E MCGARY 15275 153355 SCOTT KIETH ROLSTON 15276 153362 JERRY LEE HERBIN 15277 153379 DAN L PORTER JR 15278 153386 SHAWN BROWN 15279 153393 ROSCOE HAGGERTY 15280 153409 RANDALL MERRITT 15281 153416 TY THOMPSON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

MYN INC

GREEN INC HEARTBURG EXPRESS LLC

HEARTBURG EXPRESS INC

B & K DELIVERY LLC MK EXPRESS LLC LITTLE GOOSE INC B HALL DELIVERY LLC SR STODDARD CORPORATION

B&K TRANSPORT INC S E IDAHO DELIVERY, INC

WARBURTON COURIER COMPANY INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

HAZELBUSH INC
SON RISING LLC
G R F INC
TEW TRUCKING INC BOISE PACKAGE TRANSIT LLC
FLEET MAINTENANCE INC
C COMPANY INC KOONTA INC
K AND D SYSTEMS INC NO SWEAT INC
BLACK EYE ENTERPRISES INC BRETTCO INC THREE PONIES EXPRESS, INC
EXPRESS CONCEPTS INC LILWILL TRUCKING, INC

RED NICKEL INC; SONS RISING INC
KOONTA INC

JERRY'S DELIVERY SERVICE LLC JCC LLC

JERRY'S CARRIER SERVICE, INC JCC INC

WICKLAND EXPRESS COMPANY WEST WIND EXPRESS INC SNYDER ENTERPRISE, INC
JORDEN CONTRACTING INC
JLH DELIVERY LLC

MERRITT ENTERPRISES INC SOUTHPAW DISTRIBUTION, INC

Page 245 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 253 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15282 153423 RICHARD B NORDELL 15283 153430 HARRY COOLEY 15284 153447 ROBERT BYK 15285 153454 MICHELLE DIESBURG 15286 153461 NONA STEGALL 15287 153478 DAVID SCHEETZ 15288 153485 GINA M HANSLIP 15289 153492 CORY DUPAPE 15290 153508 BRENT LEE WORMAN 15291 153515 GREGORY NATE 15292 153522 BILL MELTZ 15293 153539 DARIN SANTI 15294 153546 STEVE RICHARDSON 15295 153553 MONA SMITH 15296 153560 RICHARD SHINER 15297 153577 ROSS TRENTON 15298 153584 MARIO KUEBLER 15299 153591 DALLAS W KESTER 15300 153607 MARK COLLINS 15301 153614 JASON WAGNER 15302 153621 RAMON ENRIQUEZ 15303 153638 MIKE ORIN 15304 153645 BEN F BROGOITTI 15305 153652 PAUL BOSMAN 15306 153669 DAVID PFLUGER 15307 153676 DONALD T STANLEY 15308 153683 KIRK FRASER
15309 153690 JOSHUA E NELSON 15310 153706 NORMAN NIEBERGER 15311 153713 ERIC CONNER 15312 153720 BRAD FETTY 15313 153737 LOUIS ANTONIO CORDOVA 15314 153744 RICHARD DENHOF 15315 153751 MIKE O SENA 15316 153768 LANGSTON WEBB 15317 153775 VICKI MY EDWARDS 15318 153782 ALFREDO GUZMAN HURTADO 15319 153799 ARNULFO JR ROMERO 15320 153805 GINI LEA FORD 15321 153812 SHAYNE SCHULER 15322 153829 MELVIN SMITH 15323 153836 JACK DOUGLAS COWLEY 15324 153843 STEPHEN PECK 15325 153850 STEPHEN LEWIS BRANCH
15326 153867 JAKE TRUJILLO 15327 153874 BRAD PARKER 15328 153881 JOHN AUSTIN GARWOOD 15329 153898 CHRISOPHER PARKER 15330 153904 DAMION AARON SIMCOX 15331 153911 RON LENARD
15332 153928 WES RYAN SHEEHAN 15333 153935 WILLIAM B PALMER 15334 153942 JOHN GONZALES 15335 153959 JOHN LEO LESHER II 15336 153966 CATHERINE BAIRD 15337 153973 LARRY JACKSON 15338 153980 PAUL JONATHAN RICH
15339 153997 MARIO RUIZ 15340 154000 DOUGLAS D CULVER 15341 154017 PAUL SATTERWAITE

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SHADOW TRUCKING INC

TRIPLE T DELIVERY INC COLLINS TRUCKING INC

ORIN DELIVERY INC FAP LLC BROOMFIELD DELIVERIES INC AAP DELIVERY INC DBMM INC FRASER BROTHERS & ASSOCIATES
INTENSITY ENTERPRISE, INC PACKAGES INC BURTON TRANSPORT INC

FRASER BROTHERS LLC

FRASER DISTRIBUTING INC

SENA TRUCKING INC LANGSTON T WEBB ENTERPRISE

J R CARGO INC GINA'S DELIVERY EXPRESS LLC S & K ENTERPRISES LLC

J R CARGO INC

COWBOY CARTAGE, INC

AROUND ABOUT ENTERSURPRISES INC TRUJILLO FEDEX LLC

TRU-HAUL, INC

DELIVERED INC SARATOGA LLC D J ENTERPRISES INC LENARD ENTERPRISES INC; LENARD ENTERPRISES, INC SHEEHAN AND COMPANY LLC

WILPARK LLC

FRONT RANGE DELIVERIES INC J L LESHER ENTERPRISES INC

J & J CARGO INC WILPARK LLC

RICH DELIVERIES INC

RICH NORRIS LOGISTICS, INC

PJS INC

WILPARK LLC INC

Page 246 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 254 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15342 154024 SAMUEL ALVAREZ
15343 154031 WILLIAM JOHN BURNS 15344 154048 PHIL JOHNSON 15345 154055 JOSEPH HEADRICK 15346 154062 LARRY TROYER 15347 154079 DAVID WILLIAM SWEET 15348 154086 KENT I CAMPBELL 15349 154093 BRYAN CHAMBERLIN 15350 154109 CATHERINE J SHANTEAU 15351 154116 LARRY ADAMS 15352 154123 SCOTT CUNNINGHAM 15353 154130 BRUCE MCCLOSKEY 15354 154147 DAN NIELSEN 15355 154154 DANNY LEE TORREZ 15356 154161 BRUCE YOWELL 15357 154178 E ANTHONY TODD 15358 154185 TERRY DEAN SMITH 15359 154192 SCOTT C CLARK INC 15360 154208 ROD GEIGER 15361 154215 PATRICK WILLIAM DEHNE 15362 154222 ROBERT OKANE 15363 154239 FERN YVETTE EVANS 15364 154246 PATRICK MCKEE 15365 154253 JAMES WINTERS 15366 154260 KEVIN ONEIL NELSON 15367 154277 ROOSEVELT BUTLER 15368 154284 DONNA JEAN GROSS 15369 154291 PERRY B SHUMAKE 15370 154307 JOE VENTOLA 15371 154314 WAYNE A HECHT 15372 154321 RICK A PANNULLO 15373 154338 TINA SHEPHARD 15374 154345 RUBEN BECARRA 15375 154352 RICK LEE KLIEN 15376 154369 DAVID TATE 15377 154376 RON GONZALES 15378 154383 BEECHER LEWIS GARRISON 15379 154390 PETER L ALLISON 15380 154406 MATTHEW L ALLISON 15381 154413 KEITH HALL 15382 154420 WILFREDO SALIGUMBA 15383 154437 MILTON J BRUNNER 15384 154444 JIM RUPP 15385 154451 JONI LYNN TAYLOR 15386 154468 DAVID E TROJANOWSKI 15387 154475 TRAYON ROBINSON 15388 154482 DAVID THIMGAN 15389 154499 IRVING HARRIS 15390 154505 ERIK TODD OLSON 15391 154512 ALEX CADANG JR 15392 154529 CLINTON ATTEBERRY 15393 154536 KENNETH LEE RASCON 15394 154543 ANTHONY SLOAN 15395 154550 TIMOTHY J HUFFMAN 15396 154567 SEAN PERRY 15397 154574 JESSICA JOHNSON 15398 154581 STEVEN MICHAEL BROWN 15399 154598 RANDY RAY 15400 154604 JAMES CROTTY 15401 154611 GARY R CRUMPTON 15402 154628 MARK BRUNKHARDT 15403 154635 ANTHONY CRUM 15404 154642 RAPHAEL J CORDOVA 15405 154659 WILLIAM RODGERS

Company Name 1 ALVAREZ FAST & BEST DELIVERIES INC

Company Name 2

JMH DELIVERY SERVICE, INC D & G SWEET, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

TODD DISTRIBUTION SERVICES INC BONUS BLDG CARE
LIP LORDS INC

NEL-WOOD ENTERPRISE LLC ROE'S TRUCKING INC
MODUS MANAGEMENT LLC

SYLBIK VENTURES INC

KLIEN P&D INC INNOVATIVE ENTERPRIZES INC

GROUNDED
JAG INC JT TRANSPORT INC D S TROJ INC

OLSON CONTRACTORS LLC COURIER EXPRESS LLC
T SLOAN LLC PERRY'S TRANSPORT JNJ DELIVERY INC LAURRETT INC
GRC FX LLC; GRCFX LLC

GRCFX INC

Page 247 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 255 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15406 154666 CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY WISEMAN 15407 154673 MICHAEL JOSEPH LEMIRE JR 15408 154680 JIM ROZMIAREK 15409 154697 GARY L WALLIS 15410 154703 MIKE KIRBY 15411 154710 PRESTON VONGRABILL 15412 154727 KELLY ATKINS 15413 154734 TONY MICHAEL GONZALES 15414 154741 JEROME ALLAN BRADLEY
15415 154758 DEAN JAMES HALL 15416 154765 JOE ROYBAL 15417 154772 CLAUDE W MOORE 15418 154789 HEATHER TRUJILLO 15419 154796 LARRY ARMSTRONG 15420 154802 TODD ALAN KASS 15421 154819 DARRELL HEPNER 15422 154826 WYLIE SMITH 15423 154833 EDWARD M PEREZ 15424 154840 JOHN DURAN 15425 154857 DALE ROLAND HUGHES 15426 154864 WAYNE F GROSS 15427 154871 JEFF SANCHEZ LEHRMAN 15428 154888 JAMES HUBBARD 15429 154895 ROBERT CARLSON 15430 154901 JOHN R GUST 15431 154918 DAVID VELASQUEZ 15432 154925 MICHAEL D BRAMWELL 15433 154932 STEVEN RAY MEYER 15434 154949 DUANE LEE STOREY 15435 154956 YEUGENIY V KHRISTENKO 15436 154963 DAVID ARLO NIELSEN 15437 154970 MANUEL H LOERA 15438 154987 MICHAEL JOHN KERNS 15439 154994 MILES GALLOB 15440 155007 ROBERT A RECKARD 15441 155014 LANCE C UHRICK 15442 155021 PAUL THILL 15443 155038 CRAIG MENDELL 15444 155045 KURT BRADLEY BARTON 15445 155052 BRIAN SEAN CURTIS 15446 155069 NOEL SMITH
15447 155076 KEITH PATRICK BROWN 15448 155083 RICK GERKIN
15449 155090 JOHN HAROLD RADIFF 15450 155106 CHARLES PATTERSON 15451 155113 ALLEN RIGEL 15452 155120 CORINNE KAY WILMORE 15453 155137 LYLE A REES 15454 155144 ELBERT P BURLEY 15455 155151 SCOTT FORSTER 15456 155168 FERNANDO HERNANDEZ
15457 155175 ERIN RAE LUJAN 15458 155182 JOHN JOSEPH TREWARTHA 15459 155199 RAYMOND GEORGE HOLMES JR 15460 155205 CATHERINE ANN GARCIA 15461 155212 MIKE PRINCEHORN 15462 155229 MICHAEL STONE 15463 155236 LEEMAN WASHINGTON
15464 155243 MATTHEW EDWARD GREEN 15465 155250 FRANK VASQUEZ

Company Name 1 ALWAYS ON THE RUN INC

Company Name 2

VON GRABILL TRANSPORTATION INC ATKINS ART
JEROME A BRADLEY ENTERPRISES INC DSF MANAGEMENT LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

WYLIN HOMES INC E & B PACKAGE SYSTEMS

ZABBARD, INC CARLSON TRUCKING INC
MEYER CORPORATION
LOERAS PACKAGE HANDLING LLC

PT&D SERVICES INC

SQUID INK LLC SMITH'S CONTRACTORS LLC

SMITH'S CONTRACTORS INC

GERKIN DIVERSIFIED ENTERPRISES, INC

CLP INC

AHT INC
FORSTER SERVICES LLC
MY THREE SONS CTC INC GARCIA DELIVERY INC
STONEYS COURIER SERVICE INC LEEMAN EXPRESS MESSENGER SERVICE CORP PACKAGE SYSTEMS INC

CO DELIVERY LLC
HERNANDEZ DELIVERY SVCS INC

Page 248 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 256 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15466 155267 NICK RIDER 15467 155274 ANDRE JARAMILLO 15468 155281 WADE ALLEN BOXFORD 15469 155298 SAMUEL G GARRETT 15470 155304 STEPHANIE MARIE HICKS 15471 155311 SHANE V MATTERN 15472 155328 STEVE GRATTEAU 15473 155335 RODRIGO MARTINELLI 15474 155342 ADAM HOWELL 15475 155359 WALLACE EDWARDS III 15476 155366 JESSE MORRISON 15477 155373 WILLIAM LAWRENCE MCNEILL 15478 155380 THOMAS KEARNS 15479 155397 DAVID R LINDBOM 15480 155403 JOHN C HORNER 15481 155410 JOHN D BACH 15482 155427 FRANK JOHNSON 15483 155434 MICHAEL COREY 15484 155441 DEBORAH ELIZABETH THIELEMIER 15485 155458 WES PUCKETT 15486 155465 DAVID WARREN HILL 15487 155472 VANCE LECHMAN 15488 155489 GREGORY F SRAMEK 15489 155496 ROBERT WALL 15490 155502 GARY ADAMS 15491 155519 MARLIN KINNING 15492 155526 BRENT CORNELIUS 15493 155533 JAMES M BINGAMAN 15494 155540 TERRY HURT 15495 155557 ANN OSTERMEYER 15496 155564 MICHAEL BOONE 15497 155571 MARK W MILLER 15498 155588 CYNTHIA DENISE BINKLEY 15499 155595 CHRISTOPHER J SMITH
15500 155601 ALEX P WOODS 15501 155618 VICTOR A ZINK III 15502 155632 ANDREW BERGLIN 15503 155649 KEITH HENRY MUSSRO 15504 155656 ROBERT C LEHMANN 15505 155663 ROBERT J CAMPISI 15506 155670 BRET WALLMAN 15507 155687 SHERRY L DOVER 15508 155694 MIRANDA SUE CROSBY 15509 155700 KIM CRESS 15510 155717 ANDREW SCOTT BOSMAN 15511 155724 KAY GOLDSMITH 15512 155731 COURBET ROBINETTE 15513 155748 ERIC M GENGENBACH 15514 155755 JUAN ROMERO 15515 155762 GARY KNOTT 15516 155779 KENNETH W ARENDT 15517 155786 FREDDIE P ANAYA 15518 155793 BRYAN DOYLE
15519 155809 BENJAMIN JOESPH BOPP III 15520 155816 LINDA MCGUIRE 15521 155823 STEPHEN WILSON 15522 155830 TERESA M PHILLIPS 15523 155847 CHERI A STRAHAN 15524 155854 VASHONE L ADAMS 15525 155861 SHAWN WESTON 15526 155878 DEON ARLINGTON GREIN 15527 155885 BRAD BUERGE

Company Name 1 ROMIO INC RUSH ON THE CITIES INC JMB SERVICES INC
T J DELIVERY INC
GRATTEAU CORPORATION

Company Name 2

JMJ IV ENTERPRISES INC MCWILLS TRUCKING INC

BACH SJ LTD RETRIEVER ENTERPRISES LLC SWP SERVICE INC SAMPLER SQUARE, INC
PINON DELIVERY LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

R & M DISTRIBUTING INC KS PARCEL SYSTEMS
APW INC

KS DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, INCORPORATED

EAGLE EYE DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

SILKROSE INC STEEP STREET DELIVERIES INC

G AND C INC
ANAYA ENTERPRISES, INC GRUMPY GRAMP DELIVERY COMPANY
JOE F-X INC

FAST PATH LLC
PRIMETIME FINANCIAL LLC
DAG P&D LLC BUERGEFREIGHT INC

FAST PATH INC

Page 249 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 257 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15528 155892 CURTIS RAINS 15529 155908 ASHLEY FENNO 15530 155915 ANDREW GRESSETT 15531 155922 WILLIAM FRANKLIN NORRIS 15532 155939 ROGER TORRES 15533 155946 PAUL D YEISLEY 15534 155953 JOHN W ADEN 15535 155960 KENNETH HERBERT CROUCH 15536 155977 DUSTIN BOX 15537 155984 AARON MICHAEL QUINTANA 15538 155991 ROBERT GARCIA 15539 156004 MARION EDWARD DOANE 15540 156011 ROBERT GARCIA 15541 156028 DAN ROMERO 15542 156035 CHAD HAZEN 15543 156042 SHARON STUBBLEFIELD 15544 156059 RALPH WILSON
15545 156066 RYAN ALAN MALLOY 15546 156073 MICHELLE LEE MALISH 15547 156080 JASON HARRY 15548 156097 JAMES R BLAIR 15549 156103 JOSHUA BROOKS MOE 15550 156110 NATHANIEL DEAN MAYES 15551 156127 THOMAS M MORABITO 15552 156134 SCOTT S HEWIT 15553 156141 KATHY COLLETTI 15554 156158 ALAN D GRAHAM 15555 156165 RANDALL WAYNE KINSEY 15556 156172 JEFF CHARTIER 15557 156189 DANIEL JAY DEPUE 15558 156196 JEMBER GETENT KEBEDE 15559 156202 KRISTINA PETTIT 15560 156219 JAMES LEE STONGLE 15561 156226 ROY E MARTINEZ 15562 156233 MICHAEL FRISHER 15563 156240 LEONARD MANUEL BACA 15564 156257 AGUSTIN ROYBAL 15565 156264 PETER A PETIX 15566 156271 RODNEY SHELBY 15567 156288 ANDREW T MARTINEZ 15568 156295 KAROLE GRANO 15569 156301 HEIDI MARIE DENSMORE 15570 156318 ALBERT SANDOVAL 15571 156325 SUZANNE RITA CLOUD 15572 156332 DANIEL AMADOR 15573 156349 RICARDO GONZALEZ
15574 156356 RICHARD BENAVIDEZ 15575 156363 FLOYD MOORE 15576 156370 SUSAN LORRAINE VAZQUEZ 15577 156387 CHRISTOPHER ANAYA 15578 156394 LORI LEE HELTON 15579 156400 STEVE BOUCHARD 15580 156417 JASON WOOLSEY 15581 156424 DON W FRENCH 15582 156431 LONNIE SMITH 15583 156448 GWEN VELEZ 15584 156455 JOHN EMBREE 15585 156462 ANDREW CARABAJAL 15586 156479 HAROLD HEDGECOCK 15587 156486 GINA ARAMBULA 15588 156493 STEVEN F PONCE 15589 156509 GEORGE MONTANO 15590 156516 WAYNE ROYBAL

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

SABO WEST, INC
TORRES TRUCKING, INC YEISLEY ENTERPRISES INC
4-M INC ALBANY SERVICES INC - DUSTIN BOX Q'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
MC PACKAGE DELIVERY LLC
HATR INC

R ASSOCIATES DELIVERING EXCELLENCE INCORPORATED MODUS TRANSPORTATION INC
BRIGGS UNLIMITED INC

MORABITO PACKAGE CORP SCOTT HEWIT ENTERPRISES INC
THE KINSEY CORP JCORP SAINTS EXPRESS INC
J STONGLE DELIVERY INC
32 MDC INC
GUS ROYBAL INC PETIX, INC

THE KINSEY CORP

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

AMADOR EXPRESS INC RICK GONZALEZ LTD

RG TRANSPORTATION OF TEXAS, INC

CTE DELIVERY LLC ALL ABOUT PARCELS INC

CTE DELIVERY, INC

FRENCH DELIVERY EXPRESS INC TLC DELIVERIES INC VELEZ TRUCKING, INC JEE INC
MERCY EXPRESS INC

JEE INC

Page 250 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 258 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15591 156523 ERNEST BARELA 15592 156530 MARIA K GONZALES 15593 156547 RICHARD R GARCIA 15594 156554 SCOTT BURCH 15595 156561 DAVID MELENDEZ 15596 156578 MICHAEL ROYBAL 15597 156585 JOSEPH A GURULE 15598 156592 KEVIN EUGENE PACE 15599 156608 MICHAEL BARKINS 15600 156615 DEVIN R CALABAZA
15601 156622 CLINT HAIDER 15602 156639 RICHARD HUDSON 15603 156646 CHRIS M KASPAR 15604 156653 ROBERT TOMAS TORRES 15605 156660 TONY DANE BEEVERS 15606 156677 SUSAN BENAVIDEZ 15607 156684 PAUL SANDOVAL 15608 156691 PIERRE T JOHNSON 15609 156707 CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON 15610 156714 JOANN LOYA 15611 156721 DORENA HOWARD 15612 156738 DOMINIC ROBERT MOLERES 15613 156745 DAVID GOLDSTEIN 15614 156752 JUVENTINO GONZALES 15615 156769 GEORGE A RODRIGUEZ 15616 156776 JEANETTE ORTIZ 15617 156783 TROY SANCHEZ 15618 156790 SAMUEL PETER BUSSONE 15619 156806 RAYMOND REPOLA 15620 156813 LESLIE RALPH RUSSELL 15621 156820 THOMAS J STALEY 15622 156837 TIMOTHY WHERLEY 15623 156844 STEVE FREDRICKS 15624 156851 IAN CHARLES FOX 15625 156868 DAVID HARMON 15626 156875 FRANK BARGAS 15627 156882 FOREST STEVE MITCHELL 15628 156899 LAWRENCE FELLENZ 15629 156905 MANFORD R GONZALES
15630 156912 THOMAS WERNDLE 15631 156929 FRANCISCO VILLA 15632 156936 DELBERT G GILMORE 15633 156943 JOSH SOTO
15634 156950 CHET SMITH 15635 156967 MICHELE VUKSANOVICH 15636 156974 RAYMOND JAVAN ROSS
15637 156981 PHILIP V GOOSIC 15638 156998 CHARLES WASON 15639 157001 DENNIS PATRICK ROOSE 15640 157018 JUAN CASANOVA 15641 157025 ROMAN PITSKER 15642 157032 SUSAN BITSINNI 15643 157049 ROY CRAIG HALL 15644 157056 JUAN MIGUEL DELAROSA 15645 157063 PATRICK DUGAN 15646 157070 PHILIP GAMBLE 15647 157087 JEFF W DOWNES
15648 157094 TAMMY GAIL HAGAN 15649 157100 JAVIER VELARDE

Company Name 1
RRG DELIVERY INC
ACT ENTERPRISES INC K & B TRANSPORTATION INC BARKINS TRUCKING INC CALABAZA TRUCKING INCORPORATED

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

P JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES INC HOWARD DELIVERY INC

RUSSELL & RUSSELL INC

IAN FOX DELIVERY CORP
FRANK BARGAS INCORPORATED FASTER FEET INC
MANFRED GONZALES ENTERPRISES, INC WERNDLE DELIVERY SERVICE, INC
DOUBLE G INC MICHAEL SOTO TRANSPORT INC; MICHAEL SOTO TRANSPORTATION, INC

R&R CONTRACTING SERVICES INC
CEDAR HILL ROOSE TRUCKING, INC CASANOVA FREIGHTWAYS, CORP

ROSS CONTRACTING GROUP INC

RECH, INC JD DELIVERY SERVICE INC
GAMBLE DELIVERY INC J & M CUSTOM TRANS LLC; J&M CUSTOM TRANSPORT LLC
TOP FLEET ENTERPRISE INC

ESPINAL INC

Page 251 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 259 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15650 157117 JOELL RODRIGUEZ 15651 157124 ANTHONY JOSEPH BICKNELL 15652 157131 LARRY EVANS 15653 157148 MARK BRIZZEE 15654 157155 STEVE DAY 15655 157162 KEVIN MILLER 15656 157179 ROBERT ERDMANN 15657 157186 MICHAEL DAVID KIRBY 15658 157193 GENE E NEWBY 15659 157209 GREG PAUL HARRIS 15660 157216 RICHARD A MEDINA 15661 157223 ROBERT KENNEY 15662 157230 MATTHEW IRLAND 15663 157247 ROBERT HENSON 15664 157254 MATHEW DEVOST 15665 157261 ZEFERINO MADUENO 15666 157278 STEPHEN MONTOYA 15667 157285 LORENZO GILBERT CABALLERO 15668 157292 PHILLIP CHALES CORY 15669 157308 DAVID TORRES 15670 157315 BARBARA LOPEZ 15671 157322 RICHARD CASEY FILLER 15672 157339 JESUS E LOPEZ 15673 157346 ANTONIO ESCALANTE 15674 157353 RAYMOND HAND 15675 157360 JOHN LAWSON 15676 157377 JACK SKOMSKI 15677 157384 DALE TORGERSON 15678 157391 JOHN PIKE 15679 157407 RICHARD D VICARS 15680 157414 JANINE L JONES 15681 157421 ANTHONY FULGIERI 15682 157438 YVONNE E BEAN 15683 157445 CHARLES EMERSON NIEL III 15684 157452 ANDREW ADAMS 15685 157469 ABELARDO RIVERA 15686 157476 MICHAEL THOMAS JOHNSON 15687 157483 SCOTT LEWIS 15688 157490 MICHAEL DURAN
15689 157506 DARRYL GAYLOR 15690 157513 KEITH A ROBERSON 15691 157520 RICHARD SEIDNER 15692 157537 LAI NGAI 15693 157544 DOUGLAS STAUFFER 15694 157551 RICARDO A ARIZPE
15695 157568 ANDREW JAMES HARRIS 15696 157575 GERARDO J ROJAS
15697 157582 BERT L WELLS 15698 157599 MICHAEL RAE SIRRINE 15699 157605 MARK LYTLE 15700 157612 MARK MITCHELL 15701 157629 JON HESSELSCHWERDT
15702 157636 JOHN F MACHUT 15703 157643 HECTOR R HENRIQUEZ 15704 157650 DAYNA LYNN GEBHARDT 15705 157667 JIM TALBOTT 15706 157674 JAMES DARGITZ 15707 157681 EDGAR A FAVELA 15708 157698 BAMBI LYN MONKA 15709 157704 VICTOR ARMANDO VEGA

Company Name 1 TONY BICKNELL INC MEB DELIVERY INC CHEETAH LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

HHP LLC
T & S DELIVERY, INC RANA LLC

TOP ROAD, LLC

A & E DELIVERIES INC

TORGERSON DELIVERIES RK GLOBAL ENTERPRISES INC

DTASTD INC

ACA INC RIVAL PACKAGING, INC

SCOOTERS Q S LOGISTICS CORP MBD-TUCSON DISTRIBUTORS, L L C

MBD-TUCSON DISTRIBUTORS, INCORPORATED

KJET ENTERPRISES INC RIPADE ENTERPRIESE INC

IVANES EXPRESS COMPANY, INCORPORATED HARRIS DELIVERY, INC JAIRUS EXPRESS LLC

R & C EXPRESS SERVICES INC

MARK LYTLE LLC

LYTLE CORPORATION

NEW HESSELSCHWERDT HORIZONS, INC

MANNY & DANNY TRUCKING INC

TALBOTT LLC

TALBOTT DELIVERY INC

BAM'S CHA CHING, INC

Page 252 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 260 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15710 157711 GARY ZIES 15711 157728 JOHN EWING MCCREA 15712 157735 STEVEN DALE GREENE 15713 157742 MICHAEL R ROSE 15714 157759 LUIS BUSTAMANTE 15715 157766 BENJAMIN CRUZ 15716 157773 STEVEN BEAN 15717 157780 DUANE K THOMAS 15718 157797 SHAD RAY CASTLE 15719 157803 MIRKO MURAT 15720 157810 JASON T BENNETT 15721 157827 DANIEL FORSETH 15722 157834 MYRON KING 15723 157841 RICHARD ALLEN MAYFIELD 15724 157858 TERRY PEW 15725 157865 RINERD E AALFS 15726 157872 RONALD TOMLINSON 15727 157889 MICHAEL A CARONNA 15728 157896 BRIAN JOHN MCMAHON 15729 157902 TIM C CLANCY
15730 157919 RUSSELL A HEAP 15731 157926 JAMES DOWNS 15732 157933 MICHAEL BACHE 15733 157940 WILLIAM CODY ROUSH
15734 157957 ANTHONY CLARK WILLIAMSON 15735 157964 ELVIS SANCHEZ 15736 157971 BRIAN LUCKE 15737 157988 SAUL LERMA 15738 157995 LARRY BALDWIN 15739 158008 JOSEPH ANTHONY VASQUEZ
15740 158015 SCOTT AARON SMITH 15741 158022 OWEN YU ON YEE 15742 158039 MICHAEL ANZALDUA 15743 158046 RONALD ODELL COWAN 15744 158053 DONALD RHOTON 15745 158060 DAVID A CARLSON 15746 158077 RAMON ALONSO CARRILLO 15747 158084 GARY CLARK 15748 158091 SEAN DAVID COONS 15749 158107 BRYAN J NELSON 15750 158114 CHRISTOPHER N GRGURICH 15751 158121 JOHN JOHNSON 15752 158138 MICHAEL JOHN SANCHEZ
15753 158145 CLARK DENNIS OBRIEN
15754 158152 SAMUEL JOHNSON 15755 158169 RUBEN RUBIO 15756 158176 STEVEN YOUNG 15757 158183 DAVE MUELLER 15758 158190 EDUARDO C TRUJILLO 15759 158206 WENDY ABRAMS 15760 158213 TERRY SAWYER 15761 158220 MITCHELL S GIEBER 15762 158237 CHRISTOPHER VALVERDE 15763 158244 DAVID ALLAN BAKER 15764 158251 SAMUEL JUAREZ 15765 158268 DAVID LEW MOLINE 15766 158275 ALDO G CHAVEZ 15767 158282 TROY JOSEPH SALAZAR 15768 158299 STEVEN C SMITH

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CRUZ ON OVER DELIVERY SYS INC E&S BEAN FEDEX

BEAN THERE, INC

MJ MURAT TRUCKING INC

FMK INC

LVNY INC B J MCMAHON ENTERPRISES, INC HAYLO TRENDS LLC

STELLAR LOGISTICS INCORPORATED

ROUSHS ROUTE RUNNERS INC
SANCHEX INC LUCKE EXPRESS CORPORATION LERMA LOGISTICS LLC
MAGNIFICENT IMPRESSION PACKAGING; MAGNIFICENT IMPRESSIONS PACKAGING LLC SMITTY'S INC OY TRANSPORT INC

ROUSHS ROUTE RUNNERS INC
LERMA TRANSPORT INC

KEITH RHOTON ENTERPRISES INC
L A SERVICES INCORPORATED GC TRUCKING, LLC TAKEDA LLC

JWJ LLC

SANCHEZ INTERNATIONAL; SANCHEZ SAN MIGUEL LOGISTICS

INTERNATIONAL LLC

INC

COBBLEWARE TRANSPORTATION INC

E&R DELIVERY LLC
T & C DELIVERY
DRB TRUCKING
DAVNRU INC GEOVZNNY'S CORP T O DEL, INC SMITTY'S TRANSPORT INC

TCK'S PCA #197 INC DRB TRUCKING INC

Page 253 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 261 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15769 158305 MICHAEL HANSEN 15770 158312 CADE ADAMS 15771 158329 HAROLD R BERG 15772 158336 ROB BERG 15773 158343 CASEY ALLEN JONES 15774 158350 STEPHEN S LAWYER 15775 158367 DOUGLAS SCOTT MURPHY 15776 158374 NATHAN ROSE 15777 158381 RICHARD HALLADAY 15778 158398 SHAUN T WEAVER 15779 158404 PAUL ANJEWIERDEN 15780 158411 TRACY CARLON 15781 158428 JEFFREY GEORGE EVANS 15782 158435 MARK DAVID CHRISTIANSEN 15783 158442 MATTHEW RICHARDS 15784 158459 PAUL K CLARK 15785 158466 JOEL ALLEN FRATTO 15786 158473 ERIC WARREN ANDERSEN 15787 158480 SCOTT YOUNG 15788 158497 MICHAEL DAVIS 15789 158503 DERL V MCMEEKIN 15790 158510 ROBERT CHENEY 15791 158527 CRAIG HOOPER 15792 158534 RYAN PETTY 15793 158541 HENRIK HANSEN 15794 158558 TRAVIS GRAVES 15795 158565 KENT DOUGLAS PIERSON
15796 158572 CARLOS JESUS TIPIANI 15797 158589 LARRY D HILL 15798 158596 MATTHEW BRIAN CONNELLY 15799 158602 DAVID FRANK ZACHERSON 15800 158619 WILLIAM J ROSIER 15801 158626 NATHAN NEIL ARMITSTEAD 15802 158633 TRAVIS RAY ARMITSTEAD 15803 158640 STEPHEN TRAVIS GOODWIN 15804 158657 ANDREW ADCOCK 15805 158664 JORDON C CAPENER 15806 158671 SAMUEL DUANE BRAMALL JR 15807 158688 BLAKE STREET 15808 158695 TAYLOR EVANS 15809 158701 COREY ANN PACE 15810 158718 PAUL METCALFE 15811 158725 JONATHAN JAMES GILLESPIE 15812 158732 TEALA L WILSON 15813 158749 TYLON HEATON 15814 158756 SCOTT ALLRED 15815 158763 JARED DENNIS 15816 158787 JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN 15817 158794 DONALD G POLLOCK 15818 158800 BOB PHILLIP SWANSON 15819 158817 RYAN T CUTLER 15820 158824 JERRY T HOLFELTZ 15821 158831 KENT HUNTER 15822 158848 KEITH D WALKER 15823 158855 JAY MAXWELL 15824 158862 WILLIAM C HUFF 15825 158879 RANDY J MEACHAM 15826 158886 MARK D TANNER 15827 158893 EDWARD W YOUNG 15828 158909 DEREK HUDSON DAVIS 15829 158916 WILLIAM MURDOCK 15830 158923 DANIEL ALEX RICHARDSON 15831 158930 SUZANNE MORTENSEN 15832 158947 RICHARD A SNOW

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

H&H EXPRESS INC RCH CORPORATION WOGG DISTRIBUTING INC JEFF EVANS INC

C-4 LLC AMF TRANSPORTATION, INC PK ABAY INC S & J YOUNG INC

S & J YOUNG INC

MOJO TRUCKING INC HOOPER TRANSPORT CORP

DMS INC KSP TRANSPORTATION; KSP TRANSPORTATION LLC TIPIANI TRANSPORTATION INC
MMCONNELLY LLC ZACK'S ENTERPRISES INC

MBONGO INC MM CONNELLY, INC

GIO CORP STG DELIVERY, INC
BOUTROS BOUTROS BRAMALL'S LLC EZ STREET DELIVERY INC

SHIPSTERS INC
TEALA WILSON INC
RURAL ALASKA DELIVERY INC JGD INC JBC ENTERPRISES INC OLDMANRIVER INC
CUTLER LOGISTICS CORP

RCK GROUND, INC JSM ENTERPRISES INC
MEACHAM FREIGHT INC TANNER PICKUP & DELIVERY INC EWY FREIGHT, CORP
WM TRANSPORTATION, INC EVEL EMPIRE, INC
RAS DELIVERIES INC

EWY FREIGHT, CORP

SCOTT YOUNG INC MATTS, INC

Page 254 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 262 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15833 158954 THOMAS W SILVESTER 15834 158961 STEPHEN M VANDERHOEVEN 15835 158978 CORY NIELSEN 15836 158985 TODD DEAN CHRISTENSEN 15837 158992 SUSAN NIELSEN 15838 159005 BARRIE LAYTON LINDAHL 15839 159012 JOHN ORTIZ 15840 159029 BRENDA LEE BURKE 15841 159036 CORBY MURRI 15842 159043 JOSEPH SOSA 15843 159050 GERALD ROGER MOBERLEY 15844 159067 LAURIE TRIPP 15845 159074 MICHELE C YUILL 15846 159081 VERN EARLEY 15847 159098 KIM T JONES 15848 159104 STEPHEN BROCK WALKINS 15849 159111 RAFAEL N TAPIA JR
15850 159128 JOSEPH SCOTT BRADSHAW 15851 159135 RAY BARLOW 15852 159142 STEVE ZUFELT 15853 159159 BRENDA JOLLEY 15854 159166 LANCE D REED 15855 159173 DOUGLAS K WILLIAMS 15856 159180 GARY N BOGDEN 15857 159197 BLAKE PAGE 15858 159203 GILL LARSEN 15859 159210 THOMAS PUTNAM 15860 159227 NATHAN SQUIRE MERRILL 15861 159234 KEVIN M ASHBY 15862 159241 DANIEL ROBERTS 15863 159258 JEREMY REID 15864 159265 STUART MILES WOOD 15865 159272 SAMUEL C DUNN
15866 159289 MARK WILLERTON 15867 159296 AMY P PORTER 15868 159302 JACOB GORDON BOZARTH 15869 159319 BRYAN D LOUGY 15870 159326 CHUCK MOL 15871 159333 ROBERT HERMAN SHINN 15872 159340 JAMES R NIELSEN 15873 159357 LONNIE CHRISTENSEN 15874 159364 AARON TRAVIS THORLEY 15875 159371 DANE S STONE 15876 159388 JEREMY JOHNSTON
15877 159395 JOHN STEPHEN DICKENS 15878 159401 GEORGE A PRUITT 15879 159418 CARL F CHRISTENSEN 15880 159425 NATHAN DHULST 15881 159432 MICAH D RIDEOUT 15882 159449 THOMAS GEORGE WARREN 15883 159456 CHAD HICKOK 15884 159463 JAMES G BROWN 15885 159470 BRENT PAUL HANSEN 15886 159487 CHARLES E STODDARD 15887 159494 BENJAMIN SCOTT TESCH 15888 159500 CHRISTOPHER DAVID PETERSON 15889 159517 JONATHAN DARRYL DUNN 15890 159524 TYSON WEAVER 15891 159531 CRISTOBAL OSEGUERA 15892 159548 BARBARA ANN BREINHOLT 15893 159555 JONATHAN KLING 15894 159562 ROBERT STEVEN HINTON

Company Name 1 SILVESTER DISTRIBUTING INC STEPHEN VANDERHOEVEN INC
MIDGE MANAGEMENT
BARRIE INC J&M DELIVERY SERVICES, INC
MURRI DELIVERIES LLC
MLES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

TDC TRANSPORT INC

MURRI DELIVERIES, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SS WALKINS INC TAPIA DELIVERY SERVICE CORPORATION

REED DISTRIBUTING CORP DASH DELIVERY, INC

TONY'S TRUCKS INC

EMPYRE INC NINE STARS INC

NATASA DELIVERY, INC SNI INC DUNN TRANSPORT & DELIVERY LLC

SHARE TRANSPORT, INC
DUNN TRANSPORT & DELIVERY INC

MAD DOG DELIVERIES INC JAKE BOZARTH, INC BRYAN'S SERVICE LLC MOL BROTHERS EXPRESS

MOL EXPRESS, INC

MANX INC
FIRST IN LLC TRIPLE J ENT; TRIPLE J ENTERPRISES

GEORGE A PRUITT INC CFC ENTERPRISES INC
LEVER ZAKEN INC

LEGACY LOGISTICS INC HANSEN DELIVERIES LLC

CASTAWAY COURIER LLC DUNN-RITE FREIGHT INC TW TRANSPORT INC
SWISEW INC

CASTAWAY COURIER , INC

Page 255 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 263 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15895 159579 MICHAEL STEVEN LIDDLE 15896 159586 JASON ANDREW SORENSEN 15897 159593 ARTHUR ROTTINI 15898 159609 MARTIN J INGRAM 15899 159616 JUSTIN GROSS 15900 159623 DAVID H BIDDLE 15901 159630 ROBERT WINN 15902 159647 MERVYN PALETHORPE 15903 159654 EMILY A KELLY 15904 159661 LYNN H MILLERBERG 15905 159678 BYRON PUTNAM 15906 159685 COLBY NELSON 15907 159692 BRENT D WALKER 15908 159708 RICH GREG WEIGHT 15909 159715 JESSE RICORD 15910 159722 ALAN L MELDRUM 15911 159739 MICHAEL JAMES LACHNER JR 15912 159746 JEFFREY ALLEN BURROUGHS
15913 159753 TROY W BLAKE 15914 159760 NATHAN TURLEY 15915 159777 KEN D WALKER 15916 159784 THOMAS TIMOTHY PALFREY 15917 159791 JOHN DAVID JENKINS 15918 159807 THOMAS EVERETT LYLE 15919 159814 JASON ALBERT PAGE 15920 159821 PAUL MCINTIRE 15921 159838 JASON ROBERT SIBLEY 15922 159845 RONALD R PLUMB 15923 159852 ROBERT LINK SR 15924 159869 THOMAS WANYE SNEARLY 15925 159876 SERGIO ROMERO 15926 159883 BRIAN COSSETTE 15927 159890 CURTIS RICHARD MILLER 15928 159906 JOSE RAMON GOMEZ
15929 159913 MATTHEW FISCHER 15930 159920 WILLIAM WEIDEMAN 15931 159937 WILLIAM F FISHER 15932 159944 TERRY M MCCLANAHAN 15933 159951 RICHARD ALLEN BAROZZI 15934 159968 JUSTIN LEE 15935 159975 JOSE LUIS HERRERA 15936 159982 JOSEPH ANTHONY RICCI 15937 159999 BOYCE T MILLER
15938 160001 LAUREN L PUEPKE 15939 160018 MICHAEL ROBERTSON 15940 160025 VAN L OLSEN 15941 160032 DENNIS EVANS 15942 160049 GEARY T SCULLY 15943 160056 SHAUN GREGORY CASON
15944 160063 REBECCA LOU IVERSON
15945 160070 THOMAS BAEZ 15946 160087 DOUGLAS BENNETT 15947 160094 DAVID DEWITT SMITH 15948 160100 MICHAEL QUINTANA 15949 160117 DAVID L TOLOTTI 15950 160124 KENNETH R TURKLESON 15951 160131 ERIC A BROOKE 15952 160148 RALPH T FRANCO 15953 160155 MICHAEL PHILLIPS

Company Name 1 MJI FXG WINNCO INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RICHIE RICH EXPRESS, INC RICORD CORP
BURROUGHS INC BLAKE EXPRESS INC
T & D HD EXPRESS, INC 1T & 3J'S INCORPORATED TOM LYLE JR INC

BURROUGHS TRANSPORTATION INC
KWAW ENTERPRISE LLC KWAW LOGISTICS INC

BB AND SONS INC GROUND FREIGHT, INC NEVADA'S FINEST INC SIERRA FREIGHT INC CURTIS MILLER, INC D & D SERVICES OF NEVADA INC; D&D SERVICES OF NEVADA INC FISCHER FREIGHT LLC
WESTSIDE DELIVERY INC

RUNNING PRONGHORN SERVICES INC; RUNNING PRONGHORN SVCS INC
ROBERTSON DISTRIBUTIONS INC
ARTIO INC TRAILER RELOCATION SERVICES, INC TRADEWINDS CARGO INVESTORS, INC

TURKLESON INC CHUKAR COUNTRY EXPRESS
M-P EXPRESS LLC

Page 256 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 264 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 15954 160162 RUSSEL C YORK 15955 160179 RENEE J DICUS 15956 160186 DANIEL CHARLES LOWE 15957 160193 MARY CLARKSON 15958 160209 BRENDA TAYLOR CHASE 15959 160216 NELSON DAVID LOPEZ 15960 160223 DAVID MARR 15961 160230 STEWART HANDTE 15962 160247 TRACEE SHEREE BLAKE 15963 160254 DON TURNER 15964 160261 KATHY CARKHUFF 15965 160278 RYAN LEAVITT 15966 160285 KEITH COMPHEL 15967 160292 LUIS GOMEZ 15968 160308 TREVOR WELLS 15969 160315 KENNETH MICHAEL TAYLOR 15970 160322 DAVID NIELSON
15971 160339 DAVID RICHARD WYNIA 15972 160346 TANDY DELMORE 15973 160353 BENJAMIN JAMES MADDOX 15974 160360 JOSHUA G MCGOWAN 15975 160377 SCOTT BURGESS 15976 160384 ZACHARIAH LEE MARTIN 15977 160391 ALAN BURTON 15978 160407 JASON LEE GARDNER 15979 160414 TIMOTHY HUN JUNG 15980 160421 WILFREDO LACSAMANA SIAO 15981 160438 BLAS DE CALIVA 15982 160445 MANIK DUTTA 15983 160452 SUSHIL KUMAR 15984 160469 ALAN SELSTEAD 15985 160476 GORDON BRIGGS 15986 160483 WEI PAN 15987 160490 MICHAEL CLEN MOYER 15988 160506 BRIAN D ANDERSON 15989 160513 RICHARD L NEWMAN 15990 160520 ANTONIO SANDOVAL 15991 160537 KEN GADBERRY 15992 160544 ROBERT WILLIAM KLEIN 15993 160551 FLOYD I PAGARIGAN 15994 160568 ELEANOR VAUGHN 15995 160575 BRUCE A GENTRY 15996 160582 PHILIP L WATNESS 15997 160599 JACK ZINDA 15998 160605 STEVEN LEE PECKHAM 15999 160612 MATTHEW DEMPSEY 16000 160629 CARL WILLIAM HALL 16001 160636 JEFFERY SCOTT EASTERLY 16002 160643 MICHAEL RAY NIELSON 16003 160650 DAVID KROGSTADT 16004 160667 JOHN JAMES HOLZHEIMER 16005 160674 WOLFGANG J ROBERSON 16006 160681 JOSH BYRD 16007 160698 SHERRI FEENEY 16008 160704 STEVEN HARDIE 16009 160711 JOSEPH D BERTSCH 16010 160735 KIRK HUSE 16011 160742 RONALD D MILLER JR 16012 160759 CHRIS LIDDICK 16013 160766 BRIAN DURAN 16014 160773 SARA BANG 16015 160780 ERNEST KNOEB 16016 160797 JERRY ZAN 16017 160803 VINCENT GUERRERO

Company Name 1 RHYSMAN INC FREIGHT ETC LLC

Company Name 2 FREIGHT ETC

LADYBUGS TRUCKING LLC
THE ARTHUR GROUP, INC
T-N-T LOGISTICS INCORPORATED CAT-MAN DELIVERY SERVICES LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

LNG LOGISTICS PARTNERS LLC

LNG LOGISTICS INC

AWCOMMON CO OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

DESERT STAR DISTRIBUTING INC

KC2 CORPORATION

ANDERSON NORTHERN EDGE, INC

VERTICAL INC KENBOGAD TRUCKING INC R AND R KLEIN INCORPORATED G P MAINTENANCE CORP

TRANS TRUX INC

JR LYLE CORPORATION

DREAMS IN MOTION INCORPORATED

A F G ENTERPRISES

TRADEMARK INDUSTRIES LLC

JSA INCORPORATED

ICE HARBOR ENTERPRISES INC IT'S KOY-GIS INC STUMP INCORPORATED MAX TRUCKING INC RIVERFRONT LIMITED INC
BARBEE INC

Page 257 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 265 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16018 160810 LARRY GONZALES 16019 160827 RATUDRAU LEOTA VULAONO 16020 160834 RANDY ANFINSON 16021 160841 EARL NEFF 16022 160858 RICHARD SKAMSER 16023 160865 DEBBIE KULM 16024 160872 DAVID PEREZ 16025 160889 JOHN ALBRECHT 16026 160896 MELVIN SHERMAN 16027 160902 TODD J GAMACHE 16028 160919 SCOTT L WILLIAMS 16029 160926 LARRY RUSSELL WILLIAMS 16030 160933 DARRIN JAMES OPDYCKE 16031 160940 NATE FULLER 16032 160957 TRAVIS WEATHERBY 16033 160964 ADAM JUNE 16034 160971 DEAN BLAKESLEE 16035 160988 LESLIE A DAY 16036 160995 ARLO IRBY 16037 161008 JOHN BEHM 16038 161015 JAMES ALAN BURGE 16039 161022 LYLE LUDEMAN 16040 161039 DARRYL BAKER 16041 161046 ERIC MYERS 16042 161053 BRENT CHRISTOPHER LARSEN 16043 161060 JOSE CASTRO 16044 161077 WILLIAM M MASSEY 16045 161084 JAMES T ROLL 16046 161091 LEO NAOJA BACLAY 16047 161107 MICHAEL HARRISON 16048 161114 DEWAYNE CRATER 16049 161121 JOHN MOYO 16050 161138 BYRON SKINNER 16051 161145 MARK L RICHER 16052 161152 GARY DALE HUTCHCRAFT 16053 161169 BERTRAM G BACLAY 16054 161176 STEVE BOWEN 16055 161183 MICHAEL SHARDELMAN 16056 161190 PAUL HENRY OBRIEN 16057 161206 MARK EDWARD MCCOY 16058 161213 JAMES WALSTON 16059 161220 ROBERT J MATNEY 16060 161237 BRAD BUTLER 16061 161244 BRET BANGS 16062 161251 LOUIS DELROSSO 16063 161268 ANNELLE IRENE ABERNETHY
16064 161275 BRUCE E MOREY 16065 161282 JEFF SCHUMACHER 16066 161299 JON BRASHEAR
16067 161305 HAROLD AKERS 16068 161312 KERRY OSBORNE 16069 161329 EDWIN ROGER ELLIOTT JR 16070 161336 PAULA L HUTSON 16071 161343 ROBERT A FREEMAN 16072 161350 KEVIN ONEIL LOVELL 16073 161367 CATHERINE D HANNAH 16074 161374 CLINT REED 16075 161381 DAVID KERNDT 16076 161398 JERRY KUAN 16077 161404 SHAWN TREVOR BRANTINGHAM 16078 161411 PAUL LLOYD WALLER

Company Name 1
VULAONO CORPORATION RJCD ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

K&J DELIVERIES INC HOSS, INC TODD GAMACHE INC HUCKADAISY LLC
RAE ENTERPRISES, INC
JELO BLAKESLEE, INC

ALPINE ALLEY RATS, INC

BURGE ENTERPRISES, INC LUTZ AND LUDEMAN INC FAST & FRIENDLY DELIVERY INC LEADERSHIP LLC

LDRSHIP LLC

JIM ROLL INC UNIWIDE LLC HARRISOHN INC CRATER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
MARK RICHER INC HUTCHS HAULING CORPORATION

PAUL O'BRIEN INC MCCOY ENTERPRISES INC
MRJ ENTERPRISES INC

C A L SERVICES INC SOUTH KING COUNTY TRANSPORT INC

BRASHEAR ENTERPRISES INC; SCI BRASHEAR ENTERPRISES SCI DELIVERY

DELIVERY SERVICES CORPORATION INC

SERVICES

CORPORATION

MOBILE MAIL INC

ARVINO, INC

CR REED ENTERPRISES KERNDT ENTERPRISES INC

WALLER'S PACKAGE SERVICE INC; WALLERS PACKAGE SERVICE INC

Page 258 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 266 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16079 161428 JOSHUA SCOTT LINHOFF 16080 161435 HEATHER JEAN POTTER 16081 161442 SCOTT SORENSEN 16082 161459 WILLIAM WILLIS 16083 161466 RUSSELL FELTON 16084 161473 WILLIAM J SCHNEIDER 16085 161480 JON EDWIN TIMMER 16086 161497 JAMES DAVIDSON 16087 161503 BRADLY WILSON HARLAN 16088 161510 PETER MICHAEL GRAHAM 16089 161527 CHAD COSSETTE 16090 161534 STEPHEN CHARLES KIELE II 16091 161541 CARL BROWN 16092 161558 HENRY PAUL 16093 161565 JAMES STEVEN SPENCER 16094 161572 LOREN BREDIN MODESITT 16095 161589 SERGEY KEPTYA 16096 161596 MUHAMMAD KHALID NAZIR 16097 161602 GERALD BENECKE 16098 161619 CHARLES EDWARD RUNNING 16099 161626 PETER PRIGGE 16100 161633 THOMAS YOSHIGORO YAMADA 16101 161640 WILLIAM A BADGLEY 16102 161657 DAVID VICTOR ELLISON 16103 161664 CHRISTOPHER M PASQUINI 16104 161671 TIMOTHY CATLETT 16105 161688 MICHAEL DONNELLY 16106 161695 DANELL DAWN OBRIST 16107 161701 JASON WILLIAMS 16108 161718 SCOTT MEGLEMRE 16109 161725 JAMES K HART 16110 161732 ALEJANDRO DELGADO 16111 161749 JONATHON CALEB BYRD 16112 161756 BUENAVENUTURA ANSELMO 16113 161763 KYLE ANDREW KUHNAU 16114 161770 JASON BRENT STARKS 16115 161787 SCOTT HOLLAR 16116 161794 ALAN WALDER 16117 161800 GLORIA A PINEDA 16118 161817 TOM OSINSKI 16119 161824 URIEL BALLEN 16120 161831 PETER LOEWEN 16121 161848 BENJAMIN GOICOCHEA 16122 161855 CARRIE JO BERGGREN 16123 161862 RICK HAYS 16124 161879 KIMBERLY SPELL 16125 161886 JOHN LARSON 16126 161893 ARIEL SHEVAT 16127 161909 CHERYL R REILLY
16128 161916 DUANE ORDWAY 16129 161923 SUZETT SOLHEIM 16130 161930 RON HACKER 16131 161947 GREGORY H ESPINOZA 16132 161954 TODD J ALLDRIDGE 16133 161961 BRYAN S RODGERS 16134 161978 ROLANDO BROWN 16135 161985 DAVID EVERETT SHULER 16136 161992 EDWARD ROBINSON 16137 162005 DAN CHRISTOFFER 16138 162012 JEFF RHOADS 16139 162029 CRAIG WILLIAM RIPLEY 16140 162036 CLARENCE DERIGE PASCUA 16141 162043 JOHN DILLON

Company Name 1 KML DELIVERIES, INC HARPO-EX LLC

Company Name 2 POTTER-EX INC

DOUBLE BROW INC B HARLAN ENTERPRISES, INC
KIELE II, INC DARCA INC TRANS-AV LTD SEEJEXPRES CORPORATION
WWW LLC TKC INC
ELLISON ENTERPRISES, INC FULL THROTTLE DELIVERY INC JFC, L L C DONNELLY'S TRUCKING CO INC

WWW INC JFC LLC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JTFC CORP

BYRD INC

BYRD ENTERPRISE LLC

SCOHO COMPANY INC BLESSINGS ON WHEELS INC S&T DISTRIBUTING INC NIGHT TRAIN INC CJB DELIVERY INC R M H INC SPELL ENTERPRISES INC
CHERYL R REILLY P&D LLC TUCKER'S TRUCKER, INC S & R FREEDOM CORP HACK'S DELIVERY INC
BSR INCORPORATED POULSBO TRUCK DELIVERY INC
ROADSTER INC
DILLON DISTRIBUTION INC

CHERYL R REILLY ENTERPRISES INC S & R FREEDOM CORP
JLT DISTRIBUTION INC

Page 259 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 267 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16142 162050 DEMETRIUS ANTONIO STEWART
16143 162067 SUZETTE KELLEHER 16144 162074 ALAN MCCLEESE 16145 162081 HECTOR ENRIQUE RAMOS 16146 162098 NICHOLAS EDUARD PRETS 16147 162104 DAVID N ANDREWS 16148 162111 WILLIAM GEOFFREY HEYNEN 16149 162128 JEFFREY D FELZER 16150 162135 RICHARD SICKLES 16151 162142 JOHN A BULL 16152 162159 KEITH RAMISTELLA 16153 162166 IGNACIO PEREZ II 16154 162173 ROBERT MICHAEL CARL 16155 162180 MOHAMMED W DAOUD 16156 162197 WAI TAT LUK 16157 162203 LUIS INDABURO 16158 162210 THOMAS VERGEYLE 16159 162227 JERRY A BRAXTON 16160 162234 ANTHONY M DERUSSO 16161 162241 ALVER PARTRIDGE 16162 162258 JOSEPH ROSE 16163 162265 CARY A LOGSDON 16164 162272 CLINTON E HUFF 16165 162289 RICK MOE 16166 162296 ADAM HIMES 16167 162302 JEFFERY F ADAMS 16168 162319 GREGORY DUNN 16169 162326 LEZLEE JANINE HENTGES 16170 162333 TIMOTHY WADE SCHERER 16171 162340 ROGER MATTHEWS 16172 162357 JAMES DEMPSEY 16173 162364 KENNETH BIRCH 16174 162371 SHARLEEN R YUHL 16175 162388 MICHAEL BURKHART 16176 162395 JEFF MARKHOLT 16177 162401 TUAN CHAU 16178 162418 THOMAS BRINO 16179 162425 SEAN MYHRE 16180 162432 CLIFF GEISER 16181 162449 DOUG LONDON
16182 162456 BRANDON MAGINNIS 16183 162463 ERIC FRICKLE 16184 162470 FRANK ZANGANEH 16185 162487 BRIAN HONG-CHEUNG KEE 16186 162494 LARRY HAYES 16187 162500 JOHN JUSTIN ZINDT 16188 162517 ANDREW TODD YORKE 16189 162524 FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ 16190 162531 SIGIFREDO VACA 16191 162548 ADIEL B BURGOS 16192 162555 SHACKAR DANIEL LEVY 16193 162562 STEVEN MONROE 16194 162579 BRIAN WESLEY SMITH 16195 162586 MICHAEL WHEELER 16196 162593 THIEN B LY 16197 162609 IVAN J MURAT 16198 162616 DOUGLAS A TREDO 16199 162623 MICHAEL DYER 16200 162630 ROGER BUITRAGO 16201 162647 ANDRE ORRETT WRIGHT 16202 162654 DONALD B GONZALEZ 16203 162661 CORNEL LEONID CUPCEANU

Company Name 1 FOCUS LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

MAXUM DISTRIBUTION, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

NEPCO INC
WEDGEWOOD DELIVERY, INC GROUND FORCE LLC

GROUND FORCE INC

IEP, INC TWO GREY FOXES LLC HIPPO WORKS INC
GAMUTT INC ADR DISTRIBUTORS INCORPORATED SPEEDY DELIVERY INC
HUFF TRUCKING, INC

GROUND SERVICE DELIVERY, INC HENTGES PRODUCTION LLC TWS ENTERPRISES, INC

PACKAGE EXPRESS
HAELHART, INCORPORATED MACH I DISTRIBUTING INC TC NORTHWEST DELIVERY INC TBJ ENTERPRISES INC SCHEDEPH INC CLIFF GEISER TRANSPORT INC RIVER CITY SALES INC

TWIN RIVERS ENTERPRISES INC

ARIANA DELIVERY SERVICES INC
2LS4G CORP JJZ DELIVERY, INC BOX MONKEY DISTRIBUTION INC
SLVBUCKY, INC AB77 INC FREIGHT ON THE GO INC

T L ENTERPRISES INC
DYER DELIVERIES INC ROANJE CORP PINNACLE TRANSPORTATION DIRTY DON'S INC JCC DELIVERY INC

TBL ENTERPRISES LLC DYER DELIVERIES INC

Page 260 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 268 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16204 162678 JOHN DELBOSQUE
16205 162685 DAVID ALLEN STAINER 16206 162692 JOHN CALDWELL 16207 162708 CURTIS HUSTVEDT 16208 162715 PETER CARPENTER 16209 162722 ROBERT L HINDS
16210 162739 BRIAN ERIC HARRIS 16211 162746 GREG KIMBLE 16212 162753 MARK NELSON 16213 162760 CELESTINE OGBEBOR 16214 162777 SCOTT ALAN SCRIVNER 16215 162784 CLAYTON T MILLER 16216 162791 TROY GATES 16217 162807 BRIAN RICHARD HERTZOG 16218 162814 RICHARD M GALLAWAY 16219 162821 MONTGOMERY T ALLEN 16220 162838 JON HECKMAN 16221 162845 STEPHEN DAVID ROBERTS 16222 162852 ERIC OCHOA 16223 162869 KATIE L NASIN 16224 162876 SCOTT G MEHAN 16225 162883 DUSTIN FRANZ 16226 162890 DUYET QUOC TRINH
16227 162906 UNCHOL YU 16228 162913 OUSMANE DIALLO 16229 162920 ANTONIO RUVALCABA 16230 162937 BRADLEY PRIOR 16231 162944 MIKE P WATTS
16232 162951 NEDZAD MULAHUSEJNOVIC 16233 162968 GLEN COINER 16234 162975 MARTIN SALVADOR SANDOVAL 16235 162982 SLAWOMIR JERZY ZARZYCKI JR 16236 162999 LILIAN SOCHIRCA 16237 163002 JAMES KIRCHGESSNER 16238 163019 MONTY EVANS 16239 163026 MARNIE NIECE DUPRUIS 16240 163033 CY BOYER 16241 163040 DEBRA LYNN FLEMING 16242 163057 GEOFF GORMAN 16243 163064 KRIS OVALL 16244 163071 STEVE SIMON 16245 163088 CARLA CRAWFORD 16246 163095 MICHAEL J MORENO 16247 163101 SHELDON EYERLY 16248 163118 STEVE M ZIEMBA 16249 163125 VUE LEE 16250 163132 RICHARD O STACY 16251 163149 PAUL ALBERT GIBSON 16252 163156 KYLE MELINKOVICH 16253 163163 MICHAEL BRACKEN 16254 163170 JASON HEMMIG 16255 163187 TONY HOUSTON 16256 163194 CHASE HARRINGTON 16257 163200 DAVID LLOYD WATTERS
16258 163217 YASSINE KABBAJ 16259 163224 BRIAN SCOTT 16260 163231 THAD HOLTZ 16261 163248 WILBERT E DUDLEY 16262 163255 MICHAEL KIRWAN 16263 163262 JEFF HEATON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

DELBOSQUE DELIVERY SERVICES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GUNGA INC 3 KS SERVICES INC RR GROUND SYSTEMS LLC; RR GROUND SYSTEMS, LLC INVICTUS TRANSPORTATION INC

RR GROUND HOME, INC

ERIC M OCHOA INC
DKFX INC TRINHS BROTHERS DISTRIBUTION INC H & J TRUCKING CORPORATION
M&M ENTERPRISES INC; MANDM ENTERPRISES INC CAPTIOL CITY HOME DELIVERY LLC
KEWILL DELIVERY SERVICE INC WEST SIDE DELIVERY SERVICES INC
G3 DELIVERY, INC

STACY-N-STACY INC

JAH ENTERPRISES, INC
CHASE DELIVERIES INC DAVID L WATTERS INC

P & D EXPRESS SOLUTIONS LLC

IT'S IN THE BOX LOGISTICS, INC HEATON INC

DLW DELIVERY, INC

Page 261 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 269 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16264 163279 BRANDON ALAN ONO
16265 163286 MARNI MCVAYHUTCHINGS 16266 163293 ALIJON T KHADJAEV 16267 163309 YOUNG SEOK CHOE 16268 163316 BJARNI EYJOLFUR OLGEIRSSON 16269 163323 BENJAMIN PAUL CAZIER 16270 163330 PEGGY OARD 16271 163347 ALETHA CLINE 16272 163354 THOMAS DRAPER 16273 163361 MICHAEL DAVID COLE 16274 163378 PAUL SAWTELLE 16275 163385 DAVID PARISH 16276 163392 ROBIN A GRIFFIN
16277 163408 CECIL E WHIPPLE 16278 163415 TERRY KIRKPATRICK 16279 163422 TRACY G SHARP
16280 163439 ROB BERG 16281 163446 RICHARD WESLEY BUTLER 16282 163453 DONALD LARSEN 16283 163477 BRIAN T FOSTER 16284 163484 BRIAN LEE OLSON 16285 163491 NANCY MONDARES 16286 163507 TIMOTHY VOGT 16287 163514 DONALD BYRUM 16288 163521 KARL ALLEN RICHARDS 16289 163538 ROY RUDER 16290 163545 PAUL INMAN 16291 163552 AARON M DREHER 16292 163569 DONALD STAUFFER 16293 163576 ROBERT TIERNEY 16294 163583 MARK MACFARLANE 16295 163590 TOM LLEELLYN 16296 163606 BRYANT BEAULIEU 16297 163613 JON MURRAY 16298 163620 JAMES D CONNOR 16299 163637 WILLIAM MORIN 16300 163644 STEVEN RAUTIO 16301 163651 DALE LEWIS 16302 163668 REBECCA PAULI 16303 163675 BRAD STVEN HULL 16304 163682 NAVINDRA RAMNARINE 16305 163699 DEE TODD STONE 16306 163705 DAVID J HILL 16307 163712 PAUL ROCKEY 16308 163729 CRAIG DAIGLE 16309 163736 HAMID SIDDIQUI 16310 163743 ERON R GIUFFRIDA 16311 163750 KEITH WILLIAM SMITH 16312 163767 KEN FRANK 16313 163774 GREG HIGDON 16314 163781 ROBERT MYERS 16315 163798 JOHN BRIGGS 16316 163804 BRIAN BECK 16317 163811 GREG A FRANCESCON 16318 163828 JOSHUA LEWIS 16319 163835 JEFFREY ALAN JOHNSON 16320 163842 SAMUEL REEVES 16321 163859 LEONARD REKES 16322 163866 RORY SCHAAFSMA 16323 163873 JAMES MCGOWNE 16324 163880 ELMANTAS JAZOKAS 16325 163897 BETRAM CARMICHEL

Company Name 1 ONO ENTERPRISES LLC
BJ TRANSIT INC

Company Name 2 ONO ASSOCIATES INC

Company Name 3 RIVERFRONT LIMITED INC

Company Name 4

Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CORBENIC P&D INC FULL SPEED TRANSPORT INC R A G S, A GRIFFIN-KALIVAS COMPANY
HUNTING 4 U DELIVERIES CORPORATION BUTLER DELIVERIES INC FOSTER DISTRIBUTION SRVC BRIAN L OLSON, INC
BOX JOCKEY INC RUDER INC J P INMAN INC; JP INMAN INC CASCADE SHIPPING INC
JML SERVICES INC CONNOR & CONNOR INC PDQ DELIVERY INC
HULL ENTERPRISES INC

KDUB UNLIMITED INC

BECK FREIGHT LLC FRONTIER DISTRIBUTION INC

BRIAN BECK INC

SCHAAFSMA DELIVERY, INC J C MCG INCORPORATED

Page 262 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 270 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16326 163903 CHRIS RICHTER 16327 163910 ALEXIS RODRIGUEZ 16328 163927 WILLIAM HIDALGO 16329 163934 SHAWN ALAN DAVIDSON 16330 163941 RICHARD GROSS 16331 163958 JERRY YOST 16332 163965 NEIL CRAIG 16333 163972 RICHARD HONAKER 16334 163989 DOUGLAS JOHN MACNAB
16335 163996 GLENN LAWRENCE LEONNIG 16336 164009 JEROME SWEENEY 16337 164016 SAMUEL GLASS 16338 164023 ROBERT D JENSEN 16339 164030 JEFFERY ALAN NOBLE 16340 164047 ALAN LANDON 16341 164054 PATRICK M BALBI 16342 164061 PATRICIA PARKER 16343 164078 BARBARA BAILEY 16344 164085 TONY RIDINGER 16345 164092 STEVEN JAMES 16346 164108 STEVEN L JAMES 16347 164115 DAVID E BROWN 16348 164122 BRIAN GERALD SWITZER 16349 164139 GREG JOSEPH
16350 164146 KENNETH W CHRUSOSKIE 16351 164153 BRADY KAUTZ 16352 164160 PATRICK CHORUBY
16353 164177 KARL PETIT 16354 164184 LY NONE XIONG 16355 164191 JOSH JAMES EIFFERT 16356 164207 YANG XIONG 16357 164214 JEFF ESTCOURT
16358 164221 STEPHEN LOUIS VEST 16359 164238 ANDREW WAYNE ADAMS 16360 164245 ERIK EDWARD EHRLER 16361 164252 TRENT STEWART 16362 164269 DUSTIN MINER 16363 164276 RODERICK LARIOS 16364 164283 ANDREW JONATHAN OGDEN 16365 164290 BRYAN DEAN BROWN 16366 164306 NATHANIEL KNIGHT 16367 164313 MARK ZACH WILLIAMS 16368 164320 DON FOSTER 16369 164337 GAIL HAWKINS 16370 164344 MARK MCNEALY 16371 164368 JAMES WRIGHT 16372 164375 KENNETH MCCULLOUGH
16373 164382 JANET LEWIS 16374 164399 MICHAEL WEIBER 16375 164405 DAROLD NORRIS BERUBE 16376 164412 JAMES A EDWARDS 16377 164429 DUANE THEODORE MCKENNA 16378 164436 CARRIE LYNN DIX 16379 164443 BILL SHORB 16380 164450 DAVID CORDELL 16381 164467 STEPHEN BOCHSLER 16382 164474 KEITH D FERGUSON 16383 164481 ROBERT LEE DENTON 16384 164498 LADAWNA MARIE SIMONSON 16385 164504 TIMOTHY ONEAL

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SUNS UP DELIVERY INC

MACNAB PARCEL SERVICES LLC
GLENMAC; GLENMAC CARTAGE INC RYGAN INC

MACNAB PARCEL SERVICES INC

TRONDER CORPORATION NOBLE TRANSPORT INC

IMPERIAL TRANSPORT INC

COAST INC

JAMES DELIVERY LLC

3MC SERVICES, INC NORTH COAST TRANS INC; NORTH COAST TRANSPORTATION INC

PATRICK S CHORUBY INCORPORATED

A & O ASSOCIATES INC

ESTCOURT EXPRESS CONTRACTORS,

INC

2 VESTS INC

XLR8 INC

TRIPLE E LLC

TRIPLE EEE INC

IRON HORSE CONTRACTING INC
SARGHUM ENTERPRISES MCNEALY ENTERPRISES INC
KAM DIST INC
FRONTIER DELIVERY INC INTREPID TRANSPORT
EDWARDS TRUCKING INC MCKENNA DELIVERY INC

4K DELIVERY INC FRONTIER DELIVERY

KENNS P&D SERVICE INC

BOCHSLER TRANSPORT INC
UNION-WALLOWA FLEIGHT INC INFLYT INC J L O, INC; JLO INC

RHD ENTERPRISES INC TRANS TRUX INC

PIRATE TRUCKING, INC TRANS-AV LTD

Page 263 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 271 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16386 164511 TORIANO PHILLIPS 16387 164528 FRANK DAVIS 16388 164535 A SHANE ABERCROMBIE 16389 164542 JEFFREY ARKENAU 16390 164559 CHARLES TIGGLE SR 16391 164566 KATHY L STEPHENS 16392 164573 BRUCE A KORMAN 16393 164580 CHRISTOPHER LONG
16394 164597 MICHAEL CHARLES TOLL 16395 164603 JONATHAN LEIGHTER 16396 164610 RODNEY JONES 16397 164627 LORI ANN ROSS 16398 164634 BRADLEY SCOTT SMITH 16399 164641 LUE LAO 16400 164658 VICTOR MATOUSH 16401 164665 JACQUELINE FAYE SORRELLS 16402 164672 MICHAEL PLUMMER 16403 164689 MARTIN DARRELL HENDERSON 16404 164696 WILLIAM NORRIS 16405 164702 KENNETH HERNDON 16406 164719 ALAN SMITH 16407 164726 RUSSEL WRIGHT 16408 164733 TIMOTHY P HEWITT 16409 164740 CURTIS ESTES 16410 164757 OWEN COX 16411 164764 STEPHEN MEYER LANTING 16412 164771 BRIAN BAILEY 16413 164788 TY PRESTON GRANADOS 16414 164795 KIMBERLY L WIKTORSKI 16415 164801 JEFF CATO 16416 164818 JEREMY BRINKER 16417 164825 EDISON BONIFAZ 16418 164849 JOHN L STOCKDALE 16419 164856 JOHN TAGGART 16420 164863 SHISHNIASHVLI SIMON 16421 164870 RICK HOBSON 16422 164887 WILLIAM R YOUNG 16423 164894 DIANE MOULSEY 16424 164900 GILBERT IVERSON 16425 164917 TERRY STEPHENS 16426 164924 RANDAL HART 16427 164931 JIM MITCHELL 16428 164948 KURT I SHINN 16429 164955 JOHN BURKE 16430 164962 RON GLIBERT SMITH 16431 164979 JAMES MERCADO 16432 164986 PATRICK DAVID HALSTEAD 16433 164993 JEFF ENGLISH 16434 165006 JERROD SOLOMON HOOK 16435 165013 DENNIS WAYNE REID 16436 165020 JASON LOWERY 16437 165037 PHILLIP BJARNSON 16438 165044 RICHARD T ROGERS 16439 165051 MICHAEL G TAYLOR
16440 165068 JOHN SCHILLER 16441 165075 JASON ALLAN ARBOGAST 16442 165082 JEFFREY JOHN FISHER 16443 165099 ROCKY YANG 16444 165105 JACOB PATRICK GOLD 16445 165112 CHRISTOPHER S FLEMING 16446 165129 LAO XIONG 16447 165136 YUDIE THIO 16448 165143 RICKI BAKER

Company Name 1
DAVIS CARTAGE INC ABERCROMBIE ENTERPRISES INC JEFFREY ARKENAU INC TIGGLE TRUCKING

Company Name 2

C & R INDEPENDENT CONTRACTING MCT ENTERPRISES

C & R INDEPENDENT CONTRACTING, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PACK HORSE INCORPORATED

R & J DELIVERIES INC TWIN TRANSPORT INC TWIN TRANSPORT INC
MIRACLE TRANSPORT SYSTEMS INC STILL WATERS ENTERPRISES LLC ORC INC

JAT TRUCKING

BRINKER LOGISTIKOS LLC EB DELIVERY LOFLIER TRANSPORTATION JOHN HUMPHREY TAGGART INC

W R YOUNG INC KALEINANI EXPRESS, INC NW MICRO TECHNICS INC

NW TRANSPACK INC

JACS TRUCKING DJ FREIGHT, INC

BJARNSON DELIVERY SERVICE, INC ROGERS N W ENTERPRISES INC A M DELIVERIES
JT SERVICES INC JAARBO LLC JCR INC

A M DELIVERIES OF OREGON INC
MOVING TARGET INC

PDX LOGISTICS, INC COASTAL COURIER, INC

Page 264 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 272 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16449 165150 LISA SHERER 16450 165167 ANDREW DEAN COLE 16451 165174 JUSTIN DOUGLAS JONES 16452 165181 BRENT A HERREN 16453 165198 ELLIOT MICHAEL NEUHARTH 16454 165204 ANIL BHAN 16455 165211 TIMOTHY MARK HENDRICKS 16456 165228 MIKAEL BENSON 16457 165235 JAMES OLNEY 16458 165242 CLIFFORD MICHAEL 16459 165259 WILLIAM JONES 16460 165266 JIM O KARREN 16461 165273 NICOLAE DAMASCHIN 16462 165280 RICARD SMITH 16463 165297 PATRICK LAMBERT 16464 165303 STEVEN SMITH 16465 165310 JAMES WASHBURN 16466 165327 MARTY HAASE 16467 165334 CHRIS COWLING 16468 165341 STEVEN WOOLERY 16469 165358 STEVE MAREK 16470 165365 PERRY STJOHN 16471 165372 LARRIE PORTER 16472 165389 DARREN WILKINS
16473 165396 KENNETH NELSON
16474 165402 RICK THURMAN 16475 165419 KURTIS L HARRIS 16476 165426 DARRELL CRAPSER 16477 165433 BARBARA THOENSEN 16478 165440 MICHAEL COOK 16479 165457 BYRON R HOOD 16480 165464 MARVIN CHRISTY 16481 165471 DEAN MOORE 16482 165488 BRUCE STERMER 16483 165495 JOHN GAILEY 16484 165501 JAMES WURZELL 16485 165518 RHONDA K PIERSON 16486 165525 JOE WATSON 16487 165532 DUSTIN LEE JURGENSON
16488 165549 TRAVIS ANDREW PIPKINS 16489 165556 BETTY KENT 16490 165563 STEVE BOLFIK 16491 165570 CHRISTOPHER CORDOVA 16492 165587 NICK ROBERT NICHOLS
16493 165594 KEVIN SMITH 16494 165600 BRYAN SMITH 16495 165617 CHRISTOPHER STEVEN GALLOWAY 16496 165624 MITCHELL W KLOTH 16497 165631 RIAN GILLIS KELSAY 16498 165648 IAN DAVID KING 16499 165655 ANTHONY OGILVIE 16500 165662 LEVI GREGORY MICKLE
16501 165679 KEVIN FREY 16502 165686 BRIAN SCOTT SPURR 16503 165693 RYAN ASHCRAFT 16504 165709 JOSE M OVIEDO 16505 165716 GREGORY C STOMIEROSKY 16506 165723 ALFONSO DELOSRIOS 16507 165730 DOUGLAS ALFREDO CORNEJO 16508 165747 CRAIG ALAN JENSEN

Company Name 1 LSS DELIVERY INC JEHU'S LOGISTICS CORP
NEUHARTH INC
TIMMAH'S TRUCKIN SERVICE INC NAAM INC
B-N-C ENTERPRISES LLC NW DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2 BEC-N-CASE INC

WGL INC

COWLING INC

WENSCO INC ST JOHN ENTERPRISES INC STERLING INT'L INVESTMENT CORP ZELIG LOGISTICS INC; ZELIG LOGISTICS, INC KENIKAT INC

WOLF PACK ENTERPRISES, INC

HARRWHIT INC

GROUNDGIRL INC CMK DELIVERIES ROCKIN ROYS ALMEGA DISTRIBUTING INC

STERMER ENTERPRISES INC

MOTA INC WATSON EXPRESS INC JURGEN AND SONS TRANSPORTATION, INC PIPKINS DELIVERY INC

HONEY FROM THE ROCK LLC PACIFIC DELIVERY LLC
KDS DELIVERIES INC

TRANSPACK INCORPORATED

ADENOCO LLC KING COURIER COMPANY
MICKLE ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED SYDBO ENTERPRISES INC
ASHCRAFT INC
STOMI, INC EL DORADO TRANSPORTATION INC
JEN-EX INC

ADENOCORP, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 265 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 273 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16509 165754 STEPHEN PAUL JAHN 16510 165761 DANIEL J RABIDEAU 16511 165778 DEAN CERNICK 16512 165785 ALLEN BRONSON 16513 165792 ERVIN D GEHRKE 16514 165808 BROCK NEAL OLSON 16515 165815 TIMOTHY MEINHART 16516 165822 DAVID RINGERING 16517 165839 DAVID DEMOSS 16518 165846 BRETT A DAVIS
16519 165853 DAVID GERARD SCHUMACHER 16520 165860 BRETT GRAY 16521 165877 RAYMOND GREEN 16522 165884 PATRICK CHARLES COMER 16523 165891 RANDAL ALLEN 16524 165907 MICHAEL DEAN DORSEY 16525 165914 MIKE MCKENZIE 16526 165921 LESLIE H LANGSTON 16527 165938 BRUCE CAMPBELL ROBINSON 16528 165945 BRYAN WILSON 16529 165952 PETER GRIGORIEFF 16530 165969 HERBERT LEROY HALL JR 16531 165976 TIMOTHY PULLEN
16532 165983 JEFF DENKER 16533 165990 TODD DIXON 16534 166003 JORGE ORTEGA 16535 166010 JOHN HUNTLEY 16536 166027 MICHAEL E JACKSON 16537 166034 MARTIN C TAAFFE 16538 166041 DANIEL ALAN FULTON 16539 166058 GABRIEL RAY LONG 16540 166065 ROBERT THOMPSON 16541 166072 KELLEY DORST
16542 166089 TIMOTHY BERG 16543 166096 JOHN MISTERLY IV 16544 166102 STEPHEN RADOW 16545 166119 MARK S KELLY 16546 166126 CHARLIE JONESJR 16547 166133 WILLIAM DANE 16548 166140 KRISTIE RACHELL GILBERT 16549 166157 GLENN SWIRES 16550 166164 WILLIAM HARTWIG 16551 166171 JERRY CONRAD HEATH 16552 166188 DALE BASS 16553 166195 LONNY LEE HALL 16554 166201 EDVANO SOUZA 16555 166218 STEVE KIMMEY 16556 166225 TIM ROOT 16557 166232 ANTHONY NUNEZ 16558 166249 FRANK MITCHELL 16559 166256 JOHN CARL SILVA 16560 166263 MICHAEL PURDY 16561 166270 ANTHONY JOHN LEMOS 16562 166287 JEFF CRAMER 16563 166294 PETER J CARREIRO 16564 166300 JASON FULTON 16565 166317 KEVIN P KYME 16566 166324 MARCO A ESQUIVEL 16567 166331 QUAEISEAN E SCOTT 16568 166348 DUANE CAMACHO 16569 166355 ANDY RAMIREZ 16570 166362 THERESA A GREENLEE

Company Name 1 SKJ ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

BRONSPAC INC G&G LLC
TEM EX INC KAY RING SERVICES INC DEMOSS ENTERPRISES, INC TRUSTIUM LOMINI INC; TRUSTUIM LOMINI, INC; TRUSTYIM LOMINI INC DOG DAYS, INC GT LOGISTICS INC
COMER TRANSPORT INC ALLEN LOGISTICS INC MKD CORPORATION OTTER & JACKRABBIT SVC INC
ABD TRANSFER, INC
PMG DELIVERY, INC HALLS HELPING HAND, INC PULLEN, INC
TREASURE VALLEY EXPRESS INC DIXON FREIGHT INC

E G & C G, INC
HOODVIEW PACKAGE SERVICES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FULTON FREIGHT, INC HAMMONS & LONG INC K&S DELIVERIES TBERG TRANSPORT INC CAVEMAN CORP AJAONES INC DANE LOGISTICS, INC SWIRES EXPRESS, INC
LLH DELIVERY INC

K&S DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

FULTON ADMINISTRATION LLC BLACK & GOLD DELIVERY INC A O 4 TRUCKING INC 22AK TRUCKING INC

RAYMARC TRUCKING, INC

Page 266 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 274 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16571 166379 JENNIFER SOUZA 16572 166386 PETER KYLE BLESSING 16573 166393 KEVIN STEPHENS 16574 166409 KIRK M NAGLE 16575 166416 TRAVIS URQUHART 16576 166423 JAMES GOURSON 16577 166430 NORMAN DHANA 16578 166447 THOMAS J DAMIAN 16579 166454 ROLAND C JARO 16580 166461 JESSE LANCASTER 16581 166478 VALENTINO AMORES CAYAS 16582 166485 NELS R JOSLIN 16583 166492 ROBERT JAMES NIELSEN 16584 166508 TOMMY DILLARD 16585 166515 GEORGE MILLER 16586 166522 KENNETH FERGUSON 16587 166539 RONIE PADILLA 16588 166546 JOSE LUIZ DOPRADOFILHO 16589 166553 WELFORD WONG 16590 166560 STUART DANIEL SAUNDERS 16591 166577 NATHAN DENAPOLI 16592 166584 JEMEIL LAMBERT 16593 166591 ANDREW NMN ALEJANDRE 16594 166607 ZEWDINEH DUBALE 16595 166614 VALENTINO LEMONCELLI 16596 166621 LINO HERNANDEZ 16597 166638 JEFFREY COLBURN
16598 166645 ROLANDO F VENEGAS 16599 166652 DAVID ELIOT JOHN 16600 166669 EDUARDO PUCCI 16601 166676 MICHAEL KNOPP 16602 166683 JESSE QUIROZ 16603 166690 EUGENE ROSS 16604 166706 NOEL DAVID ZARAGOZA 16605 166713 MARTIN ANTHONY KELLY 16606 166720 DWAYNE HOSEY 16607 166737 KEVIN D SCHMITZ 16608 166744 ERWIN DAWSON 16609 166751 TOMMIE OTIS CLEVELAND 16610 166768 DONNELL DIXON 16611 166775 ROGENIO FERREIRA 16612 166782 WILBUR LEROY DANIELS JR 16613 166799 FRED DESIENA 16614 166805 BRYAN WALLACE 16615 166812 DEREK M WILLIAMS 16616 166829 ANDREA MACLACHLAN 16617 166836 JOHN ONEIL 16618 166843 RAMON I RAMIREZ 16619 166850 DARRELL COOK 16620 166867 JAMES MARTINO 16621 166874 PHILLIP A DURAN 16622 166881 PAUL KAPR 16623 166898 MIGUEL RAMOS 16624 166904 MICHAEL HOSKING 16625 166911 RONALD SMITH 16626 166928 KENNY ALVAREZ 16627 166935 TRENT WILLIAMS 16628 166942 RICHARD D PRATT 16629 166959 JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ 16630 166966 SCOTT ARNE HEFLER 16631 166973 JOYCE AUGUSTSON 16632 166980 LUIS ENRIQUE SANDOVAL 16633 166997 MAYRA FUENTES-EDGAR 16634 167000 BEAU J CAMPBELL

Company Name 1 PKB DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DHANA & MILTON DEL SVC INC 5 D TRUCKING, INC

1 RJN FOOL INC KEN ENTERPRISES INC WOLF'S TRANSPORT INC PHOENIX MANAGEMENT INC

IN MOTION LOGISTICS, INC

LINO'S TRUCKING, INC COLBURN LOGISTICS INCORPORATED
DEJ TRUCKING INC

KELLY TRUCKING LLC DSH INC

MACK LOGISTICS, INC

SLEINAD ENTERPRISES INC TERRAPIN TRANSIT INC
DEREK WILLIAMS INC
JAY BIRD INC
D & M TRUCKING INC

K AND G TRUCKING LLC LT & 3J ENTERPRISES INC JR DELIVERY CO INC
EXPRESS IT DELIVERY, INC

K AND G TRUCKING, INC SCOUT DELIVERY, CORP

Page 267 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 275 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16635 167017 ELWOOD COOMBES 16636 167024 MARIO MAURICIO RUIZ 16637 167031 SHAWN SHELDON ANTOINE 16638 167048 RAMON LEANO 16639 167055 CHRISTIAN BALLESTEROS 16640 167062 HAN PHAN QUACH 16641 167079 MARCOS DASILVA 16642 167086 JOARES LASS JR 16643 167093 CATHY LYNN WHARTON 16644 167109 LUIS ENRIQUE SANTIAGO SR 16645 167116 PHENG TAING 16646 167123 WILLIAM S KRAMER 16647 167130 EUGENE BISCAILUZ 16648 167147 DEBRA NICHOLS 16649 167154 LEWIS MORA RIVERA
16650 167161 MICHAEL S SAUNIER 16651 167178 JOSE LOPES
16652 167185 WESLEY NAIL 16653 167192 KEVIN T SEAMON 16654 167208 TRUMMY YOUNG ASPERA
16655 167215 TERRY LOCATELLI 16656 167222 PAUL WILLIAMS 16657 167239 STEVEN M MINNIER 16658 167246 JOHN GUSMAN 16659 167253 JENNIFER CONNOLLY 16660 167260 JUANITO GONZALES 16661 167277 OSCAR ANTONIO CERNA 16662 167284 MARIO NAVARRO SANCHEZ 16663 167291 JAMES RANDLE PARKER 16664 167307 DEWEY KEECH 16665 167314 KYUNG W LEE 16666 167321 LUIS RUBIO 16667 167338 RICHARD THURMOND 16668 167345 RICHARD LEE BENJAMIN JR 16669 167352 RUBEN QUIRINO DELEON 16670 167369 ALEX SANGALANG 16671 167376 RON CONDON 16672 167383 ARMANDO J FAJARDO
16673 167390 CHARLES LEE DUNCAN 16674 167406 JORGE LUIS PENA 16675 167413 AUGUSTINO C SCALERCIO 16676 167420 MATTHEW R MULLIN 16677 167437 ALLEN DONG 16678 167444 JOEL GARCIA 16679 167451 MICHAEL MAHNKE 16680 167468 RICARDO B DE OLIVEIRA 16681 167475 KENNETH KANYAYI 16682 167482 CLEVER SANGALAZA 16683 167499 AUNDRE BRAY 16684 167505 THOMAS HASH 16685 167512 DENNIS CHARLES CHARTIER 16686 167529 DONALD SMITH 16687 167536 JAMES SCHNELL 16688 167543 MICHAEL D GLASCO 16689 167550 JOSEPH M COLE 16690 167567 LEE BARRETT 16691 167574 MICHAEL K MEISNER 16692 167581 GERALD THOMAS NOVACK 16693 167598 JARRETT M RAY 16694 167604 JIM STEPHENS 16695 167611 JASON ABEYTA

Company Name 1 D & B TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

ABSOLUTE GROUND DELIVERY INC

KAYOSS INC L RIVERA ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED MICHAEL SAUNIER DISTRIBUTIN INC J LOPES CONSULTING LLC

JL EXPRESS DELIVERY INC

ASPERA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION

EILISH INC J & E DELIVERY, INC

SOUTH VALLEY EXPRESS INC R Q D E L, INC

R Q D E L, INC

ARROW TRANSPORT AND DELIVERY INC HIGH DESERT DELIVERY, INC PW ASSOCIATES, INC SCALERCIO INTERNATIONAL THM DELIVERY, INC

ARROW TRANSPORT AND DELIVERY INC

SB GROUND LLC MAHNKE ENTERPRISES

S B GROUND, INC

MOVING GROUND INC BEAR DOG DELIVERY LLC LEE'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC
JMR DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

Page 268 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 276 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16696 167628 JEFFREY THOMAS SCULL 16697 167635 LEE TANNER 16698 167642 JAMES ALEXANDER HUTCHINSON 16699 167659 SCOTT R HURSH 16700 167666 ROBIN MCKEEVER 16701 167673 RYAN S AUMOEUALOGO 16702 167680 FRANK HERNANDEZ 16703 167697 MYLES AARON FERREIRA 16704 167703 JUAN PADILLA 16705 167710 XANG NONE VANG 16706 167727 BILL NELSON 16707 167734 JOHN F DUPREY 16708 167741 SUNG KU LEE 16709 167758 ROBERT S LATINA 16710 167765 DANIEL NELSON 16711 167772 RICHARD SCOTT BENNETT 16712 167789 ROBIN ROBB 16713 167796 MARTY LEE BOLTER 16714 167802 STEVE SPRAGUE 16715 167819 ANGEL D DAZO 16716 167826 ERIC HOSTETTER 16717 167833 DEAN HESTER 16718 167840 ROBERT NAVARRO
16719 167857 DINO MARTINEZ 16720 167864 JAIME PONTHIER 16721 167871 MICHAEL LANIER 16722 167895 GREGORY DELARA 16723 167901 JAMES L GORMAN 16724 167918 ROBERT MARTINEZ 16725 167925 RONALD SCALF 16726 167932 RODOLFO SANDOVAL 16727 167949 LORETO GARCIA 16728 167956 MURAT OZMEN 16729 167963 DENNIS BUZARD 16730 167970 LORI HENLEY 16731 167987 JUNWON LEE 16732 167994 ROBIN LYNN RACSHKE 16733 168007 GILBERT ALAN PHILIP 16734 168014 DANIEL ROSALES 16735 168021 SABAS CHOLULA 16736 168038 BARRY F PONTIOUS 16737 168045 RAY FRY 16738 168052 RICHARD TRUJILLO 16739 168069 JEFFREY GRIGSBY 16740 168076 GYASI SNORTON 16741 168083 DAVID BARRAGAN 16742 168090 WILLIAM HAROLD HUTCHINSON III 16743 168106 RYAN ADAM KIZIRIAN 16744 168113 JOSEPH B CHRISTIE 16745 168120 KENNETH GRUENKE 16746 168137 RAUL DE JESUS RIVAS 16747 168144 WALLACE SCOTT ROBINSON 16748 168151 BRIAN BRUCE TRUDEAU 16749 168168 STEVEN L MAHAFFEY 16750 168175 DANIEL ROMO 16751 168182 KANYA SAM 16752 168199 DAVID EDWARD HASTON 16753 168205 JULIO CEZAR PADILLA 16754 168212 CRAIG JEREMY SHAW 16755 168229 EDUARDO MORA 16756 168236 SCOTT DAWE 16757 168243 CRAIG HEALY 16758 168250 JEFFREY JOHANNES GAIDA 16759 168267 ANTHONY COMEAUX

Company Name 1
HURSH ENTERPRISES INC LOFIMOTION, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CENTRAL COAST SMALL PKG INC FIRST LANE INC

DGS DELIVERIES LLC

DGS DELIVERIES, INC

ONE LANE EXPRESS INC SECOND LANE INC

RSL DISTRIBUTION INC

MOROSSO INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, INC
JLP ENTERPRISES, INC

IANC INC
SINGLE WORK AREA GROUP INC MOOYOUNG INC

HANSAN INC

PONTIOUS DELIVERY, INC R & H DELIVERY, INC

KIZIRIAN LOGISTICS INC GREENKEY EXPRESS CORPORATION

KPD & A CORP DHAZ TRANSPORT, INC SHAW LOGISTICS INC MORA'S EXPRESS INC
APC ENTERPRISES LLC

Page 269 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 277 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16760 168274 STEVEN JOSEPH HORNING 16761 168281 NICK JOSEPH DALFIO JR 16762 168298 ANNIE OWENS 16763 168311 JENNIFER ANN DAVIS 16764 168328 ERNESTO ROJAS 16765 168335 MICHAEL ROBERT EHLERT 16766 168342 KYLE EDWARD RAWSON 16767 168359 ALYUB ALI
16768 168366 JULIAN CASTRO 16769 168373 JEFFREY BRIAN ROESCH 16770 168380 GEORGE SOLANO 16771 168397 MIGUEL A SOLANO 16772 168403 BRIAN SAN JUAN 16773 168410 TODD MURPHY 16774 168427 ALI H HARB 16775 168434 RAY PETERSON 16776 168441 MARK RUIZ 16777 168458 THEODORE D WALKER 16778 168465 DARREN RAY HALL 16779 168472 JULES CALDEIRA III 16780 168489 GINA MARIE 16781 168496 ESTANISLAO P MARTINEZ JR 16782 168502 ROBERT LANCE SELLENTIN 16783 168519 SHAWNA PIERCE 16784 168526 JAMES NORRIS 16785 168533 JAMES BURKE 16786 168540 RAFAEL V CRUZ 16787 168557 TIMOTHY ABSHER 16788 168564 LAZARO NODA 16789 168571 FRANKLIN WHITE 16790 168588 RAY GARCIA 16791 168595 ROBERT TORRENCE 16792 168601 SCOTT ARNOLD 16793 168618 SCOTT SYPHER 16794 168625 MARK GRAVES 16795 168632 WILLIAM WALLACE NORTON JR 16796 168649 DOUGLAS PITTER 16797 168656 GABRIELLA HERNANDEZ 16798 168663 THOMAS JAMES SACK 16799 168670 RICHARD HEE 16800 168687 CHEYENNE THOMAS MARCHBANKS 16801 168694 CARLOS BARAJAS 16802 168700 ROBERT HAMLETT 16803 168717 EDWARD MIKE TREVINO 16804 168724 BRADLEY JAMES BEAN 16805 168731 ROBERT HICKS 16806 168748 ANTHONY RUBIO 16807 168755 JIRAYR SETAGHIAN 16808 168762 LUIS HERNANDEZ 16809 168779 JAMES R RAUNSBAK 16810 168786 AURELIO RAMOS JIMENEZ 16811 168793 TIM CATES 16812 168809 LARRY COLER JR 16813 168816 PETER DANIEL PALUMBO II 16814 168823 CAPRICE S TELL 16815 168830 RICHARD E NELSON 16816 168847 STEPHEN MERZ 16817 168854 THEODORE ATKINS 16818 168861 STEVEN ANTHONY RIST 16819 168878 PATRICK VANLANDINGHAM 16820 168885 JON ROUNDY 16821 168892 ESPERIDION LABORETE 16822 168908 DANIEL TEEHAN 16823 168915 BILLIE TWEEDIE

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

C A OWENS TRUCKING INC

OWENS GLOBAL CORP

M R EHLERT INC

ALI AND SON COURIERS

ALI AND SON COURIERS

INCORPORATED

INCORPORATED

J C EXPRESS OR DELIVERY SERVICE

INVESTORS EXPRESS, INC SOLANO DELIVERY INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

J & C DELIVERY INC RALPH & CAROLE CRUZ, INC
LAZZLYN, INC

RIVER CITY DELIVERY SYSTEMS INC

GM LOGISTICS INC

BUSINESS BLOCKS INC CHEYENNE T MARCHBANKS INC BARAJAS HD, INC HAMLETT ENTERPRISES INC AS & L TRANSPORTS INC BEAN'S INC

TZR CUSTOM DELIVERY LLC KINGS DELIVERY EXPRESS INC P D ON TIME TRANSPORTATION, INC NIKNJIM LLC

NIKNJIM INC

P&G COMPANY

TRA GLOBAL INC SDR TRANSPORTATION LLC

D T EXPRESS INC

TEEHAN EXPRESS, INC

Page 270 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 278 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16824 168922 ANGELISSA ALFONSO WRIGHT 16825 168939 STEVEN CURTIS LUJAN 16826 168946 EDWARD LARIOZA 16827 168953 ANTHONY PELAIZ 16828 168960 ADAM HERRERA 16829 168977 RICHARD JOSEPH WEISMANN 16830 168984 COLBY WEBSTER FREEMAN 16831 168991 ROGER HYDE 16832 169004 JOEY LYNN BLOOM 16833 169011 GERRY D HAMASHITA 16834 169028 ROBERT RASH 16835 169035 EDWIN RIVERA 16836 169042 MICHAEL G PLANT 16837 169059 MARK WAYNE JACKSON 16838 169066 TIMOTHY JAMES HOWARD 16839 169073 BRYAN L HILLIARD 16840 169080 ERIC BRACHT 16841 169097 JEFFREY EDWARD YEARICK 16842 169103 MICHAEL FRIEDMAN 16843 169110 AARON PELZL 16844 169127 SANDRA R RIDER 16845 169134 MATTHEW JAMES HANKS 16846 169141 EDUARDO R LEON 16847 169158 VINCENT COMEAUX 16848 169165 TERRY WILLIS 16849 169172 CRYSTAL JOANNA JOHNSON 16850 169189 ALBERTO FRANCISCO GASCON
16851 169196 DANIEL J SMITH 16852 169202 SANDRA WHITAKER 16853 169219 DENNIS ERIC AGUILAR 16854 169226 DOUG HOOPES 16855 169233 KARLA CLARK 16856 169240 JOHN MCLAUGHLIN 16857 169257 MAXIMINO FUENTES 16858 169264 JUAN CARLOS HIGUERA 16859 169271 FRANCISCO JAVIER ZARAGOZA 16860 169288 MAURICE AUFFORTH 16861 169295 JESUS ABRAHAM ALCARAZ 16862 169301 LARRY RICHARD 16863 169318 PETER A CASTILLO 16864 169325 DEREK T BOWEN 16865 169332 MICHAEL I FAER 16866 169349 NOEL WEN GABRINTINA 16867 169356 GEORGE E MACHADO 16868 169363 RICKY BLAS 16869 169370 ANNE ELIZABETH MOORMAN 16870 169387 KIM SHERMAN 16871 169394 ANTHONY CHAVIS 16872 169400 AL WARD
16873 169417 JERARDO GARCIA 16874 169424 RON CURRY 16875 169431 TERRY KEIM 16876 169448 CURT HASSLER
16877 169455 RODNEY N FLINN
16878 169462 SEAN TE 16879 169479 JUSTIN LEE COUNCIL 16880 169486 KEVIN UYEHARA 16881 169493 HORACIO FLORES 16882 169509 HERBER MEMBRENO 16883 169516 ROBERT MATTHEW SODERQUIST 16884 169523 ROBERT W ODAM

Company Name 1 H & C DELIVERY INC BRYCEVAN INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

EJB ENTERPRISES INC JEFF YEARICK LLC

J YEARICK INC

DOUBLE S TRUCKING CORPORATION HOUSE MONKEYS INC
COMEAUX INC
JAH INC A & M TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC
WHITS ENTERPRISES

CJEB DELIVERS, INC

MACHADO DELIVERY INC UPPERCUT INC

MATA ENTERPRISES INC; MATA ENTERPRISES, INC

APPALACHIAN HARDWOOD TRAIN ASC

R & R DELIVERY SERVICES LLC
TD TRUCKING LLC JUSTIN COUNCIL INC

R & R DELIVERY SERVICES INC

GROUNDFLOW INC

EXTRA MILE DELIVERY, INC

Page 271 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 279 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16885 169530 JEFFREY BROOKS 16886 169547 STEVE POWLISON 16887 169554 MARK HAGER 16888 169561 RICARDO CAMBEROS 16889 169578 STEVE SILVA 16890 169585 RUDY H LANZ 16891 169592 BRIAN JACOBS 16892 169608 MARIO MARIO FAUDOA 16893 169615 BILL MORTELLARO 16894 169622 RAYMOND VELASQUEZ 16895 169639 STEVEN W MOODY 16896 169646 TIMOTHY JAMES CREWS 16897 169653 JULIA CALLOW 16898 169660 RICK A VAUGHN 16899 169677 RUDY BAEZ 16900 169684 ROBERT HARVICK 16901 169691 CYNTHIA BARNES 16902 169707 LIDIA GIAQUINTO 16903 169714 MIKE JOSEPH CABALLERO
16904 169721 DONOVAN MICHAEL CABALLERO 16905 169738 JOSE LOPEZ 16906 169745 SCOTT MCCREERY 16907 169752 ERIC JAMES YOUNG 16908 169769 GARY MATTOS 16909 169776 KEVIN MARTIN 16910 169783 STEVE A FLORES 16911 169790 JAVIER VASQUEZ 16912 169806 KELVIN E WILKINS 16913 169820 CARLOS PEREZ 16914 169837 DAVID ESTRADA 16915 169844 MARJORIE PONTAROLO 16916 169851 MIKE PALHEGYI 16917 169868 LUIS CORTEZ
16918 169875 STEVE DOZIER 16919 169882 JORGE LUIS GONZALEZ 16920 169899 MICHAEL QUACKENBUSH 16921 169905 HMEIDI MUHAMMAD AWWAD
16922 169912 RICKY PEREZ 16923 169929 SCOTT CRAIG 16924 169936 JACOB RAY CHASTAIN 16925 169943 ARMANDO H MONTOYA II 16926 169950 ROBERTO G NAVARRO JR 16927 169967 RAOUL GARCIA CEBALLOS 16928 169974 DELIA VIDAIRE DIMPEL 16929 169981 RODOLFO A SANJUR 16930 169998 STANLEY GOOLSBY 16931 170000 GILBERTO RAYA 16932 170017 ROBERT G BURNS 16933 170024 LANCE CRAIG MORGAN 16934 170031 MICHAEL ROBERT HAMMOND 16935 170048 LATASHA DELEON
16936 170055 BRIAN LEE RICHARDSON 16937 170062 GLENN GIVENS 16938 170079 BRIAN JAY SMITH 16939 170086 DANIEL GONZALES 16940 170093 FERNANDO M FLAMENCO 16941 170109 NICHOLAS P LYNCH 16942 170116 ROBERT G PETERS 16943 170123 TIM C HERD 16944 170130 COREY MITCHELL 16945 170147 ANDRE MEDEL

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

R G L EXPRESS, INC

FAUDOA TRUCKING LLC MORE 2 LLC RAYMOND VELASQUEZ GROUND INC MOODY ENTERPRISES LLC

MOODY ENTERPRISES INC

ROYAL T INC

R L HARVICK INC

MSM EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION INC CABALLERO'S EXPRESS DELIVERY

ERIC YOUNG CORPORATION
KBM GROUND DELIVERY CO TRIPLE C PACKAGES INC

PONTAROLO DELIVERY INC

GROUND FORCE INC

CONTRACTED EXPEDITED LOGISTICS LLC

JLG P&D

CRESCENT SOFTWARE SERVICES LLC

CHASTAIN INCORPORATED ELYSIAN DELIVERY, CORP

L & R DISTRIBUTION, INC DELEONS TRUCKING AND TRANSPORTATION LLC
JJ68 EXPRESS INC

DELEON'S TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 272 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 280 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 16946 170154 MARNE HOGUE 16947 170161 HECTOR ALFREDO MENDEZ 16948 170178 JON SEATON 16949 170185 RONNY JOHNSON 16950 170192 BERNARDO ALVARADO MONCADA 16951 170208 ELIZABETH MILLER 16952 170215 MARK KILLITS GARDNER 16953 170222 EDWARD MARTINEZ SANJUAN 16954 170239 FOOK H CHEUNG 16955 170246 LOUIS ROGERS 16956 170253 SAMUEL ANDRADE 16957 170260 CURTIS JAMES STAHL 16958 170277 MICHAEL AGUTOS RAMOS 16959 170284 BRIAN D EDER 16960 170291 JOHN NORRIS 16961 170307 DIANE A SKINNER 16962 170314 MIKE WORKMAN 16963 170321 ANDREW DANIELS 16964 170338 SIDNEY JONES 16965 170345 DONALD W DEPUGH 16966 170352 DON F GONSALVES 16967 170369 MANUEL BEJARAN 16968 170376 GARY WILLIAMS 16969 170383 WILLIAM EARLY 16970 170390 THOMAS J JOYCE 16971 170406 SHANE CLARK 16972 170413 CRAIG EDWARD CADDOW 16973 170420 JOE YANEZ 16974 170437 DUANE HUMPHREY 16975 170444 JOHN LABORDE 16976 170451 SAUL BRIJIDO AYON 16977 170468 ROBERT BRAZNEY 16978 170475 BRIAN MULLIKIN 16979 170482 FRANK C TANG 16980 170505 JEFFREY TODD BOSTWICK 16981 170512 MARQUES SMITH 16982 170529 EMMANUEL SOTOMAYOR DEGUZMAN 16983 170536 ANTHONY CUEVAS 16984 170543 GLEN KUNZ 16985 170550 DANIEL DELANEY 16986 170567 JOHN AVILA 16987 170574 PHILLIP CARL GUIFFRIDA III 16988 170581 RICHARD BECERRA 16989 170598 GEOVANNI PORRAS 16990 170604 LARRY PHILLIP RODRIGUEZ 16991 170611 ANTHONY BROOKS 16992 170628 KENNETH RAY THOMPSON JR 16993 170635 RONNIE DELATORRE 16994 170642 LEONEL VILLA 16995 170659 MICHAEL ODONAL 16996 170666 ALLAN ROSS 16997 170673 JACKDIAZ DIAZ 16998 170680 WILLIAM FRANCIS WYLIE 16999 170697 HELIX PADILLA 17000 170703 HARMIT SARWAN 17001 170710 BOB PERSONIUS 17002 170727 NOEL C CHIEFE 17003 170734 NICHOLAS LUCATUORTOJR 17004 170741 LETICIA VERONICA CASTELLANOS 17005 170758 JOHN M RUSSELL 17006 170765 DAVID J HOLLER III 17007 170772 JORGE MEDINA 17008 170789 GERALD JOHNSON 17009 170796 JAMIE MIDDLEMISS 17010 170802 BRUCE T HARRIS

Company Name 1 ROTECH INC
50 60 HEAVEN MKG DELIVERY INC LCE & ASSOCIATES LLC

Company Name 2

JOS DELIVERY INC BEJARAN TRUCKING INC EARLEY BIRD LOGISTICS INC CLARKER, INC
GROUND TEAM INC MAX LOGISTICS INC B & M GROUND INC SMITH DELIVERY CORPORATION
CJP LLC BECERRA TRUCKING INC
WHITE HORSE CONSOLIDATED INC GET UP & GO ! LLC KIRAN, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 273 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 281 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17011 170819 SHELLEY LOREEN RICHARDS 17012 170826 SCOTT K MILLER 17013 170833 JOHN K BILLERBECK 17014 170840 PETER SCHILLING 17015 170857 JOHN GROSSI 17016 170864 DAVID KING 17017 170871 RUDY SUMOVIC 17018 170888 CHARLES COLEMAN 17019 170895 LAWRENCE NETZ 17020 170901 BRIAN KENNETH BAHRALMEIDA 17021 170918 MARCOS REYES FUENTES 17022 170925 JOHN MORENO 17023 170932 GARY JOHN ESCUDERO 17024 170949 PETE PICAZO 17025 170956 MIKE SCHWENDEMAN 17026 170963 MELISSA NICHOLE TODD
17027 170970 DAVID A BRADY 17028 170987 EDWARD KAUFMAN 17029 170994 THOMAS PARKS 17030 171007 SCOTT R THOMAS 17031 171014 TRAVIS TIMOTHY NICOLAY 17032 171021 FABIAN ANDRADE 17033 171038 MARLIN J SCHROCK III 17034 171045 PAUL MANUEL GONZALEZ 17035 171052 ALBERTO CASTRO FAVELA 17036 171069 JAVIER A SANCHEZ 17037 171076 CHANG K CHO 17038 171083 WAYNE MORRIS 17039 171090 CINDY SCOTT 17040 171106 BRIAN MAKIN 17041 171113 LOUIS J BROCK 17042 171120 ROBERT DOEPPING 17043 171137 MICHAEL THOMAS HARSEN 17044 171144 DANNY VALDERRAMA 17045 171151 MOSES PEREZ 17046 171168 STEVEN SUMNER DODGE 17047 171175 MARK ROBERT OLIVER 17048 171182 CHARLES LAMPERTI 17049 171199 LY CHENG 17050 171205 DEL SHARP 17051 171212 MARYCHRIS DAVIS 17052 171229 JOHN H OWEN 17053 171236 ROBERT MATTHEW SYLVESTER 17054 171243 KERRI L PANKNIN 17055 171250 DAVID HEIR 17056 171267 JOHN KINGSBURY JR 17057 171274 PETE E GIRON 17058 171281 RICK W GEDDES 17059 171298 ANDREA GAYLOR 17060 171304 JOHN J KLOER 17061 171311 GEORGE BASS 17062 171328 MARION GALINDO 17063 171335 ISMET JAHOVIC 17064 171342 MICHAEL LEE CHAIREZ 17065 171359 HENRY L SMITH 17066 171366 JESSE PADILLA 17067 171373 HENRY L HARPER 17068 171380 JEFF CARTER 17069 171397 WYNN PACULBA 17070 171403 RODNEY HOGATE 17071 171410 JAWAD AHMAD 17072 171427 CHRISTOFFER GIFFORD 17073 171434 RUBEN BARRETO 17074 171441 THOMAS L DEITCH

Company Name 1 GUINN TRANSPORT INC
MEADOWS DELIVERY LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MEADOWS DELIVERY LLC

SOCAL TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS INC

MTM PARCELS, INC AUSAM, INC

SAMI TRANSPORTATION, INC

FABIAN & EDDIE EXPRESS LLC A C COURIER INC

L J BROCK INC

OWEN TRUCKING INC CLARK TRANSPORTATION, INC ALE-ROW INC
WHITE LEDGE LLC RPS LADY INC MLC ENTERPRISES INC H & T SMITH, INC

H & H HOLDINGS INC A & J INVESTMENTS
TL DEITCH INC

A & J ON TIME DELIVERY

Page 274 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 282 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17075 171458 JOSE EBERARDO ROBLES 17076 171465 KRISTINE Y RENDON 17077 171472 MILAN REYNALDO 17078 171489 STACY SILVEIRA 17079 171496 MAX CARAPIA 17080 171502 JERRY SEPULVEDA DELGADO 17081 171519 FERMIN EDUARDO MORALES 17082 171526 ROGER W BROWN 17083 171533 STEPHEN POEHLMAN 17084 171540 ISIDRO ARCHUNDIA BADILLO 17085 171557 JIM L MCKINNEY 17086 171564 CLINTON BANDY 17087 171571 JESSE FOSTER JR 17088 171588 LEWIE J FORD 17089 171595 RON MCMAHON 17090 171601 J BARTON MOORE 17091 171618 KEN KNIGHT 17092 171625 ROBERT GEORGE KELLIHER 17093 171632 SAM J SEARCY 17094 171649 SCOTT DIPPEL 17095 171656 RUBEN E CAMPOS
17096 171663 THOMAS JOHN ISRAEL 17097 171670 GORDON SCOTT BOND 17098 171687 JEFFREY DUNCAN WADLEY 17099 171694 RICHARD A NICKERSON
17100 171700 WILLIAM JOSEPH LEWIS 17101 171717 VICKIE BREWER 17102 171724 STEVE DRISCOLL 17103 171731 SHAWN HERBERT 17104 171748 ABEL JERED HINOJOS 17105 171755 SHAWN KARIMLOO 17106 171762 PABLO GONZALEZ 17107 171779 JOSE A PEREZ 17108 171786 DOLORES NEVES 17109 171793 DAVID A ZIEMER 17110 171809 MIKE BROWN 17111 171816 LESLIE ANN BALFOUR 17112 171823 BEVERLY FUQUA 17113 171830 JASON ARTEAGO 17114 171847 JOE PRATO 17115 171854 FRANK RICHARD SHARPSKIIII 17116 171861 THOMAS CANTELMO 17117 171878 DANIEL CAPRINI 17118 171885 HELEN LOPEZ 17119 171892 WILLIAM DIEGO FLORES 17120 171908 DAVID WALTERS 17121 171915 MICHAEL SAINTEN 17122 171922 RUDY M FOLDS 17123 171939 MARCONI ALBUQUERQUE FILHO 17124 171946 PATRICK FERRO 17125 171953 WILLIAM T BOWMAN 17126 171960 LLOYD LA VONN NASH 17127 171977 MARK HAYES 17128 171984 KARL CLEMEN ARNOLD II 17129 171991 CHRIS MICHAEL BROWN 17130 172004 ELOY D MORENO 17131 172011 JASON DAVID KEARNEY 17132 172028 OCTAVIO DESANTIAGO 17133 172035 STEPHEN WILLIS 17134 172042 MARTY EDWARD SMITH 17135 172059 LONNY MARTY PADILLA 17136 172066 MARTIN L RICE

Company Name 1 C TRIPLE J, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

ED & ED TRUCKING INC E N SNIPES TRUCKING INC

QUANTUM LEAP EXPRESS, INC 3MMMJC TRUCKING INC PRIORITY BLUE
MOORE MEDIA CORP KNIGHT'S TRANSPORT INC

MWA HD 24

TOTO TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION

RA NICKERSON TRKG INC; RA NICKERSON TRKING INC; RA NICKERSON TRUCKING INC

DCS ENTERPRISES ABEL INDUSTRIES, INC

RLB LLC HAOLE TRUCKING INC
LOWABE EXPRESS WDF ENTERPRISES, INC

CODDAD'S, INC NW CANYON DELIVERIES INC

M S D S LLC LC PADILLA ENTERPRISES LLC MLR INC

M S D S INC PADFAM INC

Page 275 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 283 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17137 172073 JOSUE AVILA 17138 172080 JAMES A YOUNG 17139 172097 WILLIAM JOHN CRAVER 17140 172103 STEVE WIGHTMAN 17141 172110 MICHAEL D DRAKE 17142 172127 SANDY J OLMOS 17143 172134 SETH A VILLARREAL 17144 172141 JUAN PABLO BENITEZ 17145 172158 CARLOS A ARIAS BONILLA 17146 172165 DENNIS M KUNTZ 17147 172172 EDGAR TORRES
17148 172189 KENNY L MITCHELL 17149 172196 LOUIS ISAAC HERNANDEZ 17150 172202 CLAYTON L BROWN 17151 172219 CHAD PARTLOW 17152 172226 TONY JEFFERY TRAMMELL
17153 172233 JOHNNIE ALAN SEVERSON 17154 172240 LOUIE HOLGUIN 17155 172257 STEVEN D IVERSON 17156 172264 LEON FELIX 17157 172271 EDWARD ESTACIO 17158 172288 ANTHONY ERIC PRESTON
17159 172295 RAFAEL BANUELOS 17160 172301 BYONG AN 17161 172318 ERNESTO DEL RIO 17162 172325 ROMMEL T CASTELO 17163 172332 AARON WRIGHT 17164 172349 ANTONIO GIOLO 17165 172356 LARRY LUTZ 17166 172363 ALEXANDER MOORE 17167 172370 GARY AKERS 17168 172387 LAMONT SMITH 17169 172394 JAMES JACKSON 17170 172400 JEFFREY ROBERT WILSON 17171 172417 JOEY GUAN 17172 172424 ROBERT CANIPE 17173 172431 JUAN ANGEL RAMOS 17174 172448 BRANDON HAYES 17175 172455 MARK L QUINN 17176 172462 HAMILTON SANTOS 17177 172479 IAN JEREMY RAND 17178 172486 SAKDA MAOKOSY 17179 172493 THOMAS J MCLAUGHLIN 17180 172509 DONNA JONES 17181 172516 RAFAEL BLANCIA 17182 172523 STEVEN BARON 17183 172530 URBAN YETASOOK 17184 172547 MYRON FRANK HOLUB 17185 172554 DOMINIC SINISI 17186 172561 ORLANDO J MORFA 17187 172578 ROBERT JOHNSTON 17188 172585 EMANUEL PEREZ 17189 172592 MICHAEL DEAGUERO 17190 172608 LANCE L CHRISTENSEN 17191 172615 JAMES LEATHERWOOD 17192 172622 KASSANDRA BEYER 17193 172639 COLIN HERDON BOYD 17194 172646 DAISY LOTOA DANIELS 17195 172653 JUAN MENENDEZ 17196 172660 DARRYL KEITH RUSS 17197 172677 FRANK MERINO MUNOZ 17198 172684 JOE M COSTA

Company Name 1 LIQUID LOGISTICS INC
CRAVER TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

CAB EXPRESS, INC
DUKE INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, INC
LIH COURIER INC

TRAMMELL TRANSPORTATION

JDR TRANSPORTATION, INC

BACK & FORTH DELIVERY LLC MOUNTAIN ROADWAY EXPRESS INC

ANTHONY E PRESTON LLC

ANTHONY E PRESTON, INC

CHEMELS INT'L MERCHANDISE INC WRIGHT NOW TRUCKING INC LD LUTZ LLC
REGAL LOGISTIC LLC
KCJ ENTERPRISES INC

S & M LOGISTIC SERVICES INC JONES II CORPORATION
HOLUB ENTERPRISES LLC
M D M TRUCKING INC TOP SHELF DELIVERY LLC CURTIS SHERMAN INC

Page 276 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 284 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17199 172691 GREG NUNEZ 17200 172707 EUGENIO G OCHOA-CARRILLO 17201 172714 JAMES D BIDDIX 17202 172721 TIMOTHY WELCKER 17203 172738 JUAN ANTONIO CAMACHO
17204 172745 MAHRUMABDUL KHALIK 17205 172752 MARTIN ALONSO 17206 172769 ALFONSO BANUELOS
17207 172776 CESAR A CORREA 17208 172783 GLEN A MCLURE JR 17209 172790 JULIAN ESCAMILLA 17210 172806 BRIAN N MARIS 17211 172813 BRIAN JOHN BOWER 17212 172820 JUAN GARCIA 17213 172837 JOHN QUINTO 17214 172844 TYE ARNETT 17215 172851 ANDREW BEYNON CANFIELD 17216 172868 AMERIGO PALLOTTA 17217 172875 PAUL EDDIE MURPHY JR 17218 172882 ERIC HENRY
17219 172899 BRET KAMMERER 17220 172905 GREGORY ROBINSON 17221 172912 JEREMY MICHAEL LOWTHER 17222 172929 WAIS OMARI 17223 172936 STARLARD EARL FLOYD 17224 172943 MARK GALLAGHER 17225 172950 JOSHUA JOSEPH HERNANDEZ 17226 172967 MICHAELL LEE BROOKS 17227 172974 GERMAN ZUNO 17228 172981 IRSHAD ALI 17229 172998 AUGUSTO LEITE
17230 173001 WILLIAM H WALKER 17231 173018 FRED MAYEDA 17232 173025 EDITH ORTANEZ 17233 173032 GILBERT MENDIVEL 17234 173049 DENISE NOLAND 17235 173056 RAUL GARCIA 17236 173063 KEITH LEE CASTRUITA 17237 173070 FERNANDO ALCAZAR 17238 173087 MARLON CANAS 17239 173094 OSCAR B FLORES
17240 173100 GABE MACIAS 17241 173117 GUILLERMO LOPEZ 17242 173124 STEVEN KAUFMAN 17243 173131 MANUEL LOPES 17244 173148 VICTOR H MUNOZ 17245 173155 RICK DELOPE 17246 173162 PAUL SAUKAS 17247 173179 DANIEL P MURRAY 17248 173186 LUIS C GONZALEZ 17249 173193 RONALD SWISLOSKY 17250 173209 ARMANDO GONZALEZ 17251 173216 GILBERT LUCERO 17252 173223 ROBERT D WELLS 17253 173230 FRANK FORD 17254 173247 MIGUEL A LOZANO 17255 173254 FRANK CURDY 17256 173261 HAROLD DIGGS 17257 173278 KAYVAN SHOJAEE 17258 173285 JOSEPH S GUARDANAPO

Company Name 1
BIDDIX COMPANY, INC WYCO FDX JAC DELIVERY LLC ABDUL'S PACKAGING INC KJI TRANSPORTATION INC

Company Name 2 MCO GROUND, INC

Company Name 3

JAC DELIVERY LLC

JAC PACKAGE DELIVERY, INC

KJI TRANSPORTATION, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SODA EXPRESS, INC CONTRACTED DEL SVC UNLMTD INC

R & A DELIVERY LLC

CANFIELD INC

JAYDEN'S EXPRESS LLC

JAYDEN'S EXPRESS LLC JAYDEN'S EXPRESS INC

LOWTHER ENTERPRISES INC

J N K LOGISTIC
PARADISE CARRIER, INC AJE GLOBAL INC
MEGUMI INC

AJE GLOBAL SERVICES INC

MPPC INC MKJ TRANSPORT LLC
FLORES LOMELI PARTNERSHIP
ALECANISA INC; ALECANISA, INC

INTER EXPRESS INC
CAR LEX TRANSPORTATION INC
ALECANISA

DELOPE DELIVERY INC P & H SALES AND SERVICES INC
GONZALEZ & SONS LOGISTICS, INC
TEAM PLAYER CORPORATION
SACRED SERVICES INC CAJUN DELIVERY INC

Page 277 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 285 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17259 173292 CARLOS JOSE CAMPOS
17260 173308 AASIF MUSA PAREKH 17261 173315 RAFAEL RICARDO VELA 17262 173322 JIM DELACRUZ 17263 173339 KELLY MOYLAN 17264 173346 JASON MICHAEL WELCH 17265 173353 JAMES M PRUITT 17266 173360 GABRIEL VALDEZ 17267 173377 ELMER SANTOS ENRIQUEZ 17268 173384 ROBERTO MARTINEZ 17269 173391 NORMAN VILLAMOR AUSTERO 17270 173407 JOHN RODRIGUEZ 17271 173414 STEVE ATWOOD 17272 173421 RICARDO PARAGUASSU 17273 173438 SEGISMUNDO JACQUEZ 17274 173445 BARBARA RYON 17275 173452 RAUL M PEREZ 17276 173469 LORRAINE NIXON 17277 173476 SIDNEY B JAMES 17278 173483 LEWIS GRABHORN 17279 173490 BRENDA SUE URCIAGA
17280 173506 JEFFREY MASON 17281 173513 DELANIOUS WARD 17282 173520 TOBY M PEREZ 17283 173537 ROZANNA ELAINE PICANTIN 17284 173544 DANIEL SANCHEZ 17285 173551 DAVID W WINCHESTER 17286 173568 DANIEL EVERETT WEBER
17287 173575 STEVE GERALD GORS 17288 173582 LARRY CERVANTES 17289 173599 SADET GRACA 17290 173605 ALVERN STEWART 17291 173612 ROBERT A HARRIS 17292 173629 NELLIE VENZOR 17293 173636 MANUEL REYES 17294 173643 NICHOLAS COMERESKI 17295 173650 JULIUS ANTHONY MITCHELL 17296 173667 BRIAN CATTERALL 17297 173674 RICHARD H PROCTOR 17298 173681 SHAWN HUBBARD 17299 173698 CHARNJIT S DHILLON 17300 173704 NANCY SCHWANBECK 17301 173711 ROBERTO OROZCO HERNANDEZ 17302 173728 TIM CHAN 17303 173735 CHANCY SPROUL 17304 173742 ANGELO DANTE SOSA 17305 173759 STEPHEN POEHLMAN 17306 173766 FERMIN GARCIA 17307 173773 JESUS NAVARETTE JR 17308 173780 GEORGE CHACON 17309 173797 PAUL BARRAZA 17310 173803 JOHN F HOLCOMB 17311 173810 DENNIS BASKIN 17312 173827 LINDA GALLUP 17313 173834 DANNY K HAGAR 17314 173841 BENJAMIN A SAGISI JR 17315 173858 ROBERT B KELLY 17316 173865 SCOTT MASSENGALE 17317 173872 JACQUELINE PHILLIPS 17318 173889 VICTOR R GOMEZ 17319 173896 WILLIE EARL RILEY 17320 173902 GILBERTO ARROYO

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

AMPOS GROUNDFORCE LLC; CAMPOS CAMPOS GROUNDFORCE,

GROUNDFORCE LLC

INC

AMP GROUND INC

Company Name 3

JEDHJ, INC MOYLAN VAN LINES INC

HIDDEN ARROW ENTERPRISES INC

RUSH DELIVERY LLC JROD EXPRESS INC

RANCHO MIRAMAR INC CARRU'S ENTERPRISES SIDNEY JAMES INC B & S HOME DELIVERY SERVICES LLC CALVARY EXPRESS CORP

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

WEBER LOGGING

SADDLE RIDGE SERVICES SADDLE RIDGE SERVICES INC

THE ESTATE OF LARRY CERVANTES

KAJA INC

BAY AREA DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

PROPACK INC SLH ENTERPRISES INC
JOEY ENTERPRISES INC S AND R ULTIMATE PACIFIC CORP
A D SOSA INCORPORATED
WESTCOAST EXPRESS INC CNS DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

C&C LOGISTICS INC MOONLIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE INC
GOMEZ GRACIANO INC W R & J R, INC

Page 278 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 286 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17321 173919 MARK ALAN NILES 17322 173926 RAUL LOPEZ 17323 173933 EDWARD BEAN 17324 173940 ARLO ABRAHAM C LACUESTA 17325 173957 GEORGE LOUIS AYALA 17326 173964 FERNANDO GURGEL 17327 173971 GUSTAVO GARCIA 17328 173988 MAURICIO MOLINA 17329 173995 MATTHEW T BERGEN 17330 174008 MARGARITO MARQUEZ 17331 174015 JOHNNY DEL JOHNSON 17332 174022 FRED MILLETT 17333 174039 STEVEN M EDMUNDS 17334 174046 STEVE SALDATE 17335 174053 PATRICK STEPHEN OGAN 17336 174060 MIKE ANTHONY SMITH 17337 174077 GEOFFREY H KLEB JR 17338 174084 ANTHONY A YBARRA 17339 174091 GILBERT MANCILLAS 17340 174107 ABEL CASAREZ 17341 174114 JON DUGAN 17342 174121 CARLOS RODRIGUEZ 17343 174138 ERIC OWUSU 17344 174145 CHARLES MCMANNIS 17345 174152 BENJAMIN S CONNALLY 17346 174169 JAIME SOLANO 17347 174176 PERRY W ALLEN 17348 174183 JESSE T RAMOS 17349 174190 MICHAEL ISHMAEL
17350 174206 ANDREA DOLLAR 17351 174213 LINDA ABBOTT 17352 174220 RAFAEL AMARO 17353 174237 PATRICIA SHARP 17354 174244 TRACY ODELL GILLIAM 17355 174251 MARGARET ELIZABETH SMITH 17356 174268 MIGUEL ALPUCHE 17357 174275 MICHAEL J WEATHERS 17358 174282 FLORENTINO P JOSE 17359 174299 JAMES KING 17360 174305 ROBERT A PETTIT 17361 174312 TONY MORA 17362 174329 JEREMIAH ROA 17363 174336 JOHN LAZAROWICH 17364 174343 TRACI WATKINS 17365 174350 CHRISTOPHER EATON 17366 174367 CHOU LEE 17367 174374 KIET TRUONG 17368 174381 ROBERT RASMUSSEN 17369 174398 GERARDO JUAREZ 17370 174404 RAUL ROSALES 17371 174411 ROBERT C SHANROCK 17372 174428 JESUS MACIEL 17373 174435 CRISTOBAL RAMIREZJR 17374 174442 TIMOTHY O NICKOLOFF 17375 174459 EDUARDO COVARRUBIAS 17376 174466 MANUEL CUTCHON 17377 174473 MARK D MORGADO 17378 174480 MUSTAFA ISSA 17379 174497 GEORGE A VALENCIA 17380 174503 RONALD SCOTT 17381 174510 TONY R AZEVEDO 17382 174527 SALVADOR RAMIREZ JR 17383 174534 AGUSTIN E RODRIGUEZ

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RUSSLAND GROUP M & M DELIVERY SERVICE, INC
SECO, INC COREY O LLC; COREY OLLC

M & H TRUCKING LLC

MMC TRUCKING INC

CHARIS EXPRESS INC

G L M TRANSPORT, INC A & O ENTERPRISES, INC JPD ENTERPRISES, INC AIDOS CORPORATION
JAMMIN DELIVERY INC
P & M DELIVERY, INC R & J GROUND DELIVERY LLC M H DELIVERY LLC
ANDREA DOLLAR INC

ISHMAEL P&D SERVICES INC

MARELI SERVICES, INC ALPUCHE INCORPORATED J & S DELIVERY INC
BBK & T INC

RTR NATIONAL ENTERPRISES INC GJ TRUCKING INC

J MACIELS TRUCKING INC C RAMIREZ TRUCKING

C RAMIREZ TRUCKING INC

MORGADO TRUCKING INC VALENCIA P & D SERVICES INC
SRM DELIVERY LLC SEREX PACKAGE DELIVERY LLC

SEREX PACKAGE DELIVERY INC

Page 279 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 287 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17384 174541 GABRIEL ARMANDO VELEZ 17385 174558 MANUEL ENRIQUEZ 17386 174565 SAMUEL RAMOS 17387 174572 DAVID J HAMMETT 17388 174589 MICHAEL WARD 17389 174596 MARY ANN ESPINOZA 17390 174602 GEORGE ROBERT DAVIE
17391 174619 AARON LIPPS 17392 174626 HECTOR PLASCENCIA 17393 174633 JON J JOSEPHSEN 17394 174640 RICARDO MONTEZ ABADIA SR 17395 174657 MICHAEL PERKINSON 17396 174664 MENDAL KERR 17397 174671 SANDRA GONZALES 17398 174688 JULIAN CESNEROS 17399 174695 GABRIEL GONZALES 17400 174701 SIDNEY BROOKS
17401 174718 GEORGE LECA 17402 174725 CHRISTOPHER ABE 17403 174732 JOHN R MCCARTER 17404 174749 ANTHONY ROSADO 17405 174756 ANTONIO LOPEZ 17406 174763 MARCETTA LA-SHAUN EDWARDSFRAZIER
17407 174770 ANDREW JASON FLAIR 17408 174787 ANDRE LAVELLE PEPPER 17409 174794 JOHN R WHITNEY 17410 174800 MANUEL CHRIS PESTANA 17411 174817 MIKE MCGRAW 17412 174824 DOD LEW 17413 174831 JUAN CONTRERAS 17414 174848 JEFFREY LAWRENCE DUNCAN 17415 174855 DAVID LOPEZ 17416 174862 WILLIAM EARL BRYAN 17417 174879 CURTIS EDWARD GRIFFIN 17418 174886 BENNIE MEYERS 17419 174893 SUNG HAN PARK 17420 174909 VINCENT NGUYEN 17421 174916 MATTHEW W SPRINGER 17422 174923 CLIMACO J ARIAS 17423 174930 CURTIS JOHN COLE 17424 174947 ERIC JEPPSON 17425 174954 MAX ORTIZ 17426 174961 CONTE SLATON 17427 174978 WALTER IBARRA 17428 174985 JEREMY MARTIN HOUSEPIAN 17429 174992 JOSEPH BANE 17430 175005 WILLIAM BARERA 17431 175012 GUILLERMO NAVARRO 17432 175029 DONALD SHEWARD 17433 175036 RODERICK FRAZIER 17434 175043 PAUL KLIMENKO 17435 175050 EDWARD RODRIGUEZ 17436 175067 ERIC LUCERO 17437 175074 KENNETH MARITN ZAKAR 17438 175081 DAVID BOZARTH 17439 175098 KURT V JENSEN 17440 175104 THOMAS SCHEU 17441 175111 DOUGLAS D ROOD 17442 175128 ROBERT PHUNG 17443 175135 MATTHEW ROBERTSON 17444 175142 MARK RYAN 17445 175159 RICHARD PAUL MARTINEZ

Company Name 1 ENRIQUEZ PACKAGE INC ENVOY DELIVERY INC ESPINOZA TRUCKING LLC EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL FUNDING INC DBA FX ENTERPRISE F H TRANSPORTATION INC JOSEPHSEN LOGISTICS, INC
CESMAR INC BAD HANDLERS BROOKS AND DIAZ
FAITH HOPE IN PEACE FHP DEL
J & E CONTRERAS TRUCKING, INC KIDSON INVESTMENTS, LLC
HOVSEPIAN DELIVERIES, INC CORYDON HOLDING INC KLIMENKO, INC
SHANE TRANSPORTATION INC

Company Name 2
CESMAR-DOREA LLC BAD HANDLERS BROOKS AND DIAZ FAITH HOPE AND PEACE, FHP DELIVERY, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 280 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 288 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17446 175166 LENNY TRUJILLO 17447 175173 GREGORY NICKLES 17448 175180 MICHAEL ALEXANDER OLIVARES 17449 175197 WALTER AYALA 17450 175203 DAVID ETENBURN 17451 175210 STEVEN COX 17452 175227 VICTOR RESENDEZ 17453 175234 SERAFIN MANCERA 17454 175241 JOSE R SEPULVEDA 17455 175258 RICK SARDEGNA 17456 175265 PAUL FAULK 17457 175272 DIDIER ARTEAGA 17458 175289 MARK A PETTIGREW 17459 175296 RONALD EDWARD HARTMAN 17460 175302 DOUGLAS FOSTER 17461 175319 MICHAEL S HADLEY 17462 175326 JOHN HAMETT 17463 175333 ROBERT HENDERSON 17464 175340 RUBEN J MARTINEZ 17465 175357 ANDREW MUNOZ 17466 175364 JUSTIN WORDEN 17467 175371 JOSE H OVID 17468 175388 THAD BALDWIN
17469 175395 ROLANDO J GALLEGOS 17470 175401 LISA MELTON 17471 175418 DENNIS J HILL 17472 175425 JESS ELLIOTT LOFTMAN 17473 175432 FRED ROY WAUGH 17474 175449 MARTIN VEGA 17475 175456 TORRE DONNELL WATSON 17476 175463 RYAN DALKE 17477 175470 VIRGINIA SHAFFER 17478 175487 GARY GENTRY 17479 175494 RUSSELL S BRINKLEY 17480 175500 WESLEY DALE JENNINGS 17481 175517 DEAN ALEXANDER 17482 175524 RONNIE APPLE 17483 175531 CESAR ALAMILLO 17484 175548 ALMA ESPERANZA VILLATORO
17485 175555 LARRY W SIMMS 17486 175562 STEFAN M PARKINSON 17487 175579 BRADLEY THOMAS ROSE 17488 175586 ALEJANDRO DAVID SANCHEZ 17489 175609 ELGIN PATRICK DELACRUZ 17490 175616 JOSE IBARRA 17491 175623 DANIEL P MILLIGAN 17492 175630 CHARLES BURTON 17493 175647 CHIL SHIN 17494 175654 GEORGE PERAZA 17495 175661 SHAWN KEITH DEBLANC SR 17496 175678 MICHAEL LEE 17497 175685 ADRIEL MARTINEZ 17498 175692 TEDDY A PINON 17499 175708 GEORGE HILL 17500 175715 PIOQUINTO CARBAJAL 17501 175722 DENNIS WAYNE FISK 17502 175739 JASON SMITH 17503 175746 MICHAEL AHERN 17504 175753 MARK KESSELL 17505 175760 ELI BRADLEY 17506 175777 STEVE PILKINGTON 17507 175784 GREG CROWDER 17508 175791 RONALD K HALL

Company Name 1 G&L TRUCKING INC OLIVARES TRUCKING INC M AND MS INC SPEEDY COURIER SERVICE J O N - 3 CARRIERS INC LE'WESLEY'S TRANS INC MAP TRANSPORTATION INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FDX GRD ENTERPRISES INC TJW DELIVERIES LLC OVID TRUCKING INC THADDEUS B BALDWIN ENTERPRISES, INC

BB HOME DELIVERY CORPORATION WAUGH TRANSPORT INC

RYAN TRUCKING, INC
THE GENTRY R2 DELIVERY LLC

MOBOXES INC

ALAMILLO TRUCKING ANTHONY'S PICKUP AND DELIVERY SERVICES INC
AT YOUR SERVICE DEL LLC

DEBLANC TRANSPORTATION LLC 2GG INC CARRIERS EXPRESS INC
GCH INC CARBAJAL TRUCKING, INC

KMWJ CORPORATION

KESSELL FREIGHT INC STRICKTLY ENT BUSINESS L&ME INC

Page 281 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 289 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17509 175814 GERALD MARK ALLMAN 17510 175821 EMORY D POWELL 17511 175838 BILLY LOVEDAY 17512 175845 TIMOTHY RACHEL 17513 175852 RONALD MCCOLLUM 17514 175869 JIM GRAHAM 17515 175876 HENRY BARRA JR 17516 175883 JOHN MATTHEW FILPI 17517 175890 HAROLD R BAKER 17518 175906 MICHAEL STONEBURNER 17519 175913 LAURA SMITH 17520 175920 PETER RASKOWSKY
17521 175937 ERIC S ROSE 17522 175944 RORY A KING 17523 175951 DARREN D DULANEY 17524 175968 LUIS ENRIQUE PEREZ 17525 175975 FELICIA ROMERO 17526 175982 CHAD D EVANS 17527 175999 CHRISTOPHER KUNIN
17528 176002 MICHAEL ALAN YATES
17529 176019 ERIKA BRINDISI 17530 176026 GEORGE D BANUELOS 17531 176033 ANTHONY AUGSTINE GALINDO SR 17532 176040 DACKERY HARDEMAN 17533 176057 VICTOR BARRAZA 17534 176064 ALEX SANTOS 17535 176071 JOON S AN 17536 176088 ALBERT G SMITH JR 17537 176095 ROY JAMON SAMPILO 17538 176101 MARICEL SAMPILO JARAMILLO 17539 176118 LAWSON H TRUFANT JR 17540 176125 BARANG SENG 17541 176132 JORGE CALVILLO
17542 176149 CORLISS CHEAVLY LY 17543 176156 RICHARD TONY FARAO 17544 176163 BRET J OLSEN 17545 176170 FRANCISCO MACHADO 17546 176187 DONNIE THOMAS 17547 176194 NICHOLAS COY GUYER 17548 176200 RICARDO HUERTA LOPEZ 17549 176217 REYNOLD EARL LUNDGREN 17550 176224 MICHAEL JEFFERY ROGERS
17551 176231 JAMES E UPSON 17552 176248 MICHAEL RUSH 17553 176255 KEVIN S EPPS 17554 176262 JAMES D LEDYARD 17555 176279 MICHAEL BROOKS 17556 176286 GREG A CASTRO 17557 176293 ISAAC BORJA 17558 176309 BRIAN RICK ELLIS 17559 176316 JAIME ZAVALZA 17560 176323 QUINO GONZALEZ 17561 176330 KEVIN LLOYD THOMAS 17562 176347 JOHN R KIRKWOOD 17563 176354 ALWYN CULLEN 17564 176361 ERIC WILHELM WAGNER 17565 176378 ANTONIO MARTIN 17566 176385 DANIEL PETERSON 17567 176392 CHRISTIAN LUNDQUIST 17568 176408 DAVID HARLAN WINTER

Company Name 1 ALLMAN ENTERPRISES INC EMRHON INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

GRAHAM TRUCKING INC

FILPI INVESTMENTS, INC

MP SQUARE LLC LETCHER, BRADLEY & DEPUGH DELIVERY SERVICE INC

STONEBURNER INC

RAK PACKAGE SYSTEMS INC

LEPC ENTERPRISES INC R & R DISTRIBUTION CORP

CHRISTOPHER L KUNIN DELIVERY INC

YATES EXPRESS LIMITED LIABILITY M&R EXPRESS CORPORTION

GWEEDO DELIVERY SERVICES INC
NAVBAR DISTRIBUTING INC GPS FREIGHT, INC

R&S FINANCIAL GROUP INC MARICEL S JARAMILLO INC
SOKSAN TRUCKING INC CALVILLO ENTERPRISES INC
CSLY INCORPORATED SNAKEFISH EXPRESS INC NIGHT SKY ENTERPRISES INC
T & A GROUND FORCE, INC

CALVILLO DELIVERY LLC AKG ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED

NGRIIL CORP MRJ DELIVERY SERVICE
UPSON DELIVERY INC FREE JACK INC
LEDYARD ENTERPRISES INC
G C EXPRESS, INC
ELLIS & SON TRUCKING, INC ZAVALZA'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC

MRJ DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

WAGNER COURIERS INC WINTER DELIVERY SERVICE INC

Page 282 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 290 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17569 176415 WILLIAM L KISNER 17570 176422 RICHARD L MARLOW 17571 176439 EPHRAIM PEORO 17572 176446 CHARLES WILLIAM HANNUM II 17573 176453 CHARLES OSCHBACH 17574 176460 ALFRED ALBANEZ 17575 176477 SALVADOR SANDOVAL 17576 176484 MIGUEL MORALES 17577 176491 DONALD JO MCGEE 17578 176507 JORGE L GARZA 17579 176514 JULIAN GONZALEZ 17580 176521 JOHN V KEELING 17581 176538 VICENTE JR PEREZ 17582 176545 DAVID GEORGE DARRAH 17583 176552 NANCY CARLSON 17584 176569 BOBBY OWINGS 17585 176576 RICHARD MORGAN 17586 176583 TYRONE CURTIS BROWN 17587 176590 JOHN R KAY 17588 176606 JUAN MANUEL DELGADO 17589 176613 PAUL INFANTINO 17590 176620 BOBBY CRAWFORD 17591 176637 RICHARD DIAZ 17592 176644 SCOT A MACKENZIE 17593 176651 JOSEPH FOWLER 17594 176668 JAMES DAREN CHRISTENSEN
17595 176675 RON SMITH 17596 176682 WILLIAM C VANOEL 17597 176699 MARK ANDREW SCHUMER 17598 176705 PAUL J DAVIES 17599 176712 MATTHEW E HURLEY 17600 176729 ANGELA LIMA-MORAN 17601 176736 CHARLES MAKUTUYA 17602 176743 DANILO ORQUIOLA 17603 176750 ROUM STEVE KHOTH 17604 176767 R BRYON FRENYEA 17605 176774 STEVEN PEREZ 17606 176781 DEREK L JACO 17607 176798 DINO ANTHONY MAISANO 17608 176804 BOONTHONG TATPAPORN 17609 176811 DAVID DUAFALA 17610 176828 JEREMY ALLEN TOMLINSON 17611 176835 MICHAEL PATRICK MCCONNELL 17612 176842 JOSEPH VITO FANELLI 17613 176859 DENNIS RAY WARD 17614 176866 TRENT LEVINSON 17615 176873 BENELITA ROSE 17616 176880 THOMAS KUDLA 17617 176897 WILLIAM LANE GARRETT 17618 176903 YU ELDY 17619 176910 BRYAN OCAMPO 17620 176927 WILLIAM KWAN 17621 176934 GREGORIO GERARDO GONZALEZ III 17622 176941 RAFAEL ERNESTO LOPEZ 17623 176958 SALVADOR GONZALEZ
17624 176965 GILBERT ALVAREZ 17625 176972 ELIZABETH GOMEZ 17626 176989 FRANKIE A TARANTINO JR 17627 176996 JOHN W HARGIS II 17628 177009 WAY LIM LEW 17629 177016 RICKY LYNN BORCHARDT 17630 177023 TIM DAWSON

Company Name 1
EMMANUEL EPHRAIM INC HANNUM DELIVERY LLC
CBS / CSC CORP LITTLEMONEYMCGEE INC TSS MANAGEMENT, INC
GROUND FORCE, INC
R & M DELIVERY SERVICE INC MACHSURGE KAY ENDEAVORS INC INFANTINO BROTHERS LLC BOBNC INC
STELLAR PERFORMANCE INCORPORATED

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

STAR GALLARZAN LLC

EAST BAY EXPRESS

JRASK ENTERPRISES INC MATTJUST INC

MOUNTAIN SHIPPING INC GOLDEN FLYER CORPORATION

DMJ TRUCKING INC

J&S FANELLI LLC

J & S FANELLI INC

RAFAEL E LOPEZ INCORPORATED FRONTGATE INC
JAGJAG INC

FIVE STAR HOLDINGS OF SAUK RAPIDS INC

WILLING SERVICES BYOKO INC BORCHARDT PARCEL DELIVERY INC 3/D'S DISTRIBUTION INC

Page 283 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 291 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17631 177030 DONALD WAYNE GUALTIER
17632 177047 CYNTHIA MARIE ELIZALDE 17633 177054 HAROLD B CANTLEY 17634 177061 JOEL R FRY 17635 177078 ERIC MAYOKA
17636 177085 GRANT THOMAS 17637 177092 MICHAEL A GARCIA 17638 177108 MARK MCELVANE 17639 177115 JOSE LUIS ESPINOZA 17640 177122 CRESENCIO SALAS 17641 177139 BRIAN BRUNK 17642 177146 KIRK A MILLER 17643 177153 TANFIRU LEATHERWOOD 17644 177160 JEFFERY D JANSSEN 17645 177177 JOSEPH MORALES 17646 177184 PAUL L HOSFIELD 17647 177191 THOMAS SMITH 17648 177207 HYMAN FITTS 17649 177214 EDWARD BAROS 17650 177221 TOMMY ANTHONY GALLARDO
17651 177238 THOMAS M RUMERY 17652 177245 THOMAS LOPEZ 17653 177252 DOUG GARAMONI 17654 177269 BENEDICT ESTACIO SANJUAN 17655 177276 ROBERTO ROBLETO 17656 177283 JERRY REYNOLDS 17657 177290 RICHARD DILDINE 17658 177306 DANIEL PETER FERRON 17659 177313 RALPH GERALD MILLER 17660 177320 YOUNG SOO CHO 17661 177337 HERBERT STOLL 17662 177344 RICHARD HUSTED 17663 177351 MELCHOR MACAGBA 17664 177368 MARK WULF 17665 177375 LUIS ORTIZ 17666 177382 CHARLES H LIENHOP 17667 177399 ALBERT ANAYA 17668 177405 TREVOR SYERS 17669 177412 RICHARD ATAMIAN 17670 177429 DALE RICHARD WALLACE 17671 177436 ROBERTO CARLOS CONTEREAS 17672 177443 FRANK REYES 17673 177450 BEN YANG 17674 177467 ADAN HERNANDEZ VERDUZCO
17675 177474 MICHAEL T JOHNSON 17676 177481 DAVID KLOCKSIEBEN 17677 177498 PETER P OURN 17678 177504 DANIEL ADKINS 17679 177511 ENRICO F ANTONELLI 17680 177528 ROBERT WALTER 17681 177535 PETER RUDDOCK 17682 177542 CONGA LEIGH SMITH 17683 177559 ANDREW W PERKINS 17684 177566 WILFREDO PANAJON
17685 177573 HARRY R YOUNG 17686 177580 MARJORIE JEAN SASKAS 17687 177597 TODD WAYNE FOWLER 17688 177603 MONTE WALDEN 17689 177610 MICHAEL TROY CUSHMAN

Company Name 1 DONDEE ENTERPRISES LLC
H&A ENTERPRISES INC AMERICAN FAMILY LIMOUSINE SERVICE

Company Name 2 HIGH PLAINS TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JENKEV INC SUNWORLD DELIVERIES INC JODAMO CORP

TAG TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CORP

ICON DELIVERY INC

PAZZO INC

RG&P INC
HUSTED ENTERPRISES INC WULF DELIVERY SYSTEMS LLC L ORTIZ SERVICES INC
SNAPSHOT DELIVERY CORPORATION

ELITE TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTING INC

A SQUARED ELITE INC

SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT GROUP

CONGA LEE SMITH INC HORSELESS CARRIAGE, INC G & M BROADWAY; G&M BROADWAY INC

IS THAT FOR ME INC

KICK ASS PARCEL SERVICES LLC

KICK ASS PARCEL SERVICES INC

Page 284 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 292 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17690 177627 SALVADOR SANDOVAL
17691 177634 SCOTT COMPTON 17692 177641 BART A HUNNEYCUTT 17693 177658 JAMES R MARTINEZ 17694 177665 JEFFERY ROUNDTREE 17695 177672 AGUSTIN ABARCA 17696 177689 SHAUN WALLACE MCCORKLE 17697 177696 TERRY LEE CARLSON 17698 177702 PATRICK OEHMKE 17699 177719 DERIC HAMMOCK 17700 177726 CLEVELAND KARL WINGATE 17701 177733 JERRY DEMPSEY 17702 177740 AMANDO RAUL CARREON 17703 177757 CARLTON WALKER 17704 177764 ABLE ALVAREZ 17705 177771 ANGEL ESPINOZA 17706 177788 GILBERTO V VALDOVINOS 17707 177795 STEVEN M MARSHALL 17708 177801 TIMOTHY PATRICK COFFEE 17709 177818 BEVERLY BUCK 17710 177825 FERMIN MARTINEZ 17711 177832 ANDREW PRASIT HENLEY 17712 177849 ROBERT ORNELAS 17713 177856 PETI TAYLOR 17714 177863 HENERY J POSADA 17715 177870 DANIEL RUBIO 17716 177887 CHRIS RAUDMAN 17717 177894 KENNETH WAYNE REID 17718 177900 ROBERT CEPEDA 17719 177917 RON MASSEY 17720 177924 GERALD DELOS REYES REPIEDAD 17721 177931 MARIE Z MALIC-MCKERNAN 17722 177948 RONALD JAMES RYBAK 17723 177955 ALAN B NEIBAUER 17724 177962 TERRY W KUHN 17725 177979 JAY ALLEN BAUER 17726 177986 CHRIS MAROCCO 17727 177993 EARL DENNIS 17728 178006 KRIS KENT 17729 178013 TODD SO 17730 178020 BALJEET THIND 17731 178037 DAVID DEANE HOFFMAN 17732 178044 DONALD RAYMOND COOMBS 17733 178051 JOHN W LOVE 17734 178068 ANTHONY G DE LARA 17735 178075 NARINDER DHALIWAL 17736 178082 JOHN BIERSDORFF 17737 178099 LONNIE RAY STEWARTII 17738 178105 KENNETH DALE SHANKS 17739 178112 WILLIAM E WALKER 17740 178129 KIM J METZGAR 17741 178136 GERARDO SHIELDS 17742 178143 JEREMY SMITH 17743 178150 MICHAEL ALAN DENTON 17744 178167 MARK AVILES 17745 178174 JOHN GREGORY WEATHERBIE 17746 178181 WAYNE CRIGER 17747 178198 AGUSTIN PENA 17748 178204 JESUS ALCANTAR 17749 178211 ERIC SWAIN 17750 178228 MANUEL TAVERAS 17751 178235 MICHAEL MAZZARIELLO 17752 178242 EDWIN L HILL II 17753 178259 JOSE MANUELBUGARIN

Company Name 1 TELSAL TRUCKING; TELSAL TRUCKING INC S E COMPTON TRANSPORT INC B A HUNEYCUTT TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

K & S TRANSPORTATION INC

WINGATE INTERNATIONAL INC

VALUABLE TRUCKING LLC A&R DELIVERIES, INC

ESPINOZA INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

HENLEY TRANSPORT INC DEL RENO, INC CLIENT PRODUCT SERVICES INC SND TRANSPORT, INC KENNETH W REID INC
4 R SERVICES INC SILVER EXPRESS, INC KUHN 5 DELIVERY, INC

KENNETH W REID INC

KENT21 INC

KJM ENTERPRISES INC METZGAR & METZGAR INC
AVILES INDUSTRIES INC PDQ DELIVERY LLC GROUND NOW, INC E SWAIN INC
DROP N HOOK SOUTH COUNTY DIRECT

PDQ DELIVERY INC

Page 285 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 293 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17754 178266 RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ 17755 178273 DONALD BARNES 17756 178280 KEITH STONE 17757 178297 WAYNE Y KOGA 17758 178303 LINDA HOTZ 17759 178310 JOHN TORRES 17760 178327 TIM ALEXANDER 17761 178334 JAMES L MUELLER JR 17762 178341 TYRONE D BURGHARDT 17763 178358 HARVEY ALBERT MCGUIRE 17764 178365 SEAN PHILLIP CURTIS 17765 178372 THOMAS R BELLEGARDE 17766 178389 BRIAN K WOMACK 17767 178396 ERNESTO PENA 17768 178402 SHERRI DENISE SCOTT 17769 178419 CARLOS C VENZOR 17770 178426 TIMOTHY ROBERT SILKEY 17771 178433 TRAMPAS MARSHALL RUSH 17772 178440 MATTHEW W APALATEGUI 17773 178457 MICHAEL DECESARE 17774 178464 ROBERT WILLIAMS 17775 178471 RYAN JESS GOMEZ 17776 178488 JAMES MAREAN 17777 178495 THOMAS LETCHER
17778 178501 RAYMUNDO CARDOSO 17779 178518 MARIO QUIBAN EBREO 17780 178525 KEN BRADLEY 17781 178532 CHRISTON NIEWOHNER 17782 178549 MANUEL PAREDES 17783 178556 BASMAN HANNA 17784 178563 ALEX A SALUDES 17785 178570 LISA DRUMMOND 17786 178587 CARL ALAN WEAVER 17787 178594 AHMED EBRAHIM 17788 178600 BARRY J BLOOM 17789 178617 WILLIAM A ALLEN IV 17790 178624 STEPHEN K HAUSSLER 17791 178631 LESLIE GEORGE STINSON 17792 178648 BOB OWENS 17793 178655 ANITA ROSE SAMPSON 17794 178662 RAMON SALVADOR CALDERON 17795 178679 SAM YOK 17796 178686 ANTONINO CORTES 17797 178693 STEVEN ANTHONY SPOLAR 17798 178709 MARK J HALEY 17799 178716 EDGAR RIZKALLAH 17800 178723 RONALD TAYLOR 17801 178730 JOHN DONAT 17802 178747 ROD NEIL SIDELINGER 17803 178754 RAMON UMALI 17804 178761 NORIN NUTH 17805 178778 DONALD S SWAZEY 17806 178785 THOMAS J HULSEY 17807 178792 PETER THORNOCK 17808 178808 GREGORY SPROULE 17809 178815 RUDY NASTOR 17810 178822 CLYDE AUGMON 17811 178839 ANDREW MICHAEL LLOYD 17812 178846 THOMAS BIOH OURAGA 17813 178853 JAMEL GREGORY GARTRELL 17814 178860 MICHAEL W RAMOS 17815 178877 JAMES CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON 17816 178884 EDUARDO ARAIZA 17817 178891 SEAN WILFRED ORR

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL INC

TCA ENTERPRISES INC PEGASUS LOGISTICS INC

CHAUNCHS INC B & P TRUCKING INC B K WOMACK INC PENACO ENTERPRISES INC

SILKROSE LLC RUSH DELIVERY, INC PING PONG DELIVERIES, LLC STALLION DELIVERY INC
RYCO TRUCKING, INC JMT INC LETCHER BRADLEY & DEPUGH DEL SVC INC

SILKROSE INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MAX & US INC
ALS LOGISTICS LLC
C AND W SHIPPING COMPANY OZ EXPRESS DELIVERY INC

ALX LOGISTICS, INC

RCO ENTERPRISES INC NAMYAR TRANSPORT INC
I C PARTNERSHIP INC JOHN DONAT INC

NOR-CAL LOGISTICS, INC
IVORIAN TRUCKING, INC JADE EXPRESS LLC GROUND RUN INC

JADEX, INC

Page 286 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 294 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17818 178907 JOSHUA SEVERTSON 17819 178914 WADE AARON WILSON 17820 178921 MONTY ALDRICH 17821 178938 RANDY S GARIS 17822 178945 ROGER SHROUT 17823 178952 ROY HUIZAR 17824 178969 JERRY HARRINGTON 17825 178976 PETER FILIPPATOS 17826 178983 ANESTIS HARALAMBIDIS 17827 178990 RUBEN ZUNO 17828 179003 BYRON N LEBLANC 17829 179010 SERGIO GODINEZ 17830 179027 GARY MAST 17831 179034 DENNIS MCHENRY 17832 179041 HARRY EUSTACE 17833 179058 GASPAR CARRILLO 17834 179065 EVAN ANTHONY BROWN 17835 179072 JONATHAN SPRING 17836 179089 CHARLES HERRERA 17837 179096 CHAD ROBERT CONKLIN 17838 179102 CESAR HERNANDEZ 17839 179119 LOUIS F ALVAREZ 17840 179126 DOUGLAS V TANK 17841 179133 AUDELIO PENA JR 17842 179140 COLLEEN NELSON 17843 179157 BRIAN SCOTT BEAR 17844 179164 ALBERTO SANTOS 17845 179171 RAMIRO CONTRERAS 17846 179188 JOSEPH OH 17847 179195 JERRY ALAN FERGUSON 17848 179201 JAMES WOOD 17849 179218 GEORGE ARELLANO JR 17850 179225 JOHN A GORDON 17851 179232 FRANK CASTANADA 17852 179249 SHAWN M BREAKEY 17853 179256 DANIEL ALBERRY BREAKEY 17854 179263 CARL DANIELSON 17855 179270 WILLIAM MILLER 17856 179287 MARQUIS JONES 17857 179294 BEN A APALATEGUI 17858 179300 PAUL MICHAEL SPIEGEL 17859 179317 ROGER MOBLEY 17860 179324 PAUL D JOSEPH 17861 179331 MARVIN HORNE JR 17862 179348 JOE ADDISON WILIIAMS 17863 179355 OSCAR ZARATE 17864 179362 MOSHE HAZAN 17865 179379 RUBEN ABAD 17866 179386 JUAN PADILLA 17867 179393 ROBERT SHOLUND 17868 179409 NICOLAS TAPIA 17869 179416 SATGURSHARAN SINGH ATHWAL 17870 179423 SONNY SARMIENTO 17871 179430 MARK THOMAS PATTON 17872 179447 RONALD HOWARD 17873 179454 BRUCE A WITTMEIER 17874 179461 JESUS CORTEZ 17875 179478 ROBERT EUGENE SCHARF 17876 179485 PROS ORK 17877 179492 THOMAS MULHOLLAND 17878 179508 JEFFREY NONE CARDIEL 17879 179515 MARK BOYETT 17880 179522 PATRICK SOCH 17881 179539 KEVIN IVAN NELSON 17882 179546 ALFREDO B BONIFACIO

Company Name 1 SEVERTIGO INC WADE WILSON INC 85022 DELIVERY LLC BOX TROT, INC
FOURFILI DELIVERY CORP
BMSB PICK UP & DELIVERY, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

85022 ZIP DELIVERY, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

C&T PACKAGE CORP CONKLIN EXPRESS INC
CTN DELIVERIES INC A & E, INC CONTRERAS INC SMOH INC
G A TRUCKING, INC
D BREAKEY DELIVERY, INC

C-JEM INC
HM GROUND INC ABAD P&D SERVICES J & L DELIVERIES, CO
TAPIA S GENERAL SERVICES INC ATHWAL FDS CORPORATION
MRGN LLC V & R DELIVERY SERVICE INC WITTCO XPRESS INC
R AND J TRANSPORTATION , INC PROS ORK, INC

MARK & ROY INC

NITRA CORP SIMPLY GROUND

SIMPLY GROUND, INC

Page 287 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 295 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17883 179553 JEFFREY G BROWN 17884 179560 ANDRES ARAIZA 17885 179577 DAVID CECCARELLI 17886 179584 JOHN K SWEENEY 17887 179591 RICHARD GAIDA
17888 179607 DAROLD NETSER 17889 179614 RANDY ROBINSON 17890 179621 ROBERT TIERNEY 17891 179638 GUSTAVO CASTRO 17892 179645 BIJAN SARBAZ 17893 179652 BRUCE HENDERSON 17894 179669 FRANCISCO MARTINEZ 17895 179676 BRETT HARMON 17896 179683 JEFFREY JAMES DAVISON 17897 179690 EDGAR A SEVILLA 17898 179706 KENNETH M BELDEN 17899 179713 AIDA RODRIGUEZ 17900 179720 RICARDO G LARA 17901 179737 ANDREW JUNG TURPEN 17902 179744 MARK L WRIGHT 17903 179751 STEVE GREEN 17904 179768 ROBBIE ROSHA TOWNER 17905 179775 RICKEY PALMORE 17906 179782 JAVIER A RUIZ 17907 179799 DANIEL SANTISTERAN 17908 179805 ALI SCOTT 17909 179812 JESSE FERNANDEZ 17910 179829 ROBERT A FIELD 17911 179836 KAZUYA MACHIDA 17912 179843 MIGUEL CABRERA JR 17913 179850 DAVID SLICK 17914 179867 ANDREW PARKER 17915 179874 BORIS KOPEYKIN 17916 179881 MARCO SALDANA 17917 179898 KAILA KING 17918 179904 DAVID HEMSLEY 17919 179911 GEORGE TAYLOR 17920 179928 RACHEAL ELAINE ALLEN 17921 179935 DALE S KAJIWARA 17922 179942 LARRY HAIGHT 17923 179959 ARTHUR CORRAL 17924 179966 CINDY LEE DELARA 17925 179973 JEFFREY JAMES LADD 17926 179980 JON D ROSS 17927 179997 CARMEN BAHENA 17928 180009 DONALD WAYNE KELTNER 17929 180016 MICHAEL WILKINS 17930 180023 STEVEN A VANDERSLUIS 17931 180030 ARTURO BAUER 17932 180047 BHUPINDER S JHANJAR 17933 180054 RUDOLFO ESCALANTE 17934 180061 KATHLEEN ST 17935 180078 RON GRATTEROLA 17936 180085 FRANK NOEL GRUHN 17937 180092 LANCE EDMONDS 17938 180108 MICHEAL J MCLIMANS 17939 180115 GUPERTINO MAGANA 17940 180122 LUIS A RODRIGUEZ 17941 180139 JOSE P GARCIA 17942 180146 HUGO DIAZ 17943 180153 ANN SHAW 17944 180160 CHRISTIAN GALINDO 17945 180177 STEVEN HAWKINS 17946 180184 BART WAYNE MCCURDY

Company Name 1 A&C GROUNDSYSTEMS INC STYLE ON DEMAND INC AUTOBAHN EXPRESS INC
RPX INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

YOUNG TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC

HARMON EXPRESS INC DAVISON USA INC NJORDAN INC

RICARDO LARA INC
MARK L WRIGHT INC GREEN EXPRESS INC

PINE BLUFF DELIVERY INC

ANGELINNE TRANSPORTATION INC
ALI SCOTT, INC FEDEZ INC

FEDEZ INC

CABRERA ENTERPRISES, INC DAVE SLICK DELIVERY, INC ANDREW T PARKER INC 2 STAR TRUCKING, INC

DAVID'S DELIVERY SERVICE INC

CAL SERVICES INC J BAR LADD DELIVERY, INC S A C TRUCKING JPS DELIVERY INC
B L A S DELIVERY SERVICES, INC
DON MORSE ENTERPRISES, INC
MCLIMANS ENTERPRISES INC

S A C TRUCKING INC

Page 288 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 296 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 17947 180191 RICHARD RAY ROW 17948 180207 KEITH WILLIAMS 17949 180214 KHALED KHALIL 17950 180221 CHARLES R PRINCE 17951 180238 RICHARD EVANS 17952 180245 DAVID MCCASKEY 17953 180252 EDVIN SHEHU 17954 180269 FRANK M HOWELL 17955 180276 HENRIK ZOHRABIANS 17956 180283 HERMAN GOMEZ 17957 180290 DEREK DELGADO 17958 180306 MICHAEL FINNEGAN 17959 180313 ROY MASON 17960 180320 JOE HUGENROTH 17961 180337 DEAN A KERSEY 17962 180344 VICTOR RAMIREZ 17963 180351 TYRONE A TODD 17964 180368 HENRY AUBREY 17965 180375 YURIY KOPYEYKO 17966 180382 CHONG YUP KIM 17967 180399 ANTHONY WAYNE TARPLEY 17968 180405 RUSSELL N SCHIFF 17969 180412 DAVID GAUMER 17970 180429 CRAIG MONSON
17971 180436 ERIC BASKET 17972 180443 SHEA PETERSON 17973 180450 CHARLES T LIND 17974 180467 FRANCISCO JAVIER MEJIA 17975 180474 BERNIE SAITO 17976 180481 DIANNE E CLARK 17977 180498 DAVID NELSON 17978 180504 DAVID HELMON HELMON 17979 180511 SHAUN E WILDER 17980 180528 ROMAN GUZMAN 17981 180535 MICHAEL J CLARK 17982 180542 DANIEL BELTRAN 17983 180559 HERMAN MITCHELL JR 17984 180566 RUSSELL HANSEN 17985 180573 TIRSO DELACRUZ 17986 180580 RAUL MENDEZ 17987 180597 JESSE GALLEGOS 17988 180603 DEREK JAMES HARNESS 17989 180610 MARIO BRAGA 17990 180627 MARIN MARQUEZ 17991 180634 RAJINDER SURI 17992 180641 CHRISTOPHER LEE KAUTZKY 17993 180658 RAUL YUSON 17994 180665 FRANK FLORES 17995 180672 CANDRIX JOHNSON 17996 180689 TIM BABCOCK 17997 180696 MANUEL CORONADO GUERRERO 17998 180702 CHARLES PAUL ENDLER 17999 180719 SCOTT LUNT 18000 180726 TYREE J HOPPOCK 18001 180733 DONALD MORSE
18002 180740 GONZALO MARTINEZ
18003 180757 JOHN A URNESS 18004 180764 LEON HACKETT 18005 180771 GABRIEL HUIZAR 18006 180788 NICHOLAS THOMAS FISHER 18007 180795 VICTOR GALDAMEZ 18008 180801 CHRISTIAN PEREZ

Company Name 1
K&K DELIVERY INC
ZEON ENTERPRISE INC ZOHRABIANS INC HG INC
MARK & ROY INC DEAN KERSEY TRUCKING INC R P S EXPRESS, INC EQUIPO AIT INC HENHOPPA INC
VERNNEST INC RS FINS INC CJ'S DISTRIBUTORS LLC SOUTH BAY H&T CORP

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

OMF DELIVERY INC
CRAIG'S DISTRIBUTION, INC

DELIVERY HOME HANDLING INC ADV CARGO

TRANSITION TRUCKING INC

RPSS, INC

C&C EXPRESS RUNNER INC WESTERN LOGISTIC SERVICES INC GUERRERO TRUCKING INC CNS INVESTMENTS, INC

SEVEN THUNDERS, INC

DON MORSE ENTERPRISE LLC MARTINEZ EXPRESS INC

DON MORSE ENTERPRISES, INC G & J MARTINEZ EXPRESS INC

HUIZAR BROS III INC
VMG INC PPFT INC

Page 289 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 297 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18009 180818 BELINDA COMEAUX 18010 180825 JAMES F GIBSON 18011 180832 WILLIE KING JR 18012 180849 MICHAEL ANTHONY BELTRAN 18013 180856 JASON E SANTIAGO 18014 180863 TIMOTHY HORN 18015 180870 JERE RIONS 18016 180887 WILLIAM ANGLE 18017 180894 JOSE M RAMIREZ 18018 180900 GARY SMITH 18019 180917 TONY VALDEZ 18020 180924 GARY WILLSIE 18021 180931 MUHAMMAD TALID HAMEEN 18022 180948 SONNY THOMPSON 18023 180955 PAUL R SILVA 18024 180962 DAVID L COOPER 18025 180979 MARIA COBIN 18026 180986 GALDENIO NODA 18027 180993 JOHN CRAIG ODONNELL 18028 181006 PATRICK WILLIAM MARTIN 18029 181013 BRIDGETTE WHITEHEAD 18030 181020 PEDRO FRIAS 18031 181037 SHAWN S LAWLER 18032 181044 ELVEN BAILEY 18033 181051 DAVID MACVANE 18034 181068 MICHAEL BERNARD HARTWELL 18035 181075 KENNETH SWANSON 18036 181082 ROBERT PORRAS 18037 181099 MATTHEW MARTIN WATSON 18038 181105 TIM STAFFORD 18039 181112 DINO J REALI 18040 181129 CHUYI VANG LEE 18041 181136 DON C VILLANUEVA 18042 181143 REBECCA L MARQUEZ
18043 181150 CHARLES E EVANS 18044 181167 ALEJANDRO CAMPOS 18045 181174 RAYMOND J FLORES
18046 181181 LUCAS EDDY LATOUF 18047 181198 LUIS AVILA 18048 181204 HOWARD BERNARD GIPSON JR 18049 181211 ALBERT WUN
18050 181228 MICHAEL RAY DOSS 18051 181235 SHU TUNG LEE 18052 181242 HAROLD JOSEPH PHILLIPS 18053 181259 ROY E GUTIERREZ 18054 181266 DANIEL CATALAN 18055 181273 DAVID JONES 18056 181280 GABRIEL DAVIS 18057 181297 GREGORY MCCLURE 18058 181303 TOM WOLAVER 18059 181310 ROBERT P HARKINS 18060 181327 MICHAEL BROWNE 18061 181334 OCTAVIO MONTERO 18062 181341 JOSE CACERES 18063 181358 JAVIER JIMENEZ 18064 181365 STEVEN R KERSTEN 18065 181372 SIMON PICKETT 18066 181389 ELIO SAUCEDO 18067 181396 CHARLES NORMAN JUSTICE 18068 181402 PHILLIP THOMPSON 18069 181419 CHARLES MARTIN 18070 181426 RONALD WISEMAN

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

THREE STRANDS ENTERPRISES INC

A&A PICKUP & DELIVERY INC

MARQUARDT, INC

YT SERVICES, INC
LET US M U H INCORPORATED JRT ENTERPRISES

SAMI TRANSPORTATION, INC PAPO, INC

WHITEHEAD ENTERPRISES INC P & F TRUCKING, CORPORATION

MH & MH DELIVERY LLC

TMTMMK, INC

PORRAS INCORPORATION

MONUMENT COURIER INC

C & C CONTRACT CARRIERS

REBECCA PACKAGE SERVICE LLC

REBECCA'S PACKAGE SERVICE, INC

A&L DELIVERY SERVICE INC GROUND FLOR PACKAGE SYSTEMS INC

LA OPERATIONS INC HBGI LLC MAVERICK DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

MAVERICK DELIVERY SERVICE

PHILLIPS FAMILY TRUCKING INC JMR TRUCKING, INC DC & SH INC

CLUTCH BUCKS INC JUSTICE & JUSTICE, INC

Page 290 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 298 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18071 181433 BEORA HART JR 18072 181440 ANTHONY STEVEN VALDIVIA 18073 181457 RICHARD P NICKLESS 18074 181464 GUY M ROBINSON 18075 181471 DARON OWENS 18076 181488 JARVIS PATRICK 18077 181495 MICHAEL JOHNSON 18078 181501 JAMES JEFFERSON KRIKAVA 18079 181518 TIM MOORE 18080 181525 PAUL MELTON WELCH 18081 181532 MICHAEL ANTHONY HERRERA 18082 181549 RAFAEL ROMAN 18083 181556 ADENIJI WASHINGTON
18084 181563 BERNIE PERRYMAN SALINAS
18085 181570 DAVID R CHRISTENSEN 18086 181587 JAMES CALVIN WESLEY NUNLEY II 18087 181594 WILLIAM MAURER 18088 181600 JOHN ALLEN NOEL 18089 181617 DONZELLE LAMAR PAIGE 18090 181624 KIM MALONEY 18091 181631 DANIEL L BUNCE 18092 181648 GUY SHIMIZU 18093 181655 JULIAN VILLANUEVA 18094 181662 GERALD LORENZ 18095 181679 RUDY JESSE GOMEZ 18096 181686 OSCAR ANGEL 18097 181693 MICHELE TIPPIN 18098 181709 ELEIZER ORTIZ 18099 181716 JEFF OGAN 18100 181723 RICARDO FLORES 18101 181730 ALEX LUIS ROJAS 18102 181747 TERRY JAMES SAIT 18103 181754 CLAYTON SPENCER SMITH 18104 181761 THEORDORE JR MONTOYA III 18105 181778 RONALD GENE EDDINGS 18106 181785 WALLACE LION 18107 181792 DOUG GALLACHER 18108 181808 MICHAEL THOMAS FARRELL 18109 181815 DAVID MAURICIO RUBIO 18110 181822 JORGE ZEPEDA 18111 181839 TERRIL DOUGLAS 18112 181846 PETER GRILLO 18113 181853 MARK ALEXANDER 18114 181860 JERRY LEE CLAAR 18115 181877 BENJAMIN ICASIANO 18116 181884 KENNETH SAVORY 18117 181891 MARIA ELENA MARQUEZCARRERA 18118 181907 JSTUART HUGHES 18119 181914 FRANK MARTINEZ 18120 181921 NEAL FRYBARGER 18121 181938 JOHN T CAMACHO 18122 181945 JAMES JOSEPH COLLINS JR 18123 181952 JIMMY DANE 18124 181969 JAVIER ARELLANO 18125 181976 JOE ALFRED MACIAS 18126 181983 OSWALD BALTIERREZ 18127 181990 MICHAEL KRISTIAN GRIDER 18128 182003 BRITT ALLEN KIMBLE 18129 182010 STEVEN DALE HAMILTON 18130 182027 LAVERN CHERESE WILLIS 18131 182034 MARC THOMAS WESTENGARD 18132 182041 ELIZABETH ANN MOORE 18133 182058 STEVE ROUILLER

Company Name 1 NICKLESS & SONS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

J K DELIVERS, INC

ROMAN SOLUTIONS LLC NIJI PICK UP & DELIVERY SERVICE, INC MK TRANSPORTATION, LLC

SALINAS DELIVERY INCORPORATED

UNDERDOG EXPRESS, INC DLP CONTRACTOR SERVICES

GOMEZ DELIVERY, INC WHITEHORSE TRUCKING INC
RISA CO CORPORATION
TSAITCO INC TUMBLEWEED EXPRESS INC
RJE ENTERPRISES W G LION ENTERPRISE INC EVERGREEN VANS

RISA, INC

CRICKET TRNASPORTATION CO

PHARO DELIVERIES INC
L&J DISTRIBUTING INC
MACIAS LOGISTICS, INC OZZIE'S TRUCKING LLC M K GRIDER INC
WESTERNGARD INC ON THE ROAD AGAIN, INC

Page 291 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 299 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18134 182065 PEDRO YAN RODRIGUEZ 18135 182072 ROBERT A PITCOCK 18136 182089 JOAO JOHN COSTA 18137 182096 KENNETH JUE 18138 182102 ROBERT ADAM PIERCE 18139 182119 KEVIN C MONTGOMERY 18140 182126 PAUL FENNER 18141 182133 DONALD ANTHONY HAMPTON 18142 182140 JAY RAMOS LADRAN 18143 182157 SALVADOR MACIAS JR 18144 182164 ALBERTO CHAIDEZ 18145 182171 DAVID EARLEY 18146 182188 RON L HARKINS 18147 182195 JORGE RODRIGUEZ 18148 182201 DAVID TENNEY 18149 182218 CARLETON G HARTFORD 18150 182225 RICARDO SILVA 18151 182232 JASON RICHARD JENSEN 18152 182249 SHERRY SUZAN VALADAS 18153 182256 ROBERT ETHEREDGE 18154 182263 CHRIS ROMAN 18155 182270 CLAYTON SIMONE 18156 182287 JERRETT HENDERSON 18157 182294 ERNEST MERCADO 18158 182300 DEBORAH RIBEIRO 18159 182317 JOSEPH BOLESTA 18160 182324 SEAN CONVAY 18161 182331 FELIX SEGURA 18162 182348 JOHN BIRMINGHAM 18163 182355 JOHN JENSEN 18164 182362 DAVID H MEISNER 18165 182379 MERRILL GERONIMO HAMOY 18166 182386 JOSEPH PAUL HART 18167 182393 MICHAEL BERG 18168 182409 JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ 18169 182416 DAN CARROLL 18170 182423 LEO JAVELONA 18171 182430 JOHN TOLEN 18172 182447 CHRISTOPHER CARSON 18173 182454 JUAN MIGUEL CERVANTES 18174 182461 ALBERT S PATTERSON 18175 182478 ANTONIO VERA 18176 182485 MICHAEL HICKS
18177 182492 DAVID DATTILIO 18178 182508 DOUGLAS SHIELDS 18179 182515 FRANK BARRERA 18180 182522 LILLY ANN HOEHN 18181 182539 JIMMY D IRBY 18182 182546 CARL JOHNSON 18183 182553 CLINT FISHER 18184 182560 DAVE BERGLUND 18185 182577 CRAIG EDMOND STOREY 18186 182584 SCOTT M FOSTER 18187 182591 ALDO ROJAS 18188 182607 DARRYLE EDUARDO FERNANDEZ 18189 182614 THOMAS NORDEN 18190 182621 CHRISTIAN ISAAC AMBRIZ
18191 182638 DIRK DE SHAWN YANCEY 18192 182645 ANTONIO ORTIZ 18193 182652 FRANCISCO MORAN 18194 182669 MARC S SCHIFF 18195 182676 JOHN JOSEPH BATTAGLIA 18196 182683 DALE ERIC WAFER

Company Name 1
ALPIT, INC JJC TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2 SOCAL EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

RONIN TRANSPORTATION A & L PICKUP & DELIVERY INC
HDS LLC

HDS, INC

BOLESTA ENTERPRISES INC
BIG DOG CONTRACTING, INC MICHLAWEN SERVICES

TLC TRANSPORT INC

PLETHORA SOLUTIONS INC

F4 CORPORATION

SOL GRIND EXPRESS INC
HOME DELIVERY SERVICE LLC
YANCEY DISTRIBUTING INC AGD DELIVERY INC CISCO DELIVERY SERVICES INC
BATMAN FOR DELIVERY INC XPEDITE-IT LLC

HOME DELIVERY SERVICES INC

Page 292 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 300 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18197 182690 MICHAEL LINDHOLM 18198 182706 MICHAEL R MCGRELLIS 18199 182713 JAMES S FAHLGREN 18200 182720 CARLOS QUINTINO 18201 182737 RICK WILLIAM PAIVA 18202 182744 JAVIER OLAGUE 18203 182751 EARNEST WHITE 18204 182768 GREG HANDY 18205 182775 HENRY RAY MARTINEZ 18206 182782 EDWARD GELB 18207 182799 JOHN FERRARO 18208 182805 ABEL RAMOS 18209 182812 HECTOR CABRALES 18210 182829 WILTON NERY 18211 182836 KENNETH MCINTIRE 18212 182843 ERNEST HIRSCH JR 18213 182850 THOMAS TRAVIS EVANS 18214 182867 DENNIS BOYER 18215 182874 JACK D LONG 18216 182881 CHRISTOPHER L DAVISON 18217 182898 HARMON GIBSON 18218 182904 ARTHUR DAVID LOPEZ 18219 182911 TIMOTHY GERALD PEAKER 18220 182928 BRIAN OCHABA 18221 182935 ESTEBAN L MARQUEZ 18222 182942 JACK JOYNER 18223 182959 MICHAEL HALLIDAY 18224 182966 JEREMIAH ERCHUL 18225 182973 JIM BRONISTE 18226 182980 TERRY FAULKENBURY 18227 182997 STEVE FREDRICK LEACHMAN 18228 183000 JOHN W BARRETT 18229 183017 SAMUEL LEAL JR 18230 183024 JEFFERY TREADWELL 18231 183031 JOSEPH GEORGE SABO 18232 183048 IVAN ESPINOSA 18233 183055 FRANK VILORIO 18234 183062 ALEXANDER LEBEAU 18235 183079 DAN HALTERMAN 18236 183086 ERIC GREGORIO FLORES 18237 183093 TIMOTHY CORK 18238 183109 JOHN SMALLMAN 18239 183116 GERALD B LAMONT 18240 183123 PAUL SCOTT 18241 183130 CANDIS LYNN AUSTIN 18242 183147 JOHN H THOMPSON 18243 183154 ALAN ONDERIK 18244 183161 PIOTR JAROSLAW MALINOWSKI 18245 183178 DONNA RILEY-HENDRIX 18246 183185 KENNETH M EGGERS 18247 183192 KOU HER 18248 183208 PAUL PARADIS 18249 183215 FRED HOLMBERG 18250 183222 RUSSELL KEITH OTT 18251 183239 QYN BEDFORD 18252 183246 LAURA G RAND 18253 183253 BRENT GEORGE THOMAS 18254 183260 GARY MUSIC 18255 183277 LEO WRIGHT 18256 183284 STEPHEN WRIGHT 18257 183291 ERIC ALLAN KEGEL 18258 183307 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN SCHMIDT 18259 183314 DAVID MARSH 18260 183321 ROBERT MUTELL JR 18261 183338 STEVEN OTTO EGGEMEYER

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

THOMAS EVANS FEDEX GROUND LLC LONG EXPEDITING SVCS INC DAVISON'S DELIVERY, INC
THE SWINGMAN CORP MARQ TRUCKING INC
JC TRUCKING INC
4 LEALS INC
GATEWAY FREIGHT, INC HAULIN' AL'S SERVICES INC PLM ENTERPRISES, LLC K S M E INCORPORATED HOLMBERG ENTERPRISES INC MARSON ENTERPRISES INC LAURIC DELIVERY SERVICES, INC B&L THOMAS INC GEE DUBS INC E L J W INC
DMI INC INTERCEPTOR INC

Page 293 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 301 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18262 183345 MICHAEL DARRELL KEEMA 18263 183352 KELVIN LAMONT BOOKERT 18264 183369 TIMOTHY MARLEAU 18265 183376 GARRED RAY LYLE 18266 183383 DAVID JONATHAN CELLARS 18267 183390 NICHOLAS DAVID STRAUGHN 18268 183406 JOSE ALBERTO EFFIIO 18269 183413 CLARENCE SOLOMON 18270 183420 SARA HAZARD 18271 183437 MICHAEL LANCE 18272 183444 FK BARTLEY 18273 183451 SCOTT LEE ROSS 18274 183468 MIGUEL C CHAVEZ 18275 183475 RODNEY A L CAMARAO 18276 183482 ROSS TERUYA 18277 183499 RANDY ARCANGEL
18278 183505 MALO T FIU 18279 183512 ALEXIE KAIWI KAAIHUE 18280 183529 RICHARD AHLOO 18281 183536 APRIL JEAN MENDES 18282 183543 MARVIN NG 18283 183550 GEORGE FILIAGA BURGESS 18284 183567 EDGAR GAJETE ZAFARALLA 18285 183574 JOSEPH SEKO 18286 183581 BRIAN P COLLINS JR 18287 183598 ROBERT FRENCH 18288 183604 JOHN STEVEN JACKSON 18289 183611 RONALD JEWETT 18290 183628 LARRY HALL 18291 183635 CHET TAKEUCHI 18292 183642 LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 18293 183659 DANIEL JAMORA 18294 183666 JOSEPH ELLWOOD AIWOHI 18295 183673 KERRY ALLEN 18296 183680 MATTHEW TSUCHIYA 18297 183697 JAMES ARTHUR PAROLINE JR 18298 183703 MARILYN BATIZ 18299 183710 RAUL MENDEZ 18300 183727 GRAYE LEWIS 18301 183734 DANIEL M JESTER 18302 183741 GENEROSO LARIOZA GASCON 18303 183758 RYAN HIROSHI FELICIANO 18304 183765 SIMEON MALASIG 18305 183772 LENN MIYAO 18306 183789 ROLANDO LAPASTORA 18307 183796 DUILIO FILHO 18308 183802 RYAN KENSO OATO 18309 183819 ROLANDO L LAMUG 18310 183826 ROBERT S MEDEIROS 18311 183833 ANTHONY NAKOAKALANI NUNES 18312 183840 CHARLES JOSEPH HAMEL 18313 183857 SCOTT KELII MAURICE 18314 183864 MIKE A FOLSOM 18315 183871 DAVID RAMOS 18316 183888 REAGAN YAMAMOTO 18317 183895 CHRISTOPHER ROBB 18318 183901 ROBERT A CRANE 18319 183918 MATTHEW A TOM 18320 183925 RODNEY KAWIKA RIVERA 18321 183932 STEVEN SANTIAGO FERNANDEZ 18322 183949 DAMIEN MICHAEL RAPOZO 18323 183956 CLEMENT YOUNG 18324 183963 JASON AKIRA HIN CHUN 18325 183970 DOMINICK TARTARO

Company Name 1 APEX SERVICES INC RED PLANET DELIVERY CORP DAVECELLARS, INC SAS TRANSPORT
BOSS TRANSPORTER CORP
DELIVERY EZ LLC RPS HAWAII TERUYA'S P&D SERVICE INC ARCANGEL ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED P A EXPRESS AHLOO LTD MARVIN G NG INC
SEKO INC AARDVARK DESIGN CO INC FIRST ROCK VENTURES INC
JOHNSTON INC
TSUCHIYA ENTERPRISES
TIPPA ME LLC
G&M HOME DELIVERY INC
A&S DELIVERY LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DELIVERY 4 U INC LICKETY-SPLIT INC
AHLOO LTD

A&S DELIVERY II, INC

RSMJR CORP ANTHONY NUNES INC PACKAGE DELIVERY SOLUTIONS INC SKM DELIVERS INC MKM TRUCKING INC

FERNANDEZ ESTATES LLC DMR ENTERPRISES, INC YOUNG SERVICES LLC JAYEX LTD

Page 294 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 302 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18326 183987 DARRELL P IOANE 18327 183994 WILFRED SAKUGAWA 18328 184007 MICHAEL YOUNG 18329 184014 KEVIN WAKATAKE 18330 184021 WILLLAM KEITH PENAROZA 18331 184038 VINCENT PLOURDE 18332 184045 JEROME WASKO 18333 184052 MANOLITO M ANCHETA 18334 184069 TYRONE JAMES JENKINS 18335 184076 DAMIEN KEALOHA 18336 184083 EUGENE LUM 18337 184090 GERARDO B SALVADOR 18338 184106 LUIS ALBERTO 18339 184113 CHAD INGALLS 18340 184120 NELSON KEVIN BALBERDI 18341 184137 LEVY FEITEIRA 18342 184144 BRENT A GORDON 18343 184151 JON F COUNCIL 18344 184168 MAXIMINO JALECO JALANDONI III 18345 184175 KEITH JEROME WALL 18346 184182 ABIBU DEEN 18347 184199 DENARD JARMON JR 18348 184205 DAVID RAMADHANI 18349 184212 MATTHEW FAULKNER 18350 184229 GRADY W MASSEY 18351 184236 WILLIAM GRUNDY 18352 184243 LUIZ DINIZ 18353 184250 ROGELIO A TURALDE 18354 184267 GIORIA MARIA ROMERO 18355 184274 MUDRIKA K KIEGEMINE 18356 184281 GUOXUN DAI 18357 184298 MARTINS O AMIWERO 18358 184304 ANTHONY DURMOND BARBOUR 18359 184311 JOSEPH WARDELL ALLEN 18360 184328 ALVESTER RANDALL VAUGHAN 18361 184335 ROBERT C YATES 18362 184342 JAHMEL NATHANIEL HAYNES 18363 184359 JAMES WILLIAMS 18364 184366 WALADAQ WICHITNAK 18365 184373 JUAQUINE DIEGO FIELDS 18366 184380 JONATHAN TOMLINSON 18367 184397 ABBAS ADABI 18368 184403 MILTON D GILCHRIST 18369 184410 TIMOTHY JEROME WOMACK 18370 184427 ANTOINE LAMOND CULLOM 18371 184434 ERIC GRAYTON 18372 184441 WILLIAM STEVENSON 18373 184458 WALLACE HARRIS 18374 184465 MAURICE P INGRAM 18375 184472 BILLY R THOMPSON 18376 184489 ANTHONY MAURICE SAVOY 18377 184496 MICHAEL ADGER 18378 184502 LUMUMBA BROWN 18379 184519 DEMETRIUS HARRIS 18380 184526 LEWIS DAVIS 18381 184533 DEMI SANYA 18382 184540 ALFORD WILEY 18383 184557 CETRIC LYONS 18384 184564 RICHARD E DUBLIN 18385 184571 SEAN CAMP 18386 184588 BEVIS A SWINSON 18387 184595 SHANNON NICOLE COLEMAN 18388 184601 CHRISTINO ZAPATA BEST 18389 184618 KENNETH ANDREW BROWN SR 18390 184625 MORRIS G UKU

Company Name 1
KWAKA GROUND INC PENAROZA CORPORATION
KEALOHA TRANSFER LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KEALOHA TRANSFER INC

CROSSX ROAD EXPRESS INC BIG BRA TRUCKING INC WEG INC DYMING INC

J D F ENTERPRISES INC ADABI CORPORATION COMPLETE PACKAGE A&B MANAGEMENT INC WILLING INCORPORATED
DEMRON ENTERPRISES LLC

DCH DELIVERY INC

C & T EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE KEN MAR ENTERPRISE, INC

Page 295 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 303 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18391 184632 VASHTI SHERADA JEFFERSON 18392 184649 GARFIELD NOEL ISAACSHEYLIGER
18393 184656 RAZAQ GBADAMOSI 18394 184663 CHARLES A SMITH 18395 184670 ANDRE WILLIS 18396 184687 ABDOU GBANE
18397 184694 GIRUM KIBRUM 18398 184700 OSCAR R AVELAR 18399 184717 DAVID WYNJONES MWIMANZI 18400 184724 SABIR BABANI 18401 184731 JUAN C GRANDE 18402 184748 EMSUD NMN JAKUPOVIC 18403 184755 DAVID DUNCAN 18404 184762 LEHAUTYLAIT MICHEL NAHA 18405 184779 ALMIR IDRIZOVIC 18406 184786 HAO TU 18407 184793 EROS H SANAHUJA 18408 184809 OWEN GODFREY PETERS 18409 184816 AUSTIN AARON CALDWELL 18410 184823 ROGER G CARLTON 18411 184830 DAVID CARTER 18412 184847 RONALD EUGENE LINTHICUM 18413 184854 ANDRE F BURT 18414 184861 REGINALD COATES 18415 184878 ROBERT S DAVISON 18416 184885 DEREK L SMITH 18417 184892 KEVIN J DUNN 18418 184908 PERNELL GRANT 18419 184915 ANTHONY CLEVE WALKER 18420 184922 RAHMAN HILTON
18421 184939 AMOS M MUSHALA 18422 184946 DOUGLAS ROBERT BRUNCLIK 18423 184953 SEAN AVERY 18424 184960 GREGORY AUSTIN KLENTZ 18425 184977 ERIC JOHNSON 18426 184984 MALCOM TYRONE HARWOOD 18427 184991 DERRICK ANTHONY HAWES 18428 185004 LUCIUS PLAYER PETERSON 18429 185011 FREDERICK HOWELL 18430 185028 DONGSU BAEK 18431 185035 ROBERT EARL JUDD 18432 185042 BERNARD PILGRIM 18433 185059 VINCENT HOLMES 18434 185066 NELSON HICKS 18435 185073 SOJI GEEJAY CLARK 18436 185080 SEAN FRANKLIN STEVENSON 18437 185097 VICENTE A DUNCAN
18438 185103 MAHMOUD KARIM DIALLO 18439 185110 ERNEST AUBER 18440 185127 HENRI OUERDRAOGO 18441 185134 FAUSTIN NTAHIMPERA 18442 185141 AL PORTER 18443 185158 QASSIM ALMODHAFIR 18444 185165 ADIS CELEBIC 18445 185172 MIRZA KUJUNDZIC 18446 185189 JEANYVON BERNADO 18447 185196 MICHAEL DAODU 18448 185202 PABLO GARCIA 18449 185219 MIKE KILLEN 18450 185226 DWIGHT CLIPHTON LONGUS

Company Name 1
GARLYN ENTERPRISES; GARLYN ENTERPRISES LLC
SMITTY ENTERPRISES LTD INC
ABDOU GBANE DBA CHEETAH TRANSPORT

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

GARYLN ENTERPRISES INC CARABUN INC

CHEETAH TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

EMJ PACKAGE DELIVERY INC DAVEDUN INC
NEWLAND LOGISTICS INC

RSH LLC

EFFICIENT COURIERS INC PRECISE COURIERS SERVICES, INC

XAVIER TRANSPORTATION PARDU SHIPPING LLC EJ DELIVERY SERVICE INC GROUND FORCE 12 ENTERPRISE INC

BETHSEDA LINE INC RICWARNER INC

SILOAM LINE, INC

MISOON LINE INC

SEAN STEVENSON INC VINCENTE DUNCANS TRANSPORTATION INC
AUBER DISTRIBUTOR INC
ITALS TRUCKING INC
CELEBIC TRUCKING INC INDEPENDENT TRANSIT LLC

MIKE KILLEN, INC LONGUS TRANSPORTION INCORPORATED

Page 296 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 304 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18451 185233 PHILANDER THOMPSON 18452 185240 ELIJAH SALLEY 18453 185257 MICHAEL FORTUNE 18454 185264 WAKEEL FETUGA 18455 185271 REGINALD E SMITH 18456 185288 ANTHONY DAVIS 18457 185295 GREGORY ALONZO MARSH 18458 185301 FRAZIER LAMONT SMITH 18459 185318 DEVALL W SATTERWHITE 18460 185325 GORDON DEWITT LYTLE JR 18461 185332 GEORGE NAMINGONA 18462 185349 PETER RAO 18463 185356 THOMAS RICARDO DAGGETT 18464 185363 GARY EUGENE LANEBLAKE 18465 185370 RAMON DREW 18466 185387 BARON V WALDEN 18467 185394 MICHAEL FAREWELL 18468 185400 GREGORY T RUFFIN 18469 185417 PHILLIP D ROY 18470 185424 DAVID MYRICK 18471 185431 ANTHONY B CHIARELLA 18472 185448 MARCELLOUS BRUNDAGE 18473 185455 RENARD STEVENS 18474 185462 MICHAEL HUICI 18475 185479 JOHN D SANDERS 18476 185486 ANDRE HENDRICKS 18477 185493 PAUL G MESSINEO 18478 185509 JAMES THOMAS 18479 185516 BRUCE JAMES MCDANIEL 18480 185523 ANTHONY GILMORE 18481 185530 CRYSTAL COLBERT 18482 185547 JOHN ULYSSE 18483 185554 DAMIAN A KELLY 18484 185561 KEVIN ANTHONY PURCHAS 18485 185578 ROBERTO MORALES 18486 185585 WEYMOUTH AUDWIN MOLYNEAUX
18487 185592 CHARLES M MACK 18488 185608 HILLARY GOODWIN 18489 185615 ALEXIS ALEXANDER MARTIN 18490 185622 BOODBHIR BIRBALSINGH 18491 185639 ALTON LINROY JAMES 18492 185646 MICHAEL R MEADER 18493 185653 JEREMY C SWAN JR
18494 185660 AYODELE ANTHONY GLODON 18495 185677 JASON SNOW 18496 185684 GRAYDON PALMER ROURKE 18497 185691 ERIC LUCERO 18498 185707 JOEL JIMENEZ 18499 185714 ARIS FLORES 18500 185721 FRANKIE MUNIZ 18501 185738 JULIO C RUIZ 18502 185745 WILLIAM VAZQUEZ 18503 185752 CHARLIE URENA 18504 185769 VICTOR COLLAZO 18505 185776 WANDA PIZARRO 18506 185783 JESUS RODRIQUEZ 18507 185790 ALEXANDER TAPIA 18508 185806 EDWIN RIVERA 18509 185813 FRANCISCO M ALVAREZ 18510 185820 JOSE L TORRES 18511 185837 RAMON AGUILOPERALTA 18512 185844 MARCELINO SCHUSTER 18513 185851 SHAWN FONTAINE

Company Name 1 EES ENTERPRISES LLC RES ENTERPRISES, LTD
GROUND EXPRESS LLC

Company Name 2 EES ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FAREWELL ENTERPRISES INC GBU DELIVERY SERVICES INC

PIECE BY PEACE INC B & M ENTERPRISE LLC AE GILMORE EXPRESS INC C & C LOGISTICS INC
KUM INC MOLYNEAUX EXPRESS
LEXRO LLC SUMITRA ENTERPRISES INC
SWAN & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED

B & M ENTERPRISE INC MOLYNEAUX EXPRESS INC

YANIKARIS INC
JNE TRANSPORTATION INC
CHANELLY & ARLENY TRUCKING INC V&L TRUCKING INC

BAM BAM CORPORATION
FATHER & SON CORP AGUILO TRUCKING INC

TORRFEX INC

Page 297 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 305 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18514 185868 TONY GENESEO 18515 185875 PABLO HERNANDEZ
18516 185882 JEFF SHELTON 18517 185899 NELSON SOTO 18518 185905 WALTER THORN 18519 185912 STEVEN BECKWITH 18520 185929 TRUMAN C STEPHENS 18521 185936 HECTOR L FELICIANO 18522 185943 DALLAS BRATHCHER 18523 185950 ELMER H ORENGO 18524 185967 JOSE RAFAEL SUERO 18525 185974 CRAIG L DAIGLE 18526 185981 RAFAEL A JIMENEZ 18527 185998 AMAURY LOPEZ 18528 186001 JOSE CABRAL
18529 186018 JOSE COLON 18530 186025 EDUARDO VAZQUEZ 18531 186032 NOEL VELAZQUEZ 18532 186049 ANGEL IVAN RAMOS 18533 186056 HARRY HENRY 18534 186063 ORLANDO PEREZ 18535 186070 JOSE L SANTIAGO 18536 186087 PEDRO PEREZ 18537 186094 CARLOS M CENTENO 18538 186100 ISRAEL C RODRIGUEZ 18539 186117 CARLOS SANCHEZ 18540 186124 ANGEL MANUEL MELENDEZ 18541 186131 RAMON ROCHE 18542 186148 OSVALDO ORTIZ 18543 186155 JOSE SANTIAGO 18544 186162 AXEL RODRIGUEZ 18545 186179 AUDELIZ NIEVES 18546 186186 CARLOS JAVIER SOTO 18547 186193 RICHARD INOA 18548 186209 RUBEN RODRIGUEZ 18549 186216 JOHN KIAMOS 18550 186223 JUAN R RIVERA 18551 186230 ORLANDO CRUZ 18552 186247 LUIS BORIA 18553 186254 JUAN RIVERA 18554 186261 JOANNIE RIOS
18555 186278 PEDRO CINTRON 18556 186285 ALFREDO JIMENEZ 18557 186292 TDEL D VASQUEZ 18558 186308 JOSE I GONZALEZ 18559 186315 ANGEL LUIS MALDONADO 18560 186322 RAYMOND COLON JR 18561 186339 KERRY ANDERSON 18562 186346 MARVIN L SANTIAGO 18563 186353 JULIO CESAR CRUZRIVERA 18564 186360 REY ANIBAL MEJIAS 18565 186377 LUIS TORRES DAVILA 18566 186384 ELMER ORTIZ 18567 186391 FELIX HERNANDEZ 18568 186407 RUDY O AMOROS 18569 186414 PETER DOYLE 18570 186438 ANTHONHY JAMES FIASCO 18571 186445 ROBERT GIANCURSIO 18572 186452 SONNY TORRES JR 18573 186469 OMAR MORALES 18574 186476 PEDRO ESPINALFLORES 18575 186483 RICARDO GELY

Company Name 1
STRATEX DEVELOPEMENT ENTERPRISES BODEANS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

TCS INC
BRATCHER ENTERPRISES INC
DAIGLE'S SPS INCORPORATED R J 'S FLEET, INC ARL DELIVERED INC FLAMBOYAN CORP

R J 'S FLEET, INC
FLAMBOYAN SERVICE CORP

ORLANDO PEREZ INC P & P FREIGHT SERVICES INC IROD DELIVERY CORP AM DELIVERIEZ INC

KAP TRANSPORT INC

ASSOCIATED DISTRIBUTORS INC RKX RIVERA INC

JOANNIE RIOS DBA J R DELIVERY SERVICES COINCRE TRUCKING, INC

JASES INC

LUKAVENTURES INC KEJAR INC

GRACE FREIGHT INC BOLONGO CORP FELIX & WANDA HERNANDEZ INC

KRJM ENTERPRISES INC
ESPINAL INC KING'S DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

Page 298 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 306 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18576 186490 SAMUEL VALENTIN 18577 186506 RAFAEL FLORES
18578 186513 STEVEN EDWARD ELLIS 18579 186520 PETE ARAGON 18580 186537 WILLIAM MARSH 18581 186544 CHARLES B DANCLOVIC 18582 186551 JOHN A CAMPBELL 18583 186568 ROSSIE GAITER 18584 186575 HOWARD L CLAY 18585 186582 JASON ANTHONY RICHARD 18586 186599 GUADALUPE ORTIZ 18587 186605 ELOY ORTIZ 18588 186612 RUBEN LUJAN 18589 186629 PATRICK NEAL HAWTHORNE 18590 186636 SEFARINO MEDINA 18591 186643 BILLY J TOWNSEND 18592 186650 MICHEAL MONTOYA 18593 186667 ALLEN BRUCE SANCHEZ 18594 186674 MICHAEL FORD 18595 186681 VINCENT DAVID MAHLBERG 18596 186698 ALFRED CLEO BATES 18597 186704 GREG THOMAS BURNS 18598 186711 ROBERT J DEBUSK 18599 186728 JOHN F KENNEDY 18600 186735 ALFRED VALDEZ 18601 186742 JEFFRY L SENA 18602 186759 TIM GREEN 18603 186766 ROBERT N THORN 18604 186773 TODD A MCNEIL 18605 186780 YVONNE KELLYWOOD 18606 186797 JAMES R DARLING 18607 186803 DONALD RAY GONZALES 18608 186810 RICHARD GUTIERREZ 18609 186827 JONATHAN GONZALES 18610 186834 KEVIN D KRACKE 18611 186841 ROBERT LEE RIVERA 18612 186858 FRANKIE PACHECO 18613 186865 DOMINIC R ANAYA 18614 186872 THOMAS CHRISTOPHER ORTIZ 18615 186889 KENNETH DUNCAN SELPH 18616 186896 JUSTIN AGUSTIN GARCIA 18617 186902 JASON S KINZY
18618 186919 DAVID ROSS NAYLOR 18619 186926 HARRIS MANYGOATS 18620 186933 JAMES APODACA
18621 186940 REYNALDO M GUTIERREZ 18622 186957 LISSI GONZALEZ 18623 186964 STEVEN N RODRIGUEZ 18624 186971 KARL R GONZALES 18625 186988 JOSEPH CRAWLEY 18626 186995 RICK PROCTOR 18627 187008 SHANE T HUFF 18628 187015 QUINTIN JUSTICE OLIVER 18629 187022 EUGENE DURHAM 18630 187039 ABEL GUERRA 18631 187046 JASON JOSEPH 18632 187053 BRIAN ISAAC RIVERA 18633 187060 FRANK J GOMEZ 18634 187077 JOSE GOMEZ 18635 187084 LAWRENCE ROMERO 18636 187091 LIONEL BENALLY 18637 187107 RONNIE ROSSETTI

Company Name 1 FRANKELY TRUCKING CORP CINCO FLORES TRANSPORTATION, INC PLT SEVEN ENTERPRISES INC PTT ARAGON INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FORWARD MOTION INC HAWTHORNE LOGISTICS INC

G T O, INC

VM VENTURES LLC

VM ENDEAVORS INC

JEFFREY SENA INC NICK OF TIME INC TRIPLE DDD INCORPORATED
HOME DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

JUSTIN GARCIA INC KINZY ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED
NAYCO, INC
APODACA PACKAGE SYSTEM INC; APODACA PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC

K & M DELIVERY INC PROPACK INC REVILO DELIVERIES INC GUERRA TRUCKING INC E & N INCORPORATED PACKAGE MAN LLC

PACKAGE MAN INC

RLR TRANS INC

Page 299 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 307 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18638 187114 VICTOR L VELA 18639 187121 KIM TELFER 18640 187138 RICHARD D LEMONS 18641 187145 MATTHEW L ANDREWS 18642 187152 NICK MAESTAS 18643 187169 RICKY GEORGE DAVIS 18644 187176 SHERYL BRYMER 18645 187183 BRAD RENNINGER 18646 187190 TOBY WORTHEN 18647 187206 TIM MARTINEZ 18648 187213 RUSSELL CASAZZA 18649 187220 GARY P ROGERS 18650 187237 ERIC A MARTINEZ 18651 187244 REMBERTO URIAS 18652 187251 IAN MOORHEAD 18653 187268 BRYAN PETTY 18654 187275 JARRED SCOTT CLOUD 18655 187282 JULEE PRICE 18656 187299 MARCUS SEGURA 18657 187305 STEVEN JIMENEZ 18658 187312 MANUEL MEJIA 18659 187329 HERBERT SLEUTH
18660 187336 STEVEN VILLANUEVA 18661 187343 KENNY A PESHLAKAI 18662 187350 SAMUEL G ESPINOSA 18663 187367 JAMIE JOHN LEBLANC 18664 187374 CYNTHIA WATERS 18665 187381 OLIVER ZAMORA 18666 187398 JAMES N CRUMM 18667 187404 NOAH MULLENIX 18668 187411 JAMES MEOMARTINO 18669 187428 KEVIN SCOTT CLOUD 18670 187435 PAUL P SANCHEZ 18671 187442 NICK MARTINEZ 18672 187459 DEAN CHIARELLO 18673 187466 JAMES D BANH 18674 187473 NINEDAVONE SIMPRASEUTH
18675 187480 NHAN VO 18676 187497 CHA KEE VANG 18677 187503 SOUVAN SESTHA 18678 187510 MAY YANG 18679 187527 YANG SCOTT 18680 187534 STEVEN F GOODSPEED 18681 187541 NAFATALI APE 18682 187558 AGALALEI HARO 18683 187565 SETEFANO TALALOTU 18684 187572 TOAN KIEN LAM 18685 187589 THIERRY BLAIN 18686 187596 PICH MUOYMA 18687 187602 MATTHEW MORGAN 18688 187619 WILLIAM LEE 18689 187626 TOM CHANTHACHONE 18690 187633 BAO NGOC LE 18691 187640 MINH PHAM 18692 187657 CHARLES CHOI 18693 187664 HUNG DUC VU 18694 187671 DENNIS GANTON 18695 187688 CHRIS M NGUYEN 18696 187695 DUNG T PHAM 18697 187701 BIONG XIONG 18698 187718 CHANG HAAN 18699 187725 TAI TAN VAN 18700 187732 MINH TIEN VAN

Company Name 1 VT SERVICES INC EMPIRE COURIER SOLUTIONS INC JL SERVICES INC

Company Name 2

BRYMER ONE INC

JUST ' IN TIME DELIVERY, INC CHICOS DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MOUNTAIN X-TREME DELIVERY INC

SLEUTH COURIER SERVICE INCORPORATED
ROUGHNECK TRUCKING, INC ESPINOSA INC MERCANTILE DISTRIBUTORS INC
OLIVER ZAMORA, INC; OZ COMPANY
NMX, INC MEOMARTINO INC ADDI CARR EXPRESS INC

JADIC DISTRIBUTORS INC
SIMPRASEUTH DELIVERY SERVICES INC

SESTHA PACKAGING DELIVERY, INC

GOODSPEED DELIVERY LLC

SPEEDY DELIVERY, INC

DELIVERY CREW, INC VAN GOGH, INC

REDFIN VECTOR INC

Page 300 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 308 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18701 187749 SORA SANANIKONE 18702 187756 SOPHAL KHUT 18703 187763 KHAMPHEUANE LITHILUXA 18704 187770 PINGAPHONG SYKINGKEO 18705 187787 JORGE CARREON DELOSREYES 18706 187794 KEITH WAYNE HALLETT 18707 187800 DENNIS NANTIN MARA 18708 187817 RAUL AQUINO 18709 187824 CARLO SURIA LOPEZ 18710 187831 JAMES SANAGUSTIN
18711 187848 ALLAN SANAGUSTIN 18712 187855 RICHARD TACUYAN 18713 187862 EDWIN SANCHEZ 18714 187879 RHENEE SALVADOR SANTOS 18715 187886 ROY IMANIL RUELOS 18716 187893 ROGER IMANIL RUELOS 18717 187909 RUBEN PANGILINAN 18718 187916 KRISTIN KRESSER 18719 187923 FRANK FARHAD GHEZELAIAGH
18720 187930 LINDA STRANGE 18721 187947 KENNETH STEED 18722 187954 BOBBY BROWN 18723 187961 RAYMOND COOK 18724 187978 RONALD HENRY 18725 187985 RONALD HESTER 18726 187992 NORMAN RAY SMITH 18727 188005 LAVON PRICE 18728 188012 FRANK DAVIS BUCKLEY 18729 188029 CHARLIE BROWN 18730 188036 ALENE HERRON 18731 188043 JAMES STUBBS 18732 188050 JIMMY SHAWN LANCE 18733 188067 ROBERT F HAUPTMAN 18734 188074 HARLEY WAYNE MEADOWS 18735 188081 ADAM PORTER 18736 188098 JOHNNY ALLEN WIGINGTON 18737 188104 GARY SHELTON 18738 188111 CARLUS D WILLIAMS 18739 188128 HOMER CRAWFORD 18740 188135 FLOYE DENHAM 18741 188142 KENNNETH EARL RICH 18742 188159 KEN LEWIS 18743 188166 RODNEY TALBERT 18744 188173 LYMAN SMITH 18745 188180 LEVON DANIELS 18746 188197 CEPHUS E NELSON 18747 188203 JERRY DURHAM SR 18748 188210 JAMES SIMS 18749 188227 JW JOHN LOWE 18750 188234 JOHN WILSON ANDERSON
18751 188241 JERAMIE DEAUNDRA EZELL 18752 188258 KARLA MICHELLE WASHINGTON 18753 188265 STEPHEN S HARRIS 18754 188272 GLEN POGGEN 18755 188289 ANDRE MOORE 18756 188296 JEROME PATRICK 18757 188302 WILLIAM ALLEN BAZZELL 18758 188319 FLOYD WOODS 18759 188326 ROBIN DEARMAN 18760 188333 EDGAR MILLER 18761 188340 MINDY KUNZ 18762 188357 TRAVIS SCOTT MINOR

Company Name 1 KHUT EXPRESS INC SYKINGKEO ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

STRAIGHTLINE DELIVERY SERVICES LLC
TACUYAN, INC
SANTOS R INC ISLAND'S FINEST TRUCKING INC
PANGILINAN INC
FRANK G TRUCKING INC; FRANK G TRUKING INC
B J BROWN INC
ROLLING RUN INC HESTER P&D INC
PRICE QUICK SERVICE INC FRANK BUCKLEY INC

B & J OF MS INC MEADOW'S ENTERPRISES INC

B & J OF MS INC

CONTRACT PACKAGE CARRIERS INC

WILLIAMS PACKAGING INC HI- CYDER'S ENTERPRIZE INC

EMAN ENTERPRISES INC R TALBERT TRUCKING INC

JW GROUND EXPRESS INC JOHNNY ANDERSON'S QUICK ROUTE, INC
K BROWN TRUCKING INC SLH EXPRESS CARRIERS INC
PATRICK'S TRANSPORT, INC

Page 301 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 309 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18763 188364 PAMELA LOFTIN RAIFORD 18764 188371 ROCHEA DWAYNE JOHNSON 18765 188388 JOSEPH N BURKHAMER 18766 188395 DOUGLAS LEE GORDON 18767 188401 FREDERICK POWE 18768 188418 RAPHAEL WINSLEY 18769 188425 ADAM VAUGHN 18770 188432 TERRY PEYTON 18771 188449 JOAN SMITH 18772 188456 MARCUS D JOHNSON 18773 188470 JODY LEE MCGUFF 18774 188487 CHARLES JAMES 18775 188494 JON WHITENER 18776 188500 EDDIE ALFORD 18777 188517 CHARLIE J CARTER 18778 188524 CHARLES MATHERNE 18779 188531 GROVER C RICHARDS 18780 188548 JIMMY MASON 18781 188555 CARLTON BOYD 18782 188562 DANNY R MANUEL 18783 188579 LINDA A CRAFT 18784 188586 DARNELL THOMPSON 18785 188593 CHARLES CRAFT 18786 188609 JASON ELLIOT 18787 188616 WILLIAM R STEWART 18788 188623 STEVEN HAZEL 18789 188630 RUSTON LAYNE WILSON 18790 188647 JAMES R LAWRENCE 18791 188654 CATHERINE MACK 18792 188661 JUSTIN RAY SMITH 18793 188678 GARY D MCKISSICK 18794 188685 EARNEST L SHUMPERT 18795 188692 JAMIE M JACKSON 18796 188708 KENNETH RAY CROXTON 18797 188715 CLIFFORD BRISTOW 18798 188722 AKIMIE LATOYA CARTER 18799 188739 REBECCA JOANN MASSENGALE 18800 188746 EVERETT DEAN 18801 188753 DEWEY THOMAS DOSS 18802 188760 DEBBIE MCEWEN 18803 188777 LARRY JOSEPH BRAMUCHI 18804 188784 WILLIE BOWENS 18805 188791 ARI DEMATOS 18806 188807 J W HENRY 18807 188814 GEORGE THOMAS 18808 188821 SABAN SILJKOVIC 18809 188838 VORBE A BONHEUR 18810 188845 FERNANDO LUIS PALACIOS 18811 188852 MICHAEL K HILL 18812 188869 JAMIE SCHNEIDER 18813 188876 ROBERT RYLAND 18814 188883 KEITH HACK 18815 188890 MARK BARTHOLOMEW LACENERE 18816 188906 DAVID THORPE 18817 188913 NIGEL MCINTOSH 18818 188920 JASON CRUZ VALENCIA 18819 188937 LUIS HUMBERTO BURNEO 18820 188944 LORENZO ANDERSON 18821 188951 ROBERT HRYSZKO 18822 188968 CHRISTOPHER WILSON 18823 188975 PAUL LEE 18824 188982 JAIR GUILHEM 18825 188999 GLORIA LESMES 18826 189002 PAUL WALSH 18827 189019 PAUL BELCHER

Company Name 1 JOHNSON CARRIERS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JAMES ENTERPRISES INC JLP TRANSPORT LLC E & E ALFORD INC CARTER ENTERPRISES OF MS INC MATHERNE TRANSFER INC
J M PACKAGE SERVICE, INC

KLS DELIVERIES

STEWART P&D INC

J R EXPRESS INC DCATS INC JUSTIN R SMITH INC GARY D MCKISSICK TRUCKING INC

50 XPRESS LLC B&A MASSENGALE LLC
DPD DELIVERY INC

BONHEUR P & D, INC HILL DISTRIBUTION INC
ML STEEL DELIVERIES INC
BURNEO INC AMBROTRANS INC K A P TRUCKING AND EQUIP INC

Page 302 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 310 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18828 189026 DONVITO STEVEN JUMPP 18829 189033 MATT A BROYLES 18830 189040 ANTHONY JAMES ESPOSITO 18831 189057 DESMOND BAIN 18832 189064 SAVARY BOYER 18833 189071 DARRELL WILLIS 18834 189088 SAM CATE HUTCHESON 18835 189095 CHRIS LABONTE 18836 189101 ANDREW JAMES LAVERDIERE 18837 189118 JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ 18838 189125 ADILSON ALVES NASCIMENTO 18839 189132 CLEMENT ANTHONY JOHNSON
18840 189149 ERROLL PIERRE 18841 189156 JAVIER GARCIA 18842 189163 ALEKSANDAR ILIC 18843 189170 JOHN MARTIN BOTTORFF 18844 189187 RONALD DSOUZA 18845 189194 VITO MAZZALONGA 18846 189200 JEFFREY ANTWINE 18847 189217 MICHAEL W LEGGE JR 18848 189224 EDY CALIXTE 18849 189231 ROBERT FOSTER 18850 189248 THENG SEAN BAN 18851 189255 KEITH RUDOLPH 18852 189262 NAZARENO VIEIRA 18853 189279 LEE L HILLBROWN 18854 189286 YURI CAMACHO 18855 189293 DERRICK ANTHONY JOHNSON 18856 189309 STEPHEN DAVID LUKE 18857 189316 GUSTAVO CARBAJAL 18858 189323 SUNDAY PATRICK OKOYE 18859 189330 PEDRO ANDRES 18860 189347 NIKKOLE INUI KELLEY 18861 189354 FEDERICO IXTEPAN FERNANDEZ 18862 189361 RONALD JONES 18863 189378 LOUIS D JONES 18864 189385 LEOPOLDO UZCATEGUI 18865 189392 GIOVANNI A SARMIENTO 18866 189408 DAVID JASON PAUL 18867 189415 MELVIN HAMILTON JONES 18868 189422 JASON AMOS 18869 189439 FRANCIS CANO 18870 189446 JEPSER BARRIOS 18871 189453 BRYAN MOWRY 18872 189460 MIKE ALAN MOWRY 18873 189477 RYAN WILLIAMS
18874 189484 CARLOS G DANIEL 18875 189491 EDWIN VILLANUEVA 18876 189507 JEFFREY LOUIS REEB II 18877 189514 EDWIN MALPARTIDA 18878 189521 MICHAEL RAY THOMAS JR 18879 189538 BENOIT PHILIPPE JALABER 18880 189545 HOLLY FRANKENFIELD-CHAPLIN 18881 189552 CHANDRA PRAYITNO 18882 189569 FRANK MATHEWS 18883 189576 GARY CUMMINGS 18884 189583 WILLIAM QUENTIN KNUPP 18885 189590 MCKENZIE BANNISTER 18886 189606 PHILLIP TIMOTHY KING II 18887 189613 JUAN NIETO 18888 189620 RONALD MAURICE RICHARDSON 18889 189637 JOSEPH KEITH AMMONS

Company Name 1 JUMPP START LLC
ESPO'S TRANSPORTATION INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FEXCOL CORP CJ&T RICHARDS INC
GO TRANSPORT DELIVERY INC BG BOYS INC
VKS MAZZ INCORPORATED

C JOHNSON TRANSPORTATION, INC

KAR-GO SERVICES
TOP FLIGHT DELIVERY SVCS LLC EXPEDITED CARRIER INC
STADUKE TRUCKING INC
ELITE PACKAGE DELIVERY ONTIME DELIVERY CORP

IXTEPAN LLC

GIO TIM INC

MOWRY EXPRESS

DOMINION GROUND & HOME

DELIVERY; DOMINION GROUND-HOME

DELIVERY INC

CM DANIEL INC

ED VILLANUEVA, INC

J L REEB INC

FIERROS VIEJOS LLC

FIERROS VIEJOS INC

B-LINE COURIERS, INC K & H CHAPLIN, INC

COMMERCIAL SERVICES INC INKME INCORPORATED

Page 303 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 311 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18890 189644 SCOTT FEUERBACH 18891 189651 CHRISTOPHER VEGA 18892 189668 JOHN SHEEHAN 18893 189675 JOHN SAMUEL SHANE MANGISI 18894 189682 DALE K GARRETT 18895 189699 KEVIN ANTHONY LECKIE 18896 189705 SCHILLER TELUS 18897 189712 DAVIED LUNSFORD 18898 189729 BERNARD JONES 18899 189736 LARRY R MALLETT 18900 189743 BRIAN GRAY CRISP 18901 189750 DERRICK ODLAND 18902 189767 GARY TRUELL 18903 189774 AMBROSE THUVI 18904 189781 RICHARD BIVINS 18905 189798 VAGNER L DELGADO
18906 189804 MICHAEL MARTIN-LAWRENCE BALDWIN 18907 189811 GEORGE BRADLEY III 18908 189828 RAYMOND SAVAGE 18909 189842 ERIC B SCHAUB 18910 189859 NATHAN WILLIAM LOVELAND 18911 189866 LARRY MORETZ 18912 189873 ANTHONY CHARLES LAPIANA
18913 189880 MANIOCATEX ANGELES 18914 189897 THOMAS CALABRIA 18915 189903 JOSEPH CARVER 18916 189910 JACK ALAN DOLINSKY 18917 189927 RAMIRO FABIAN MORENO 18918 189934 OMALIEL COLON 18919 189941 PEDRO L MARRERO 18920 189958 GEORGE KALMANCY 18921 189965 RICHARD ALVAREZ 18922 189972 JOHN TITO 18923 189989 EDWIN CACIMAR RODRIGUEZ 18924 189996 WILLIAM SOUSA 18925 190008 JOHN BRIAN CAMPBELL 18926 190015 BARTHOLOMEW CHARLES 18927 190022 ONEIL THOMAS 18928 190039 CECIL HYRE 18929 190046 PETE J BORMAN 18930 190053 SERGEI KOULIK 18931 190060 ABDULLAH NEVRUZ 18932 190077 LOVSKY LAGUERRE 18933 190084 JUSTIN M LEE 18934 190091 ROMAN SOTO 18935 190107 RAHEEM TREYVAUGHN OWENS 18936 190114 ENRIQUE MOLINA 18937 190121 JOSE DIGHERO 18938 190138 MICHAEL JACK OSORIO 18939 190145 JOSEPH E WHITE 18940 190152 GERALD ALTON TAYLOR III 18941 190169 BRYCEN MICHAEL SMITH 18942 190176 MATTHEW M FUMUSA 18943 190183 DANIEL JESUS GARCIA 18944 190190 RODNEY L BEAN 18945 190206 RYAN MICHAEL HAWLEY 18946 190213 ERNESTO ROMERO 18947 190220 ESTEVAN YSLAS 18948 190237 CHRIS B ROSSINI 18949 190244 DARREN LEE STANZ 18950 190251 TOBY O REIDHEAD 18951 190268 WILLIAM LOUIS HUNT 18952 190275 DEDDRICK MCCARTNEY

Company Name 1 MOUNTAINVIEW DELIVERY INC VEGA H D, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

GMT SERVICES INC AMBROSE DELIVERY INC
LITTLE ANGEL COURIER SERVICES INC

HOPE EXPRESS INC HURRICANE TROPPY INC
CALABRIA DISTRIBUTORS INC JACK DOLINSKY INC

NOOK AND DIDS INCORPORATED

LJ DISTRIBUTION SERV LLC ARH TRANSPORT CORP C M T TRUCKING CORP

DOUBLE A FREIGHT CORP

J B C DELIVERY INC BUTTERS DELIVERY INC THOMAS SHIPPING & DELIVERY INC

NY PINSTRIPES LLC

NY PINSTRIPES INC

SILPAGAR INC

LEEGIT ENTERPRISE LLC

LEEGIT, INC

P OWENS EXPRESS INC

DIGHERO ENTERPRISES LLC

FANTASTIC INC

R L BEAN TRUCKING CORP GLG DELIVERY INCORPORATED

OFF ROAD DELIVERY, INC

MCEXPRESS LLC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 304 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 312 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 18953 190282 JOSE MARTIN SOTO 18954 190299 JACKSON SKOUSEN 18955 190305 JEFFREY ALLEN ENEBOE 18956 190312 CHRIS MICHAEL GRAY 18957 190329 JEBEDIAH BUSK 18958 190336 SHEA P MERTENS 18959 190343 TED P PEARSON 18960 190350 OLY HATTON 18961 190367 BRANDON RYAN POWELL 18962 190374 SERGIO VILLALOBOS 18963 190381 RONALD NJOROGE 18964 190398 LIONEL CHRISTOBAL TADDIE 18965 190404 SAUL UBALDO HEREDIA 18966 190411 CAMERON HEINER 18967 190428 BRIAN NATHANEIL BRAKE 18968 190435 JAMES ALDO NUTI 18969 190442 JUAN M VALENZUELA
18970 190459 DAVID M SHREIN 18971 190466 JAMES EDWARD TURNER JR 18972 190473 ROMAN LUCYSZYN 18973 190480 JORGE HERNANDEZ JR 18974 190497 JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ 18975 190503 RUSSELL A BATES JR 18976 190510 JUAN CABRAL 18977 190527 JEDEDIAH ERLINGER 18978 190534 AMANDA MCFARLAND 18979 190541 LAZAR GRUJIC
18980 190558 ADRIAN CASTRO 18981 190565 WESLEY H REDPATH JR 18982 190572 JAMES THOMAS HUGUEZ 18983 190589 BENJAMIN B MOSES 18984 190596 HOWARD COCKERILL 18985 190602 SHANE TOMS 18986 190619 HOWARD MASON POOL 18987 190626 WILLIAM J WAGGONER 18988 190633 EDWARD BEATTY 18989 190640 MARK MICHELS 18990 190657 KELLY NADINE SAMPSON 18991 190664 MIGUELANGEL MARTANROBLES 18992 190671 DWAYNE SIERACKI 18993 190688 JOHN GUERRIERO 18994 190695 JOE WESLEY SHIPP 18995 190701 FRANCISCO J RUIZ 18996 190718 DAN DOBBINS 18997 190725 ERIC J HEITKAM 18998 190732 DANIEL ERIC STERNS 18999 190749 RICARDO X CHEANG 19000 190756 CHRIS J TITUS
19001 190763 TIM HOWARD GRANT 19002 190770 ALEXANDER ESPINOZA 19003 190787 KEVIN WHITE 19004 190794 PAUL BARCLEIGH ORTON 19005 190800 VICENTE CHEANG 19006 190817 CHAD KENNEDY 19007 190824 MARC KENNEDY 19008 190831 SCOTT MONTIEL 19009 190848 JOB BORBOA 19010 190855 WILLIAM T ISAACSON 19011 190862 MARTIN TAPIA 19012 190879 ED SLAYMAN 19013 190886 ANTHONY GASTELUM 19014 190893 DAVID JOHN VIRZUELA

Company Name 1 MEX-I-CAN, INC
GROUND DELIVERY SERVICES LLC CG ENT INC

Company Name 2

BR POWELL DELIVERY , INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

B&B DELIVERY LLC
COCORIT EXPRESS DELIVERY, INCORPORATED
JET DELIVERS LLC JACKANSAGE, INC JORGE H CORPORATION

JET DELIVERY INC

GRUJIC TRUCKING; GRUJIC TRUCKING LLC
WHR TRANSPORTATION INC

SIRMIUM CORP

F & G ENTERPRISE INC CDL TRANSPORT LLC BOXED UP LLC DKE DELIVERY SERVICES INC

TOO BOXED UP, INC

ESTRELLA MOUNTAIN DISTRIBUTING LLC

EAGLE EXPRESS INC CKZ P&D INC IOCO CORPORATION

H-B DELIVERY, INC BIG OSO INC RCR TRANSPORT GASTELUM ENTERPRISES INC

Page 305 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 313 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19015 190909 LUIS A SILVA 19016 190916 SAMUEL JEFFERSON DALTON 19017 190923 CODY CARDINALE 19018 190930 MARK AUTRY 19019 190947 EMILIO SANCHEZ 19020 190954 MARC NICHOLAS SKILES 19021 190961 STEVEN WILLIAM STORIE 19022 190978 JAVIER O GRANADOS
19023 190985 KYLE JEFFREY SATTERLEE 19024 190992 ROBERT CAMPBELL 19025 191005 NESTOR M MADRID 19026 191012 SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH KUMIROV 19027 191029 NICK LANDON DROZDA 19028 191036 MARIA P MADRID 19029 191043 NAMANJA VARAGIC 19030 191050 REGINALD BERNARD WALKER
19031 191067 FILEMON CABALLERO 19032 191074 RAMON MONTANO 19033 191081 CHRIS LINDEN 19034 191098 JOSE ANGLE RAMIREZ 19035 191104 ROBERT PULLIAM 19036 191111 MACARTHUR M SPENCER 19037 191128 TERRENCE WATSON 19038 191135 EDUARDO HOPKINS 19039 191142 MICHAEL GARVIN 19040 191159 ISAEL FERRAZ 19041 191166 MIGUEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ
19042 191173 MARCIO EVANDRO MEDEIROS 19043 191180 ASTESIO VAZ OLIVEIRA JR 19044 191197 SHAWN OCONNELL 19045 191203 EDWIN ROBERTO BARRIOS 19046 191210 DAN COX 19047 191227 RICARDO CORTEZ 19048 191234 GERARDOJERRY HERNARDEZ VARGAS 19049 191241 GARY ELLIS JR 19050 191258 DWIGHT CREWS 19051 191265 JOHN WHITNEY 19052 191272 ERNESTO RUIZ 19053 191289 HOLGAR SANCHEZ
19054 191296 DIVINO BARRETO 19055 191302 KENNETH REDWAY 19056 191319 JUAN MIGUEL TAPIA 19057 191326 WILLIAM DEAN DEJONG 19058 191333 JOSE R PARADA 19059 191340 NEJDIK TOROSSIAN 19060 191357 RANDOLF MINGMING TEJADA 19061 191364 MAX DEOLIVEIRA 19062 191371 YEGOR SHTEVNIN 19063 191388 ANTON NADER 19064 191395 LUIS ARMANDO NAJARRO
19065 191401 DIMAS TADEU FERREIRA 19066 191418 IRIS GONCALVES FERREIRA 19067 191425 JUAN C COREA 19068 191432 ELY INES 19069 191449 OCTAVIO MARTINEZ 19070 191456 OSCAR GARCIA 19071 191463 JASON L GUTIERREZ 19072 191470 MARIO A SANCHEZ 19073 191487 RAMAN SAMI MUDALIAR

Company Name 1 EDOK INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

GRANADO'S TRANSPORTATION, INC; GRANADO'S TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED KJS POLAR BEAR, INCORPORATED
MADRID DELIVERY, INC KUMIROV, INC

VARAGIC CORPORATION RAEVEN EXPRESS LLC
MONTANO CORPORATION

VARAGIC TRANS INC RAEVEN EXPRESS TRUCKING INC

TEAM PULLIAM INC

RODZ TRANSPORT
USA FREIGHT AND LOGISTICS INC GEZZO INVESTMENTS LLC
BF SERVICES INC CD TRUCKING INC
ROYAL HORIZENS INC

MENA TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC

JOHN WHITNEY TRUCKING INC SANCHEZ TRANSPORTATION LLC

GROUND SANCHEZ TRANSPORTATION, INC

DE JONG DELIVERY SERVICE INC
DECHSONE INC TEJADA INC

A&V TRANSPORT LLC FAST LANE DELIVERY INC GARZE, INC

A&V TRANSPORT OF GREENSBORO, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 306 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 314 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19074 191494 SHELLEY DOWST 19075 191500 LUIS OLIVEIRA 19076 191517 JOSE JESUS GARCIA 19077 191524 JAMES TRENT 19078 191531 KRISTAN PIMENTEL 19079 191548 ANTHONY VILLANUEVA SESE 19080 191555 SOBEYDA MORALES 19081 191562 GLENN A CHRISS 19082 191579 REYES J TREJO 19083 191586 MOHAMMAD TAHA 19084 191593 LAWRENCE IWUANYANWU
19085 191609 VITALLY CHERNIOGLO 19086 191616 JOAQUIN HERIBERTO BURGOS 19087 191623 LUIS SALDANO 19088 191630 MAYNOR USEDABEZMUDEZ 19089 191647 LUIZ PEREIRA SANTANA 19090 191654 AARON MILLER 19091 191661 NAVNEET KUMAR 19092 191678 CHRISTOPHER VILLAMOR 19093 191685 CAMELOJUN T VILLAMOR 19094 191692 LUIS ANTONIO PORTILLO 19095 191708 MEHRDAD SARKESHIK 19096 191715 JUAN RODRIGO SUAREZ 19097 191722 DENNIS VILLALOBOS 19098 191739 ABDUL SOFID 19099 191746 ABDUL MUFID 19100 191753 CHRISTIAN JESUS LAIJA 19101 191760 JORGE PULIDO 19102 191777 RIGOBERTO FERNANDEZ 19103 191784 JAMES NICHOLS 19104 191791 JOSHUA ANDES 19105 191807 PAULO SERGIOB LOPES 19106 191814 LEANDRO SOARES 19107 191821 CARLOS HERNANDEZ
19108 191838 PEDRO SILVA 19109 191845 ROYA SHOKARANE 19110 191852 MAJID SALIM 19111 191869 JOSE CABRERA 19112 191876 EDWARD WEBER 19113 191883 ALFONSO ARROYO SILVA 19114 191890 ALFONSO CAMACHO 19115 191906 ARTOUSH BONIATIAN 19116 191913 OCTAVIO J RIVERA 19117 191920 CARLOS ARMANDO AVENDANO 19118 191937 ROBERT FREDERICK GAY III 19119 191944 CARLOS MAGANA 19120 191951 RONALD DELAPAZ 19121 191968 JOSE MORENO 19122 191975 ABEL ESCOBAR 19123 191982 JOSE A CALDERON
19124 191999 PATRICK VARTAN 19125 192002 MARLON F PAMPLONA 19126 192019 JOHNNY CLHOGOLAN 19127 192026 MAURICIO CASTRO 19128 192033 FRANCISCO NAVARRO 19129 192040 PETER SARPONG 19130 192057 JAMIEL F SHIEKH 19131 192064 JOSE LUIS CASTILLO 19132 192071 MARIO RIOS REYES 19133 192088 EDGARDO VERGARA

Company Name 1
TJL TRANSPORTATION INC GARRA DELIVERY SERVICES, INC
PIMENTEL FREIGHT LINES INC ARRASE EXPRESS INC

Company Name 2

INVESTORS EXPRESS, INC
LAWMARK TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
JB HOME DELIVERY, INC LMS P&D CORP
SANTANA COURIER SERVICES INC
NAV GROUND PACKAGING INC CHRIS VILLAMOR INC

LAWMARK TRANSPORTATION SERVICE

JR SUAREZ DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JJB LOGISTICS INC

ANDES GROUND INC

OASIS INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES INC
RM EXPRESS LLC M & R OPERATIONS INC
EC HOMES ENTERPRISES INC

SPEEDY ART INC
AVENDANO TRUCKING, INC JOHNNY'S WILD HONEY INC
GROUND PARCEL LOGISTICS INC

YUCATAN EXPRESS CORP; YUCATAN YUCATAN

EXPRESS CORPORATION

TRANSPORTATION

EXPRESS INC

FIVE DELIVERY SERVICES, INC EVAPEE AND SONS LLC
C & R GROUND INC

PEE LOGISTICS INC

Page 307 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 315 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19134 192095 CLEBER F SILVA 19135 192101 TED CORNEJO 19136 192118 ANTHONY NAIL 19137 192125 AGOSTINHO GERALDO TROLEZI 19138 192132 LOUIS MELI 19139 192149 ERIQUESMAY GALVAO 19140 192156 RAUL FLOREROFERREL 19141 192163 CLAUDIO SILVA
19142 192170 WASHINGTON SILVA 19143 192187 MARIO GUILLEN 19144 192194 MANPREET SINGH 19145 192200 RAFAEL H MUNOZ 19146 192217 DANIEL SIBRIAN 19147 192224 WILSON FLORERO 19148 192231 DALVIR SEMBHI 19149 192248 MICHAEL CRUZ CATANGUI 19150 192255 MARIO AYALA 19151 192262 MARCONDES D BERNADES 19152 192279 ALEJANDRA PRIEGO 19153 192286 MICHAEL J TIGHE 19154 192293 ROLAND W AKEY 19155 192309 ALEXANDER D GAERLAN 19156 192316 RAMON GUEVARA FUENTES 19157 192323 LUIS A GUILLEN 19158 192330 RICHARD HEROUX 19159 192347 ANTHONY WHITE 19160 192354 PABLO F ZAMORA 19161 192361 JOSE S VELASQUEZ 19162 192378 SASAN SHANOSSAINI 19163 192385 GILLIS GIBSON 19164 192392 MARCEL CASTILLO 19165 192408 ANGELA FRANCES MERCADO 19166 192415 SANG YIM 19167 192422 BRANDI STOFFERAHN 19168 192439 JOHN M MOROTTI 19169 192446 BRYCE PAUL ROONEY 19170 192453 BRIAN MATTISON 19171 192460 FRANCISCO SOO 19172 192477 RAFAEL VIERA 19173 192484 MASIS MANUKIAN 19174 192491 CARLOS CASTILLO 19175 192507 DILPREET SINGH BHATIA 19176 192514 COLLETE KING 19177 192521 MARLEY SANTURIO 19178 192538 PAVITAR CLAIRE 19179 192545 DENTON ROY PERKISS 19180 192552 ERNESTO ALCANTARA 19181 192569 VICTORIA MONACO 19182 192576 MAYNOR SALAZAR 19183 192583 ALEXIS RODRIGUEZ 19184 192590 JUAREZ CIRQUEIRA 19185 192606 BRIAN ANGELO DELUISE 19186 192613 MATTHEW F NEILL 19187 192620 MARCO SIMAS 19188 192637 MANUEL JIMENEZ 19189 192644 ROBERT GREGORY LEWIS 19190 192651 ENRIQUE MUNOZ 19191 192668 DAVID PRICE 19192 192675 ABDUL HAKIM 19193 192682 FLORENCIO J ORENDAIN III
19194 192699 FLORENCIO SALUMBIDES ORENDAIN III
19195 192705 CARLOS A HERNANDEZ

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

TROLEZI SERVICES INC

TROLEZI SERVICES LLC

CLS DELIVERY INC
MGI ENTERPRISE INC RBM GROUND CORP DSPS LLC DAL-VER EXPRESS INC AYA, CORP A&A DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

CIBRIAN P & D INC

H2L GROUND DELIVERY INC

FUENTES DELIVERY EXPRESS, INC VICTORIA'S DELIVERY, INC
APOC 1206 INC

OMEGA TRI, INC JOHN MOROTTI TRUCKING INC
CARCAS TRUCKING INC OCEAN RUN LLC P & R DELIVERY SERVICES, INC HP LEGACY FREIGHT CORPORATION ALCANTARA TRANSPORT CORP
MN DELIVERY INC

PEGASUS CORPORATION PEGASUS CORPORATION HODS INC

IZZIEO CORPORATION IZZIEO CORPORATION

GROUND MASTERS, INC GROUND MASTERS, INC

Company Name 6

Page 308 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 316 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19196 192712 WELLINGTON MARTINS ROSA 19197 192729 MICHAEL SLATTERY 19198 192736 ANDRE LUZ 19199 192743 SEBASTIAN NOWAK 19200 192750 ZEMARYALAI AHMADULLAH 19201 192767 MANOLITO DEUS 19202 192774 JOSE M SANTOS 19203 192781 BIDESH PERSAUD 19204 192798 OSCAR CARRANZA 19205 192804 BYRON MARTINEZ 19206 192811 MAURICIO MARQUEZ 19207 192828 SERGEY UCHAYKIN 19208 192835 JOSE ALFREDO GALLEGOS
19209 192842 STEVEN WARE 19210 192859 MICHEL GALAN
19211 192866 RAFAEL LOPEZ 19212 192873 JOSE A BATISTA
19213 192880 ENRIQUE LIMA 19214 192897 MARK SZKOLNIK 19215 192903 HAROLD RITESH CHANDRA 19216 192910 ANGELES DULCE 19217 192927 PATRICIO D SALINAS 19218 192934 JOSE M COBOS-MUENTES 19219 192941 ROLANDO DEGUZMAN 19220 192958 MARCELO BRITO DE SOUSA 19221 192965 HECTOR BANUELOS 19222 192972 ANDRE PINHEIRO 19223 192989 DHAVAL TRIVEDI 19224 192996 NATHAN NAGEL 19225 193009 KEITH A BLOCHER 19226 193016 WILLIAM DA SILVA 19227 193023 ALAN MALONE 19228 193030 MONTASER HARARA 19229 193047 JONAS CHAVES 19230 193054 YATISH CHAND 19231 193061 MISAEL SANTANA
19232 193078 RAFAEL NUNEZ 19233 193085 SYED HASAN 19234 193092 SAVIO V OLIVEIRA 19235 193108 JORGE ARGUELLO 19236 193115 ERVING OROZCO
19237 193122 RAYNAND PROFETA RIVERA 19238 193139 DAVID VANGAY 19239 193146 MARCELO MORAES CASTELLANI 19240 193153 VALLERIE S BLAUVELT 19241 193160 LUIS A CHOJOLANGARCIA 19242 193177 ROBERTO CALDERON 19243 193184 RAFFIQUE SABARE 19244 193191 ELISEO ARGUETA 19245 193207 DIMMIT WILMAR TOTAAN 19246 193214 ALFRED LEVETT 19247 193221 LUIS B GUTIERREZ
19248 193238 JOSEPH JAMISOLA BWREDE 19249 193245 SIDNEY FERNANDO DEMELO 19250 193252 RUBEN E CORONADO
19251 193269 ROLANDO R LOPEZ 19252 193276 TAPAN PYAKURYAL

Company Name 1
SLATPACK TRANSPORT INC LIGHT ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SANTOS PACKAGE DELIVERY INC
L & J CARRANZA TRUCKING INC BMM DELIVERY CORP MAURICIO RAMON, INC US TRANSPORTATION INC TRIPLE G INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, INC MIDWARE INC R & M DELIVERY PERFORMANCE LLC R&M DELIVERY
PERFORMANCE INC
ONE BATISTA BROTHER TRUCKING INC ONE WAY TRUCKING CORP

LIBERTY BELL INC LAKSH INC NATE NAGEL, INC
LOVE TO CARE SERVICES INC
ANDERSON S DELIVERY SERVICE INC

OROZCO ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED
LATINOS DELIVERY SERVICE INC L GARCIA INC

REEL PRECISION INC L & J DELIVERY SERVICE LLC; L&J DELIVERY SERVICE LLC

L&J DELIVERY SERVICE INC

REM LOGISTICS INC

REM LOGISTICS INC; REM LOGISTICS PARTNERS LLC

TAPAN CORPORATION

Page 309 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 317 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19253 193283 LUIS FERNANDEZ 19254 193290 RATKO KUKURUZOVIC 19255 193306 SERGIO GARZA 19256 193313 DZMITRY MOLCHAN 19257 193320 VERGILIO DEVIS ROXAS 19258 193337 SCOTT SLYKER 19259 193344 SERGIO PALOMERA 19260 193351 LUIS A PULIDO 19261 193368 GARY S BOYD 19262 193375 JOSE LUIS MEJIA 19263 193382 FERNANDO PEREZ 19264 193399 DANIEL MORENO 19265 193405 CESAR BARRANCOMARTINEZ 19266 193412 FRANCISCO CHAVEZ MAGDALENO 19267 193429 ALTEMAR V PIMENTEL 19268 193436 ANIBAL ROSA AYALA 19269 193443 MARCELO N CUNHA 19270 193450 JUAN FRANCISCO VELASQUEZ 19271 193467 JESUS LOERA 19272 193474 DIEGO TLALOC ORTIZ 19273 193481 VENOR ELIAS LOPES 19274 193498 EDUARDO FURTADO 19275 193504 JURANDIR IVANHINCHEN 19276 193511 ABDULLAH RIYADAH 19277 193528 DONNIE THOMAS 19278 193535 FREDDY TORRES 19279 193542 JAGDISH SINGH 19280 193559 JUAN ORELLANA 19281 193566 JESUS ENRIQUEZ 19282 193573 FRANCISCO JAVIER CARDENAS 19283 193580 SOCORRO RAZO 19284 193597 GEORGE VANGELOV
19285 193603 DEREK BISHOP 19286 193610 SHANNON LYNN MARTINEZ 19287 193627 GUSTAVO GONZALES LUNA 19288 193634 ALFONSO ALMERIA 19289 193641 RODOLFO VEGA RENTERIA 19290 193658 JOHN SANTANA 19291 193665 DAVID GONZALEZ 19292 193672 LYUBOMIR BAEV 19293 193689 DEBORA TOLEDO 19294 193696 BRUCE PENDRAGON 19295 193702 JARIM TOVAR
19296 193719 CARLOS ROCHA
19297 193726 RAUL MIRANDAARGUETA 19298 193733 JAIRO P MARINS 19299 193740 VANDALIVIA SANTOS FARIAS 19300 193757 ERIC JERMAINE BROWN 19301 193764 DAVID CARLOS 19302 193771 JOCELYN WATSON 19303 193788 SAMBONN BAN 19304 193795 PAULO MARQUES 19305 193801 LIDIA CZEREPAK 19306 193818 ARMANDO DESANTIAGO 19307 193825 ERNEST RAY BIVINS 19308 193832 JAMES W JOHNSON 19309 193849 FABRICIO BORGES 19310 193856 WILLIAM DE MEDEIROS 19311 193863 LEONARDO MACHADO 19312 193870 FRANCISCO COSS 19313 193887 JOSE ALCIDES AGUILAR

Company Name 1 FERNANDES INC KEN & RAC LLC E & S DELIVERY, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

NIFRAN CORPORATION BAIRES TRUCKING INC
BLACKHAWK DELIVERY SERVICE INC

VELPO DELIVERY COMPANY J & A DELIVERY INC
BRZ CAPITAL LLC

BRZ EXPRESS INC

THOMAS LOGISTICS LLC ALT TRANSPORTATION GROUP LLC ABHISHEK TRANSPORTATION INC ORELLANA TRUCKING, INC
FRANCARD FDXG LLC
DEPENDABLE DELIVERY SOLUTIONS INC
LUNA EXPRESS, INC
AST DELIVERY INC

BRZ CORP

T&BN TRANSPORT INC
THE ROCHA FAMILY DELIVERY SERVICE CORPORATION JJS DELIVERY INC
MATHEWS EXPRESS INC BROWN DELIVERY SERVICES INC

TOVAR PICKUP & DELIVERY INC
PELASACO EXPRESS INC

SBNC, INC

E B & ASSOCIATES INC ARROW DISTRIBUTING

FARR DELIVERY INC ALCIDES TRANSPORATION LLC; ALCIDES TRANSPORTATION LLC

ALCIDES TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 310 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 318 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19314 193894 ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ 19315 193900 HOLLY LONG 19316 193917 OSCAR ROMAN BAEZA 19317 193924 CARLOS GUADARAMA 19318 193931 DAVID POFF 19319 193948 PAUL SPICER 19320 193955 PAUL GAGNON 19321 193962 JOHN FRAVEL 19322 193979 JAMES EDWARD ANDERKIN 19323 193986 GODEMAR I DASILVA 19324 193993 JESSE DUTRA 19325 194006 DONGGIRL SEO 19326 194013 WILFREDO MATAMOROS 19327 194020 WALTER GAMA 19328 194037 FERNANDO ANTONIO COLMENARES
19329 194044 EDSON MOREIRA 19330 194051 ROBERT BOND 19331 194068 JOHN LIETO 19332 194075 ABELMAR M DECASTRO 19333 194082 RAUL DURAN 19334 194099 ALEX SANTIAGO 19335 194105 IRIS FERREIRA 19336 194112 BRIAN PAINTER 19337 194129 CLEBER F BRASILEIRO 19338 194136 RODNEY GUSTAVO DEMELO 19339 194143 JUAN FLORES 19340 194150 GEOVANY SILVESTRE SILVA 19341 194167 ROBERTO SANTANA 19342 194174 ROBSON S RANGEL 19343 194181 FRANCISCO DY 19344 194198 LOURIVAL LOPES FERREIRA 19345 194204 JAIME CALDERON 19346 194211 MICHAEL DAVID NEWTON 19347 194228 LUIS M OCHOA 19348 194235 JUAN BALBUENA ZUNIGA 19349 194242 CESAR M TREJO 19350 194259 YAIR ABREGO FIGUEROA 19351 194266 JOSE LUIS ARCE 19352 194273 JASON BORDA 19353 194280 FRANK VALDIVIESO 19354 194297 SAMI HAMADEH 19355 194303 RONNIE PADERES 19356 194310 MICHAEL CAMARILLO 19357 194327 SIRLE F COSTA 19358 194334 LUCIENE BRITO 19359 194341 LUCIANO RODRIGUES DEOLIVEIRA 19360 194358 JOAQUIM ARANTES NUNES 19361 194365 MARCOS JOSE GOMES 19362 194372 DANIEL JEREMY DICKSON 19363 194389 WILLIAM CHANEY 19364 194396 BENNETT R CASTRO 19365 194402 BRANDON CAIN 19366 194419 RENATO NERY FRANCO 19367 194426 DAVID GAYDON GRIFFITH 19368 194433 JESSE WILLIAM GRIFFITH 19369 194440 JOSE BACA 19370 194457 ABEL L ARANDA
19371 194464 BESIM HUREMOVIC 19372 194471 JORGE GUZMAN 19373 194488 JOSE TORRES 19374 194495 JORGE RAMOS 19375 194501 ERNESTO MORENO 19376 194518 JOSE MANUEL CARRERA

Company Name 1 I RODRIGUEZ CORPORATION
TEAM BAEZA INC V & G SERVICES POFF INC SPICER TRUCKING INC
FRAVEL INC GAMELY CORPORATION
TOOSAN INC
FM MULTIPLE SERVICES, LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

V & G SERVICES, INC

F M MULTIPLE SERVICES INC

THREE WAY TRUCKING INC CAT EXPRESS INC

MARFRANZ COMPANY
JCO INC NEWTON DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

IEL INVESTMENTS, INC

C & J DELIVERIES INC TRUSTED LOGISTICS, INC J B EXPRESS, INC
GROUND ICON CORPORATION

D2 ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED LDS TRANSPORTATION INC BUBBA'S GROUND SERVICE INC D & T SHIPPING INC GRIFFITH ENTERPRISES INC ARANDA TEAM
GUZ & GUZ INC ARROW GROUND, INC

ARANDATEAM DELIVERY, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 311 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 319 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19377 194525 AGUSTIN CARRERA 19378 194532 JORGE LUIS L DURANGONZALEZ 19379 194549 ADRIAN VALENZUELA 19380 194556 SEROJ SEPANIAN 19381 194563 ION SOCHIRCA 19382 194570 FLAVIO DEOLIVEIRA 19383 194587 ROY SAFIR 19384 194594 JAMES M SHEBAN
19385 194600 RAHMATULLAH SAID 19386 194617 RAFICK B ELHAN 19387 194624 MARIANO E GALAN 19388 194631 KENNEDY BARROS 19389 194648 MANUEL A SANCHEZ 19390 194655 HUGO CESAR LOPEZ 19391 194662 BERNARD MENDOZA 19392 194679 HENRY RUIZ 19393 194686 JESUS LIMA ZUNIGA 19394 194693 MATTHEW LODGE 19395 194709 AARON NOEL AGRA 19396 194716 LEONARDO CASTILLA 19397 194723 ERIC SPANGLER 19398 194730 SALVADOR SANDOVAL SR 19399 194747 JOEL LIMA FILHO 19400 194754 TIMOTHY JAMES BARKER 19401 194761 MARCOS KOHARA
19402 194778 ANTONIO FELIX TORRES 19403 194785 RONALD MOLINARES 19404 194792 CHARLES PETERS
19405 194808 XIONGSHAWN VANG 19406 194815 LUIS ENRIQUE VILLATORO 19407 194822 RYAN A MAKHANI 19408 194839 WOLFGANG NICOLAUS 19409 194846 MUSTAFA M KARSSLI 19410 194853 ROBERTO BARNES 19411 194860 ROBERT CARRASCO 19412 194877 JORDAN ANDREW PFLUEGER 19413 194884 STEVE GRAY 19414 194891 SHAHZAD AHMAD 19415 194907 JOHN DYER 19416 194914 ABILIO LONGATO JR 19417 194921 JULIO CASAS HERNANDEZ
19418 194938 GARY R WOOD 19419 194945 RAMAH RABAH 19420 194952 RAMESH KUMAR MALK 19421 194969 PEDRO A RODRIGUEZ 19422 194976 TANGCO RAYMOND QUIRANTE 19423 194983 MARCIUS CARDOSO 19424 194990 BENJAMIN FREDERIC FERRELL 19425 195003 CAMILO GONZALEZ 19426 195010 OSWALDO CORREIA BARBOSA 19427 195027 CESAR LOPEZ 19428 195034 MARCO DA AMARAL 19429 195041 JOELCI DEPAULA 19430 195058 JASON BARNES 19431 195065 WESLEY PARKER 19432 195072 ARTURO VARGAS 19433 195089 CHASE ULHAQ 19434 195096 MIGUEL A DENIS 19435 195102 JORGE E CADENA 19436 195119 TAM HUNG DIEP 19437 195126 OSCAR VLADIMIR GONZALEZ

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

P D ON TIME TRANSPORTATION, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

ALMATI CORP GOLD STAR DELIVERY, INC

SHEBAN EXPRESS, INC
SAID R LLC EL-HANI SERVICES INC
CARGO MANAGEMENT
GROUNDED ENGINEERING CORP

WHITE HORSE CONSOLIDATED INC SAID COURIER

J & P LIMA, INC LODGE TRANSPORTATION INC AARON NOEL LLC

AARON NOEL INC

TRI-VALLEY EXPRESS

S&H DELIVERY EXPERTS, INC LIMA EXPRESS

M K COURIER SERVICES INC

PAC DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

PAC DELIVERY SERVICE INC

MAKRY INC WOLFGANG TRUCKING, INC KARSSLI CORPORATION

S&R TRUCKING INC

CASAS INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, INC WOODMAN DELIVERY INC RAMEX DELIVERY

GENESIS EXPRESS TRUCKING INC
COLIMAX DELIVERY INC J-C EXPRESS, INC
FDG LOGISTICS, INC

COLIMAX DELIVERY INC

Page 312 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 320 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19438 195133 DAVID LARES NAVARRO
19439 195140 HOVHANNES HOPALIAN 19440 195157 CARLOS SANTANA 19441 195164 ERIC K GOTHING 19442 195171 SHONTEE THOMAS
19443 195188 GUSTAVO VENANCIO MARTINS 19444 195195 ERNESTO HERNANDEZGONZALEZ 19445 195201 SALVADOR ORTIZ 19446 195218 KAMIL ISSA 19447 195225 SEROJ ZADOORIAN 19448 195232 FORD W RISLEY 19449 195249 RONNIEL RENDEROS 19450 195256 DARRYLYN CLARE BONAPARTE 19451 195263 KASHIF DIN 19452 195270 MARCOS DASILVA 19453 195287 LINCOLN ANTHONY SMART 19454 195294 NICK QUILICI 19455 195300 RUSLAN RUSS OSTROVETS 19456 195317 AKOKO VIENGKHAM 19457 195324 EBER SOLIS 19458 195331 ALLAN LEO FIGURACION JR 19459 195348 THEODORE ROBERT GRUNT 19460 195355 WON HAN 19461 195362 OSCAR L LOPEZ 19462 195379 JOSE LUIS AVILA 19463 195386 DANIEL ORTIZ 19464 195393 RAJNESH SHARMA 19465 195409 FRANCISCO J MORALES 19466 195416 ARLETE BARROS 19467 195423 ALEXEI S DIAS 19468 195430 HENRY CHANG 19469 195447 AMIR SAHINOVIC 19470 195454 DAVID J GONZALEZ 19471 195461 MIGUEL PONCE 19472 195478 EDUARDO D JARO 19473 195485 INDERJIT SINGH 19474 195492 JEFFERY WILD 19475 195508 PETER LUEDKE 19476 195515 ROBERTO LUNA HERNANDEZ 19477 195522 FABIO JIMENEZ LIRA II 19478 195539 ALBERTO ZEPEDA 19479 195546 EDWIN DAVILA 19480 195553 ANTHONY CORTESE 19481 195560 CARLOS A CERON 19482 195577 SEAN MCSWEENEY 19483 195584 JAMIE VARONA 19484 195591 IKE COSMAS UKWUEZE 19485 195607 ALFREDO T SY 19486 195614 NICHOLAS JOHN YORRO 19487 195621 ANTHONY FURNARI 19488 195638 KOUROSH MAHMOUDI 19489 195645 WILSON RODRIGUEZ 19490 195652 JOHN LARDI 19491 195669 ENGELBERT VILLALOBOS 19492 195676 JERRY STEWART 19493 195683 JOSEPH A CRAPAROTTA 19494 195690 RONALD VILLASENOR ROLA 19495 195706 FABIO MARTINS 19496 195713 JESUS VALDEZ 19497 195720 BARRINGTON BROWN 19498 195737 LEONARDO LABIAK POVOA 19499 195744 EDWIN YANG ZHAO

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

NG TRUCKING INC; NQ TRUCKING INC GHD SERVICES, INC

CARASA INC E&S GOTHING TIMBER TRANS LLC

THOMAS-LLYOD CORPORATION

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

EVERTH INC
SND DELIVERIES INC DELRUS INC
R&R GROUND, INC AVI CARRIERS LLC SHARMA TRUCKING, INC CISCO SHIPPING LLC

CARRIERS EXPRESS INC CISCO SHIPPING INC

JEFFEX COURIER SERVICE LLC

AZM DELIVERY INC KIWI EXPRESS ADSAC INC
JNS INC
ZOOMIKE DELIVERY SERVICE LLC
RIDE SYLVA, LLC

ZOOMIKE SERVICES, INC

JMDM EXPRESS INC VILLALOBOS BROTHERS
ENDURO INC DRAGONMONKEY CORP
ARA LOGISTICS INC
LABIAK XPRESS INC ED'S TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC

Page 313 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 321 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19500 195751 RICHARD BAILEY 19501 195768 JORGE ROBLES GALVAN 19502 195775 RICHERLAN HOLL 19503 195782 FRANCISCO HOLANDA 19504 195799 ALBERTO GUTIERREZ 19505 195805 RAFAEL ROA 19506 195812 JOSE LUIS MUNOZ
19507 195829 VINCENT J PLOTINO 19508 195836 LUIS MARTIN
19509 195843 ALEJANDRA SABOGAL
19510 195850 HELTON HENRIQUE SANTOS 19511 195867 KORI DALBEY 19512 195874 DIEGO ROMERO 19513 195881 JOEY M RODRIGUEZ 19514 195898 MARIO F CASTRO 19515 195904 NELSON R CARDENAS 19516 195911 ERIC E PAZ 19517 195928 RADOSLAV VLADIMIROV DONKOV 19518 195935 TRIANTAFILLOS PAPAPOSTOLOU 19519 195942 ENRIQUE CAMACHO 19520 195959 EDUARDO LEON
19521 195966 RYAN JEFFREY BRIGGS 19522 195973 PATRICK FERREIRA BARBOSA 19523 195980 RAUL EDGARDO BANEGAS SR 19524 195997 MARCELLO DINIZ 19525 196000 VICTOR CHUPINA 19526 196017 JUAN CARLOS CORONA 19527 196024 JOSE ORLANDO NAVARRO 19528 196031 OSCAR ARDON 19529 196048 MICHAEL JOHN STABEN 19530 196055 GENNADIY LYUBARSKY
19531 196062 CHRISTIAN B COOK 19532 196079 JOSE SERNA 19533 196086 JOSE ALEJANDRO CORONA
19534 196093 JONATHON VERDIN 19535 196109 AZEVEDO GOMES DA SILVA 19536 196116 HOI WU 19537 196123 DENIS CHERNIK 19538 196130 SERGEY KASHCHENKO 19539 196147 OMERCKS PERURA FIDELIS 19540 196154 JORGE SANTANAESQUIVEL
19541 196161 JOSE LUNA 19542 196178 IBAN CASTRO 19543 196185 VICTOR JOSE 19544 196192 MAX TEIXIERA DEBARROS 19545 196208 CLIVE LAWRENCE 19546 196215 HERBERT CANAS 19547 196222 JESUS A DOMINGUEZ 19548 196239 DOMINGO RAMIREZ 19549 196246 ANAS BENYAZED 19550 196253 DAVID MARTINEZ 19551 196260 JEFFREY LEAL 19552 196277 CARLOS ALBERTO ZEPEDA 19553 196284 LUIS M ZEPEDA 19554 196291 KEITH TORRES 19555 196307 EDINIZ CAMARGO 19556 196314 EDYWILSON CAMARGO 19557 196321 ELISEO BRINGAS

Company Name 1 JOFRASA, INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MUNOZ BROTHERS INVESTMENTS, INC

M&M INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, INC

AV EXPRESS COURIER SVCS LLC

GROUND EXPRESS

KOR TRUCKING INC

BOGOTA INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, INC

E&A EXPRESS INC CARDENASONIX INC PAZ LOGISTICS, INC
BENFRANTON INC
LEONE'S CARRIER'S ENTERPRISES INC BRIGGS, INCORPORATED

MRD TRANSPORTS, INC

J&W TRANSPORTATION, INC PIMIENTILLO EXPRESS INC
LYUBARSKY PACKAGE SYSTEM CORP

BIG JOE'S TRUCKING LLC

BIG JOE'S TRUCKING, INC

CORONA INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES,

INC

KURGAN INC
JJE DELIVERY SERVICES LLC
EAGLE RODMA INC CASTRO IBAN LLC
DE BARROS DELIVERY INC CR DELIVERY SERVICE INC
JAYDO LLC
HB EXPRESS, INC
JRL INC AZM DELIVERY INC

SANTANA COREA DELIVERY, INC
JAYDO GA, INC BQ EXPRESS INC

PRECISION COURIER SERV INC CAMARGOS COURIER SERVICES INC HGS EXPRESS INC

Page 314 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 322 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19558 196338 NORMAN JOSE HERCULES 19559 196345 EUDES JANSEN FREITAS 19560 196352 VICTOR GODOY 19561 196369 ROGERS FERREIRA 19562 196376 JASON MICHAEL DEAN 19563 196383 MANUEL FIGUEROA 19564 196390 ISRAEL FIGUEROA 19565 196406 JOHN B CAIN 19566 196413 ERIK SALDANA
19567 196420 SERGEY P CHERNIK 19568 196437 JOHN CHURCHWELL 19569 196444 EDSON A COSTA
19570 196451 CAESAR SECRETARIA DESTURA 19571 196468 HEVER CARRANZA 19572 196475 RICHARD SAAMAN KASAINE
19573 196482 HUGO FERNANDO VARGAS 19574 196499 ALONSO AGUILAR 19575 196505 MANUEL RIVERAVARGAS 19576 196512 NESTOR ALVAREZ
19577 196529 ALCIR CABRAL 19578 196536 JOSUELI JOSE PALOMBO 19579 196543 ALVIN LE 19580 196550 TUAN MAYSON 19581 196567 JOAQUIM JOSE NASCIMENTO 19582 196574 JAVIER OLIVER 19583 196581 PAULO SANTOS 19584 196598 MARIO P HERNANDEZ 19585 196604 LORIVAL DOSSANTOS 19586 196611 JOSE MARTINEZ 19587 196628 JEFF HARLESS 19588 196635 BERTHA RIVAS 19589 196642 FABIO FRANCO 19590 196659 JAVIER RUVALCABA 19591 196666 GILBERT RUELAS 19592 196673 ROGELIO JAVIER ANGUIANO 19593 196680 AISEA NATUNA 19594 196697 HUMBERTO AVELLANEDALOPEZ 19595 196703 TEJPAL S MINHAS 19596 196710 DANIEL SALDANA 19597 196727 NAUSHAD ALI
19598 196734 RODRIGO NEIVA 19599 196741 OTONIEL GERMAN BACAGERMAN 19600 196758 JOSE ANTONIO MONDRAGON 19601 196765 PHILLIP NORADIAN 19602 196772 JUAN D CASTROOBESO 19603 196789 JAMEER HUSSAN 19604 196796 NELSON PRIMO 19605 196802 BESNIK CAKSHIRI 19606 196819 KIET QUANG LAM 19607 196826 DEREK EMILE HARRISON II 19608 196833 EDUARDO MACIEL 19609 196840 MARTIN CORONEL 19610 196857 DOMINIC VIRTUSIO 19611 196864 RICHARDO PASSARELA 19612 196871 RIZALITO RAMOS ESGUERRA 19613 196888 ILDA GONZALEZ
19614 196895 FRANCISCO CARLOS REZENDE 19615 196901 GEORGE CORONADO 19616 196918 RAY FREGOSOALBA

Company Name 1 NH DELIVERY INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DEAN INC

SAL S P&D SERVICE; SAL'S P&D SERVICE RYDS EXPRESS CORP BONDZ INC NORCAL TRANSPORTS LLC
TMD HOME DELIVERY LLC

NORCAL TRANSPORTS, INC TMD HOME DELIVERY LLC

KASAINE WORLD DELIVERY SERVICES INC FOUR EAGLE EXPRESS, INC A W H INC JULALEX, INC ALVAREZ EXPRESS INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, INC

FEDXOLIVER INC HERNANDEZ CORP V&A PRECISION LOGISTICS INC A & V TRANS INC

RUELAS DELIVERY SERVICES LLC CORNERSTONE VENTURES LLC TALEI CORP BETEX GROUND SERVICE, INC
DANMAR P&D CORP NAUSHAD & ASHIA COURRIER SERVICES INC
GERMAN CORPORATION MONDRAGON EXPRESS, INC HYE SPEED DELIVERIES, INC CASTRO DELIVERY INC S & Q DELIVERIES
A L B CORP
1ANCHORBAYONE INC
MCL SERVICES, INC

PGRDC CORP

ANNTHOREM TRUCKING CORP G I C ENTERPRISES INC

NEW IMAGE INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, INC

Page 315 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 323 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19617 196925 JAIME J MUNOZ
19618 196932 NIKOLAY IVANOV KRASTEV 19619 196949 HUMBERTO AVILA 19620 196956 JALTON MEZOM DUTRA 19621 196963 PAULO BUSETTO
19622 196970 SERGIO ARREDONDO 19623 196987 GIRIL ISSAIAN 19624 196994 JOSE TABAJARA MARTINEZ JR 19625 197007 TIAGO ALVES DEPAIVA 19626 197014 GILBERT ISSAIAN 19627 197021 SANJAY PRAKASH 19628 197038 JOSE BARRERA 19629 197045 JOSEPH HAZWARD 19630 197052 JOSE MACIEL 19631 197069 REY ROLDAN TORREFIEL 19632 197076 NICHOLAS JAMES EUSTACE 19633 197083 ANDERSON PARDAL 19634 197090 RAUL E DEPAZMONJE 19635 197106 THIAGO LOPES MALENA 19636 197113 ALFREDO GONZALES BARICAN 19637 197120 RICARDO OCHOA 19638 197137 RONALD KEVIN MALONE 19639 197144 PABLO ATIENZA BALDONADO JR 19640 197151 MARIO MARISCAL 19641 197168 HUGO A VEGA 19642 197175 VALENTIN FEYTSER 19643 197182 RONALD HOUSE 19644 197199 RAUL AGUILAR
19645 197205 MARTIN ARRAZOLA 19646 197212 MABIO MOURA 19647 197229 REGINALDO FERREIRA 19648 197236 MARVIN L CHANDLER SR 19649 197243 SHERYL GARRISON 19650 197250 SHERI GARNER 19651 197267 MATTHEW LIBBY 19652 197274 JULIO DULON NETO 19653 197281 SAMUELSON FERREIRA 19654 197298 DECLIEUX FILHO 19655 197304 KEITH MACHT 19656 197311 BALWINDER SINGH 19657 197328 ADALBERTO AGUIREE 19658 197335 RONE ABREU 19659 197342 ALEJANDRO FONSECA 19660 197359 SILVA VALDSON 19661 197366 VALTEIR DE BARROS 19662 197373 DILSON DINIZ 19663 197380 CARLOS ERNESTO TOBIAS
19664 197397 CARLOS CASTILLO 19665 197403 ARZ MOHAR 19666 197410 JESUS LUNA 19667 197427 GUADALUPE SANTIAGO MENDOZA 19668 197434 MAHER AWAD 19669 197441 RUFO AVILES 19670 197458 FLORENCIO ROMULO 19671 197465 LOUIS A GRANDE 19672 197472 AARON DION MORENO 19673 197489 ELMER LOPEZ 19674 197496 JOSELITO ESCOBAR 19675 197502 HAMID RAHMATI 19676 197519 BERNARDO GONZALEZ 19677 197526 RENE GALINDO

Company Name 1 JM LOGISTIS PARTNERS LLC AZ DELIVERY INC
EEI INC F X G C INC NORTHCAL DELIVERY INC EXTRACT TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

JM BUSINESS LOGISTICS,

INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

PUNCTUAL DELIVERY SERVICES INC
GAUCHO EXPRESS INC

8'S DELIVERY, INC RONALD K MALONE INC MARISCAL LLC L & H, INC HOUSE DELIVERY SERVICE INC
MARES TRUCKING CORP

MICABRI TRANSPORTATION, INC

SUB ZERO INC ALM MARKETING GROUP
MACHTZPED LLC BROTHERS LOGISTICS INC

MACHT1 INC

FDX GROUND SHIPPING SERVICES INC
TIZU INC; TIZU, INC
AB EXPRESS TRUCKING INC
ARON ENTERPRISES TEAM LIFT, INC E & J TRANSPORT INC

Page 316 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 324 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19678 197533 KAMAL SINGH 19679 197540 ALFREDO TOVAR 19680 197557 JAIME PEREZ 19681 197564 SAMUEL CHARLES RONVEAUX II 19682 197571 ROBERT A MENDOZA 19683 197588 JUSTIN J RAYMOND LACY 19684 197595 VICTOR H ALBIZURES 19685 197601 HIRAM R MENDES 19686 197618 CARLOS A GARZON 19687 197625 PHILLIP NUNEZ 19688 197632 WALDIR DA SILVA 19689 197649 JOSE M SANDOVAL 19690 197656 MANUEL OSVALDO MARTINEZ 19691 197663 VINH Q LE 19692 197670 FERNANDO G BARIANI 19693 197687 JACOB A BAKER 19694 197694 RENE O MEDRANO 19695 197700 ABDULAZIZ YASSIN AHMMED 19696 197717 EZEQUIEL FEDERICO MIRANDA 19697 197724 DEIDSON DECAMARGOS 19698 197731 ASHIQ MIZAN 19699 197748 JOSE CHILIN 19700 197755 BEE THAO 19701 197762 ALOYSIO AGUIAR SOUZANETO 19702 197779 LUCIANO P LIMA 19703 197786 ROBERT TUFANO 19704 197793 DARON BLACKMON 19705 197809 HENGKI TJAHJADI 19706 197816 WALERIA MENDES 19707 197823 WALERIA MENDES 19708 197830 AFIF NEGIZ 19709 197847 KAM C TAK 19710 197854 RAMON M CORRALES 19711 197861 ANIBAL GIFFONI 19712 197878 SERGIO A CUSTODIO 19713 197885 ALBERT SOHL 19714 197892 OSCAR E MONCADA
19715 197908 RHANIERY RODRIGO CHAVES 19716 197915 VICTORIANO ESPINOZA CHAVEZ 19717 197922 REYNALDO ESCALANTE 19718 197939 JOSE M FRANCO 19719 197946 RAMIRO T TIRADO 19720 197953 FELIX RODRIGUEZ 19721 197960 JOSE ROMERO 19722 197977 FELIPE LEITE BARRETO 19723 197984 AZUCENA SERRANO 19724 197991 ALFRED AGHAKANIAN 19725 198004 PAULO S BAPTISTA 19726 198011 ROJEN BESHA 19727 198028 JHONSON H SITUMORANG 19728 198035 DAVID S KAMINKSY 19729 198042 MAGDA BOFF 19730 198059 ERNESTO CHAVEZ 19731 198066 EMMANUEL OSEI OWUSUANSAH 19732 198073 PEDRO JUAREZ 19733 198080 OSMAR TAVARES CANTO 19734 198097 DWIGHT L WOODCOCK 19735 198103 ALEX FERREIRA 19736 198110 ALESSANDRA FERREIRA 19737 198127 JOSE A CASTILLO 19738 198134 ALBERT ANTHONY GOMEZ 19739 198141 SALVADOR LEMUS 19740 198158 DAVID CLUKEY 19741 198165 LEONCIO SILVANETO

Company Name 1 R K S TRUCKING INC ACTON COURIER SERVICE, INC
DOZA CORP
COSTANEIRA TRANSPORT INC P AND T DELIVERIES, INC HUNTLEY HOME & GROUND INC M O M DELIVERY SVCS INC

Company Name 2
HG TRANSPORT C & VG LLC

LOGISTIC SERVICES INC

MIZAN'S LINK INC J M CHILIN, INC
L&B COURIER SERVICES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

L& K TRADING INC

A C E CALIBRATION MONCADA TRANSPORTATION LLC
MR DELIVERIES INC LV DELIVERIES, INC

MONCADA TRANSPORTATION, INC

F G A DELIVERY INC J R EXPRESS DELIVERY INC
EXPERT DELIVERY SERVICES, INC ATA TRANSPORTATION
ADEJOHN TRUCKING INC

PS BAPTISTA INC

ECNAPOLES TRANSPORTATION INC PASS BY DELIVERY INC

ALEXPRESS LLC

ALEXPRESS LLC

ALEXPRESS INC

SCL ENTERPRISES INC CLUKEY INC

Page 317 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 325 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19742 198172 ARI FAST 19743 198189 RUFINO V LUJANO 19744 198196 VICTOR MANUEL MONTES 19745 198202 EDIK GHERIBIAN 19746 198219 ALI M ISMAILZADA 19747 198226 CARLOS E TOBIAS 19748 198233 JUAN HERNANDEZ 19749 198240 ANDRES GARCIA LARIOS 19750 198257 JOSE FIGUEROA 19751 198264 MANDREL FRAZIER 19752 198271 IGOR COSIC 19753 198288 ROBERTO SECORD 19754 198295 CARLOS E MORA 19755 198301 RAY JACKSON 19756 198318 DAVEY SAUNDERS 19757 198325 ENRIQUE PACHECO 19758 198332 WIDMAN J ALVARES 19759 198349 ABEL VENEGAS 19760 198356 WILLANDSON SALE 19761 198363 ALTAGRACIA Q CERPA 19762 198370 LUIZ OLIVEIRA 19763 198387 STEPHEN EDWARD HOFBAUER 19764 198394 ERNEST MOORE 19765 198400 MUHAMMAD MASOOD 19766 198417 RAFAEL MENDONCA NASCIMENTO
19767 198424 DANILLO ORELANA 19768 198431 TEJAS V PATEL 19769 198448 FREDERICK LEON HOVASAPIAN 19770 198455 JOSE YZABAL 19771 198462 LUIS RICARDO CASTRO III 19772 198479 ABRAHAM ISMAEL CASTRO 19773 198486 ANGEL E ROSAS 19774 198493 MARIO DELRIO 19775 198509 JOSE L RUBIO PADILLO 19776 198516 EBAN KESSLER 19777 198523 RYAN SILVA 19778 198530 OBED DAVID EVIS 19779 198547 EVANDRO BOFF 19780 198554 JESUS S RODRIGUEZ 19781 198561 FLUVIO VINICIO MARIN
19782 198578 ROMILSON DOS SANTOS 19783 198585 LUIS A HONDERMANN 19784 198592 NEDZAD ZAGOVIC 19785 198608 JOSEPH LAIETA 19786 198615 ALBERTO DE LA TORRE 19787 198622 RUDY ARTHURTON 19788 198639 GILBERT NELSON 19789 198646 TOGUU SIMANJUNTAK 19790 198653 GREGORY GEORGE SLEEPER 19791 198660 JAMES DOMINGUEZ 19792 198677 CHRISTOPHER JOHN CAPUTO
19793 198684 RAQUEL BALLESTEROS 19794 198691 LEMUEL RIBEIRO GONCALVES 19795 198707 JAY AGATEP 19796 198714 HAMMLET MOOSAKHANIAN
19797 198721 CHARLES KAYLO MUTUNGA 19798 198738 LOURIVAL GOMES-PEREIRA JR 19799 198745 ZIVORAD STOJANOVIC 19800 198752 BRIAN THOMAS SMITH JR 19801 198769 ROGEL SANTOS ENRIQUEZ

Company Name 1 A FAST INC GRABEL JR'S DELIVERING DENALI ROADWAY, INC EDINO TRUCKING INC
TOBIAS TRUCKING, INC

Company Name 2 GRABEL, INC

FIGUEROA'S TRANSPORTATION INC
PAJA & JARE INC SECORD ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

E & L DELIVERY INC WILMAR HOME DELIVERY INC

MOORE'S TRANSPORTATION INC LR EXPRESS
AISHU LLC YZABAL EXPRESS, INC
ROSAS INC MARIO'S AAA DELIVERY INC

J A R COURIER SERVICES, INC
MENN, INC

HILL BOFF INC JROD INC PACKAGE DELIVERY EXPRESS
ZAGEX INC

PACKAGE DELIVERY EXPRESS, INC

DC & E TRANSPORT CORP

JAKARTA PEOPLE LLC

JAKARTA PEOPLE LLC

PRIMARY TRANSPORT SYSTEMS INC

TMC ENTERPRISES GROUP INC; TMC TMC ENTERPRISES GROUP

ENTERPRISES LLC

INC

FDX GROUND INC

H & FAM INC

TEMPLAR TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION

DK EXPRESS INC RJ SERVICES

Page 318 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 326 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19802 198776 BRIAN ROBERT COMESTRO 19803 198783 JEREMIAH TITO CABRERA 19804 198790 GERARDO GALLEGOS VARGAS 19805 198806 SAMUEL ASAMOAH 19806 198813 DAVID SMITH 19807 198820 MANUEL VERA 19808 198837 GUSTAVO WEIZENMANN 19809 198844 JOHN KENNEDY 19810 198851 REMBERTO LOPEZ 19811 198868 DAVID ALZATE 19812 198875 TIEBA COULIBALY 19813 198882 ALEKSEY KATSNELSON 19814 198899 RODNEY HARDEN 19815 198905 WILFREDO REYES 19816 198912 ROBBERT DIHALU 19817 198929 ANTHONY PAUL PHILLIPS 19818 198936 ROBERT SAMPSON 19819 198943 SEPERSAUD CHARRAN 19820 198950 EDWIN ADEYEMI 19821 198967 DANILO SIQUEIRA 19822 198974 RUBEN FUENTES 19823 198981 SALVADOR GRANADOS JR 19824 198998 FUNSO AKINDUMILA 19825 199001 AMIR HADZISABIC 19826 199018 CHARLES EPETIMEHIN 19827 199025 JUAN ARCEO 19828 199032 HUMPHREY UGOAGWU 19829 199049 HELBER MENA 19830 199056 ALBERTO P PENICHET
19831 199063 LEANDRO BARBOSA CECILIO 19832 199070 MICHAEL A GONZALES 19833 199087 JIMMY ISAAC 19834 199094 DZEVAD DIZDAREVIC 19835 199100 ASADOLLAH GHOLAMI 19836 199117 ROBERTO CARLOS DORADO 19837 199124 CRISTIANO XAVIER 19838 199131 KENTON WILLIAMS 19839 199148 ISMAEL TALAVERA 19840 199155 CHARLES M WHITFIELD 19841 199162 JANICE MURPHREE 19842 199179 FREDERICO A PORTO 19843 199186 PHONESAVANH SENGPHRACHANH 19844 199193 EDWARD J WATTERS 19845 199209 RODRIGO CESAR MORAIS 19846 199216 CRAIG LESTER ROBERTSON 19847 199223 MOHAMMED BARAKAT 19848 199230 MICHAEL TYREE 19849 199247 JOE MARTINEZ 19850 199254 CARLOS H CAVAZOS 19851 199261 RODRIGO LEMES 19852 199278 JUSTIN ELGIE 19853 199285 VICTOR M ELGIE 19854 199292 CHRISTIAN UME EZEOKE 19855 199308 RAHEEL KHATRI 19856 199315 MICHAEL MORGAN 19857 199322 WALTER ALCANTARA SILVA
19858 199339 JORGE CALDERON 19859 199346 JUAN CARRILLO 19860 199353 ROLAND ATTAMAH 19861 199360 RIZWAN I GHANCHI 19862 199377 ALEXANDER ESPINOZA 19863 199384 NATHAN W KIMANI 19864 199391 JOEL ARAIZA

Company Name 1
JDR EXPRESS, INC FOUR EAGLE EXPRESS INC ASAMOAH TRANSPORTATION INC
M VERA PICKUP & DELIVERY INC
J K & D K ENTERPRISE, INC IDM LOPEZ TRANSPORTATION INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

FGM INVESTMENTS, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

W G A M INCORPORATED PHILLIPS DELIVERY INC
EDWIN EXPRESS INC FUENTES INC C&S DELIVERY SERVICE, INC

FUENTES INC

OGECHI EXPRESS CORPORATION S A C TRANSPORTATION LLC
LACOUTURE HOLDINGS INC DZEVAD EXPRESS INC DORADO COURIERS LLC TROY COURIER SERVICES INC

CHALST TRANSPORTATION, INC
DORADO COURIERS INC

3-J KIDS

SIMPLE SERVICE INC

JORGE & JESUS TRUCKING, INC
IQBAL LTD CO KIMKAI INVESTMENTS LLC ARA LOGISTICS LLC

D CAMARGOS TRUCKING LLC

IQBAL SERVICES, INC
NATE DOGGY INC ARA LOGISTICS INC

SDM TRUCKING, INC

Page 319 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 327 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19865 199407 JOHN FERRIGNO 19866 199414 ERICK WILSON 19867 199421 LENNY FLORA 19868 199438 KENNETH MAYER 19869 199445 LUIS HEREDIA 19870 199452 ENRIQUE MEZA 19871 199469 ROBERT GUENETTE 19872 199476 AGAPITO GARCIA 19873 199483 GLENN MARTIN MANINGO 19874 199490 RICHARD THOMAS 19875 199506 JACK PORTER MAUPIN 19876 199513 KELLY ALLEN DOUGLAS 19877 199520 LUIS ORTIZ 19878 199537 JOSE VILLANUEVA 19879 199544 RAFAEL EDGARDO BONILLA 19880 199551 RUDEGELIO BUNING TACORDA II 19881 199568 ARTURO GOMEZ
19882 199575 DANIEL T SANTA 19883 199582 FREDERICK BAIN 19884 199599 VINCENT MARQUEL ELLIS 19885 199605 THOMAS L DINSDALE 19886 199612 KENT MICHAEL GUIDRY JR 19887 199629 RONALD GOUTREMOUT 19888 199636 ALEXANDROS ARGYROS 19889 199643 JAVIER FERNANDO GOMEZ 19890 199650 RICARDO OLAGUE 19891 199667 NAM IL PAK 19892 199674 SAYADOVEER YADOVEER 19893 199681 MICHAEL J KIERNAN 19894 199698 JOHN W DIBARTOLO 19895 199704 OMER ALICI 19896 199711 MIKE PETILLO 19897 199728 BRIAN J LAWRENCE 19898 199735 ABEL R AGUIRRE JR 19899 199742 EMMANUEL CARBAJAL 19900 199759 JESUS ARELLANO 19901 199766 DION ALLICOCK 19902 199773 KEVIN BAINBRIDGE 19903 199780 PETER KARIUKI 19904 199797 RENO MOSS 19905 199803 ORANE PATRICK HAUGHTON 19906 199810 DANIEL OWUSU 19907 199827 JUAN HERNANDEZ 19908 199834 CHANG CHEN 19909 199841 KIMBERLY TATUM 19910 199858 ZOLTAN RAFFAI 19911 199865 RENE SALAS 19912 199872 JORGE GURROLA 19913 199889 JOSEPH COMMEY 19914 199896 LAWRENCE GAKUU 19915 199902 JAVIER ESCALERA 19916 199919 IVAN ZALDIVAR 19917 199926 AWORLDSON GAUTHIER 19918 199933 RICARDO E AGUILAR 19919 199940 OLAKUNLE OLUWA OLADUNNI 19920 199957 SLOBODAN KRSTIC 19921 199964 BASEL SALHA 19922 199971 GERARD B GRIFFITH 19923 199988 SALVADOR A DELGADILLO 19924 199995 VICTOR GUTIERREZ 19925 200004 VICTOR GUTIERREZ 19926 200011 BORIS FELDMAN 19927 200028 KENNETH NJAU 19928 200035 BEN OKEKE

Company Name 1
F L R INC KWM SERVICES INC HEREDIA TRUCKING INC MEZA COURIER LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MEZA CARRIERS INC

JACK P MAUPIN JR, INC

ALL VILLANUEVAS INC

TACORDA DELIVERY SERVICES INC GOMEZ BROTHERS P & D SERVICES, INC

BAIN TRUCKING, INC ELLIS DELIVERY SERVICES INC

MICS GUIDRY LLC G & D CONTRACTING INC AMAB LLC; ROMOLOS CORP

MICS FLEUR DE LIS INC ROMOLOS CORP

DOUBLE TWIN LTD JNHP INC YADOVEER INC MJK PACKAGING, INC

CEREN DELIVERY INC D L V R TRUCKING INC ELITE DELIVERY, INC AGUIRRES DELIVERIES INC

MY FOUR J'S, INC

KARLISS EXPRESS INC
WILTON EXPRESS OWUSU TRANSPORTATION INC
88 STAR INC

KRSTIC TRUCKING COMPANY INC BIK ENTERPRISES INC

ARATRANS INC

GUTIERREZ DELIVERY INC GUTIERREZ DELIVERY INC

Page 320 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 328 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19929 200042 RICHARD C GREEN 19930 200059 PETE ENRIQUEZ JR 19931 200066 R WILLIAMS & M MILLER 19932 200073 MELVIE WOODALL 19933 200080 GERARDO GOMEZ 19934 200097 FERDINAND S DELA CRUZ 19935 200103 MUSTAFA SARRAJ 19936 200110 ERICK H MEDRANO 19937 200127 ASARE JOHNSON 19938 200134 IDEM IDEM 19939 200141 JOHN LEWANIKA 19940 200158 KONGMANY THONGMANYVONG 19941 200165 KEVIN ANTHONY THOMPSON 19942 200172 WILLIAM L WEEMS 19943 200189 OSCAR F CABRAL 19944 200196 JOSE REYES 19945 200202 ZORAN KRSTIC 19946 200219 CHANHSOT CHANTHANOUVONG 19947 200226 KHALED FAWZI YUNIS 19948 200233 SHEIKH M HALIM 19949 200240 LEANDRO RAMIREZ 19950 200257 KHALID TAHA 19951 200264 PETER H SMITH 19952 200271 THEODORE WALTON 19953 200288 SHELTON PORTEE 19954 200295 PETER DUNKERTON 19955 200301 JON MUSQUIZ 19956 200318 PHILIP VELAZQUEZ 19957 200325 JOSE ARMANDO CARRILLO 19958 200332 FITSUM TESFAYE 19959 200349 DAVID PEARL 19960 200356 MITCHELL D KUSTER 19961 200363 MIHIR SHETH 19962 200370 PAUL SCHIRRIPA 19963 200387 ALVIN SMITH 19964 200394 FATIMA ZAHRA AMRANI 19965 200400 BRETT MARTIN CAMPBELL 19966 200417 JOAQUIN CISNEROS 19967 200424 MIKE JONES 19968 200431 SEH FAULKNER 19969 200448 CATHERINE GRIMALDI 19970 200455 KURT A CHAPMANN 19971 200462 RAMON CRUZ
19972 200479 ANDRES ZAVALA 19973 200486 OTONIEL BACA 19974 200493 BRENT JAMES PIERSON 19975 200509 ARTUR ROYZMAN 19976 200516 IVAN BALTOV 19977 200523 CHRISTOPHER PHILIP MITCHELL
19978 200530 JAIME TORRES 19979 200547 PETER ANTHONY GIANNANTONIO 19980 200554 ALEX BARSUKOV 19981 200561 IVAN PUERTAS 19982 200578 ADEL HANAFY HASSANIN 19983 200585 JUAN DANIEL VARAS
19984 200592 STUART D SILVA 19985 200608 ERNANI TS SANTANA 19986 200615 MARCONI DEMIRANDA 19987 200622 JOAO REZENDE 19988 200639 DIKSON SILVA 19989 200646 WALDIR JOSE DASILVA 19990 200653 NELSON BORGES SOARES

Company Name 1
GAD INC M&W INC MJW ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

UCONSULT INC
KONGMANY INC LUXURY LIFESTYLE, INC
GEO REY INC KRSTIC EXPRESS INC AC NOAH SERVICES INC KYUNIS ENTERPRISE INC SDM SERVICES INC L RAMIREZ PARCEL LLC WALID INC EECC INVESTMENT INC
SOP ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED
JON MUSQUIZ, INC
AIDEN EXPRESS INC FITSUM TESFAYE INC

GOOD SPEED TRUCKING, INC

ZOWBIA INC; ZOWBIA, INC

CRUZ SERVIZ, INC; RC DELIVERIES LLC

CRUZ SERVIZ, INC

C MITCHELL ENTERPRISES LLC GROUND EXPRESS INC
PUERTAS ENTERPRISES INC A H LLC JD TRANSPORTATION LLC
SOUMIR INC

C MITCHELL ENTERPRISES C MITCHELL

LLC

ENTERPRISES CORP

ADEL EXPRESS INC J D TRANSPORTATION CORP
SAFE TRANSPORT INC

Page 321 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 329 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 19991 200660 JOAQUIM LUIZ DEMIRANDA 19992 200677 GLAYSTON SOARES 19993 200684 JAIR DA COSTA
19994 200691 FERNANDO SILVA 19995 200707 RICARDO GUIDO 19996 200714 ARGENTINO OLIVEIRA NETO 19997 200721 GIOVANNI FARIA 19998 200738 ERISLENE ALVES MONTEIRO 19999 200745 GIOVANN L PURDIE 20000 200752 CLAYTON SCHWANN 20001 200769 CESAR FREITAS 20002 200776 VALDIRLEI ZANAO 20003 200783 ADRIANO FERREIRA 20004 200790 IVAN MONEGO 20005 200806 EDMUND JOHNSON 20006 200813 GILBERTO HENRIQUE MONTEIRO 20007 200820 DARRELL GORDON SHANNON 20008 200837 MARCO RADICIA 20009 200844 GEORGE W PONZONI 20010 200851 ANDRE MALAVE 20011 200868 RODRIGO DEAQUINO 20012 200875 MARGARET JOHNSON 20013 200882 LENWORTH ROPER 20014 200899 RYAN BABCOCK 20015 200905 DONOVAN D KERR 20016 200912 EDGAR CORREDOR 20017 200929 EDIN MALJANOVIC 20018 200936 ROBERT M WODZENSKI SR 20019 200943 ALONSO AGUAYO 20020 200950 FELIPE JP RAMIREZ 20021 200967 AMEL BESIC 20022 200974 NILSON A CABRAL 20023 200981 GANTULGA SUMIYA 20024 200998 JORGE L ESTEVES 20025 201001 JOSE LACERDA 20026 201018 TOMAS YAIR QUITIAN 20027 201025 EBER MENDES DELIMA 20028 201032 VANDERLEI MIRANDA 20029 201049 CARLOS A DASILVA 20030 201056 MARLUCIO GONCALVES DA SILVEIRA 20031 201063 HEVERSON COSTA 20032 201070 EFRAIN WILFREDO CARDENAS 20033 201087 LINCOLN M AFONSO 20034 201094 EBER NASCIMENTO 20035 201100 ROSANA MASCARENHAS 20036 201117 DANIELE CARVALHO 20037 201124 CELSO DOSANJOS
20038 201131 RODRIGO SILVA 20039 201148 NELSON KOFI AKOTO 20040 201155 WEDER MORA 20041 201162 SILVA MANACES 20042 201179 FABIO DORATIOTO 20043 201186 VLADIMIR MARTINS 20044 201193 LUIS ALBERTO PEREIRA 20045 201209 ELSON DACOSTA 20046 201216 KRISLEY MORAIS MORAIS 20047 201223 RIVA FIGUEIREDO DAGRACA 20048 201230 VINICUS LOBO ROSA 20049 201247 ANACLAUDIA TAVARES SILVEIRA 20050 201254 PRISCILLA SEABRA 20051 201261 SAMUEL ALBERT MASIH 20052 201278 ARTHUR MROCZKO 20053 201285 OSCAR LOYA

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

COSTA EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION INC

PURDIE & BAIRD INC
V & K INC FLEX EXPRESS, INC TEAM MONEGO LLC
DARRELL G SHANNON, INC

TEAM MONEGO INC

TRIN STAR ENTERPRISES

FEDECO INC GLOBAL LOGISTICS SERVICE, INC KRR ALL STATE TRUCKING INC
JP TRANSPORTATION INC
NAC DELIVERY TULGA LIMITED
JOSE LACERDA INC QR TRANSPORTATION, INC CELESTIAL EXPRESSWAYS INC

TULGA LIMITED EML EXPRESS INC

MIDGE MANAGEMENT FONDONGA INC PONDEROSA DELIVERY SERVICES INC

JLM DELIVERY INC
LOBOVINNY SERVICES INC ACS DELIVERY SERVICE INC CEM DISTRIBUTORS, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 322 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 330 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20054 201292 HAROLD L REDMAN 20055 201308 PAVEL ZBOROVSKIY 20056 201315 OLEG NAGORNYY 20057 201322 SEAD GRACA
20058 201339 MLADEN TALANGA 20059 201346 VERONICA D GOMEZ 20060 201353 BRIAN GORDON GOODWIN 20061 201360 CARL A LUSZCZKI 20062 201377 ADRIANO RUIZ 20063 201384 JOE NSAMBA 20064 201391 BORIS GENOUROV 20065 201407 ANGEL AGUILAR 20066 201414 TULIO DESOUZA 20067 201421 LEANDRO MENDOCA 20068 201438 RAIMONDAS REMEIKIS 20069 201445 STAN PAVLOVSKIY 20070 201452 STAN PAVLOVSKIY 20071 201469 MARIA DE LOURDES LOPEZ 20072 201476 JOSE ALBERTO FIGUEROA 20073 201483 MARCELO ALVARIZA 20074 201490 ALAN DELGADO 20075 201506 JOHN BRIGHT 20076 201513 HERLAN OLIVEIRA 20077 201520 PETER FYVIE 20078 201537 DENNIS GREENE 20079 201544 JOHN LANG 20080 201551 HAROLD MCKNIGHT GIBSON 20081 201568 JEFFREY SANSOSTI 20082 201575 JOANN WEARNE 20083 201582 JOSEPH GOTAY 20084 201599 AL ROBERT SCHMID 20085 201605 KEITH WALDRON 20086 201612 JESSE CAPERS 20087 201629 LOUIS CHANG 20088 201636 MATTHEW JACKSON 20089 201643 PATRICIO J CRUZ 20090 201650 JAMES B DOLMAN 20091 201667 LUIZ A GOMES 20092 201674 VOLNEI MONEGO 20093 201681 HONAN PEIXOTO 20094 201698 LUCIEN JEANAIMEE 20095 201704 JOSE GONCALVES SILVEIRA 20096 201711 MARK EDWARD MCDANIEL 20097 201728 DONALD LEWIS MEADER 20098 201735 LANCE E LAVOIE 20099 201742 MARLON JOSEPH 20100 201759 MARK STREET 20101 201766 JOSE B FABRE 20102 201773 MICHAEL TEAGUE 20103 201780 MAURICIO PELOIA 20104 201797 BRIAN JAMES KIMBALL 20105 201803 TAMMY SMITH 20106 201810 KENNETH WHITEHOUSE 20107 201827 LISA M ODOM 20108 201834 DAN R ROY 20109 201841 CENK TAKMAZ 20110 201858 DAVID A DOERR 20111 201865 CLARENCE H MCMULLEN JR 20112 201872 THOMAS MICHAUD 20113 201889 KELLEY J NYLUND 20114 201896 MICHAEL LESSARD 20115 201902 HARRY STABLER 20116 201919 GARY CHAPMAN

Company Name 1 FREEDOM TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FREEDOM TRUCKING INC; GREAT NECK TRUCKING INC

GENOUROV ENTERPRISES INC
T&J ENTERPRIZES INC
DNR EXPRESS INC STAN INC STAN INC
FIGUEROA INC

M S GREENE INC LANG DELIVERY SERVICE LLC GIBSON'S GAS INC ROADRUNNERS TRANSPORT & DEL NIKRAY INC
ASIAN EXPRESS INC PNC BAKERY GROUP INC J D PACKAGE DELIVERY, INC
DYNASTY DELIVERIES SERVICES INC MACS ON TIME INC LAVOIE TRUCKING INC M J COURIER INC STREET INC

OURHOUSE COMPANIES INC
TAKMAZC , LLC CLD HOME DELIVERIES INC CM & SONS, INC KNYLA INC

OURHOUSE EXPRESS INC

Page 323 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 331 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20117 201926 WANER CAETANO 20118 201933 ERNEST WALTER STICKLES II 20119 201940 MARK JOESPH OSGOOD 20120 201957 ISAAC ARCHIBALD 20121 201964 MARCOS DEJESUS 20122 201971 THOMAS RUSSELL PERKINS JR 20123 201988 ANTONIO RAYMONDI 20124 201995 OSMOND REYNOLDS 20125 202008 JEFFREY FOLK 20126 202015 WILLIAM CLAYTON DOREY 20127 202022 ANDREW J SANOFF 20128 202039 STEVEN NEGM 20129 202046 JOHN J AQUILINA 20130 202053 JAMES E GONZALEZ 20131 202060 RAJ K NAGI 20132 202077 ROMULO B RODRIGUEZ 20133 202084 KURTIS FRANCE 20134 202091 KAMAL MOHAMAD ALY 20135 202107 SELWYN BROWN 20136 202114 GALEM COLEMAN 20137 202121 KEVIN W SMITH 20138 202138 ANAYO HENRY ONOCHIE 20139 202145 COREY RANDALL PITCHER 20140 202152 MICHAEL JOHN PATRIE 20141 202169 JOSE URQUIA 20142 202176 FREDDY BENITEZ 20143 202183 MARK E CRAY 20144 202190 DAMIAN IVANOV 20145 202206 ANDREW SNOWMAN 20146 202213 MARCOS MARROQUIN 20147 202220 BABACAR TOURE 20148 202237 TODD PATTERSHALL 20149 202244 JAMES D NIEMI 20150 202251 PAULOCESAR ALVES FRANCO 20151 202268 ABDOURAHMANE BAH
20152 202275 DONOVAN FALLOON 20153 202282 COBBY HIGGINSAKROFI 20154 202299 MAMADOU SECK 20155 202305 KINGSLEY KELECHI OGIDEH 20156 202312 ROGELIO HERNANDEZ 20157 202329 BRIAN DAVID KIROUAC 20158 202336 JEFFREY R SCHWARTZ 20159 202343 KENNETH FRANK 20160 202350 CLATE JOHNSON 20161 202367 MAIKON ADRIANO MONTEIRO 20162 202374 MARK A OBRIEN 20163 202381 TIMOTHY MICHAEL HOWLEY 20164 202398 TEVI WILSON 20165 202404 MARK ANDREWS 20166 202411 JAMIE TUCKER 20167 202428 THOMAS ANTHONY DIMISA 20168 202435 JENNIFER LYNN DOWNING 20169 202442 JAMES MARCHESE 20170 202459 ANTHONY CASTORO 20171 202466 PHILLIP EDWARD KERN II 20172 202473 STEPHEN KRUK 20173 202480 FRANK PETER LUCIANO 20174 202497 CHARLES COVINGTON 20175 202503 JOHN MARSDEN GREENWOOD 20176 202510 EDUARDO A CARDENAS 20177 202527 BRIAN KEITH NIGGL 20178 202534 KERRY S GRANDOLFO 20179 202541 LAWRENCE ROBERSTON 20180 202558 WILLIAM CUSUMANO

Company Name 1 EWS PACKAGING, INC XIOBRY INC PERKINS EXPRESS DELIVERY LLC JODEC INC LBJ TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

XIOBRY 1 INC; XIOBRY INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

JOHN AQULINA, INC J&L TRUCKING SERVICES INC
TRED CORP KFRANCE INC

K & H SERVICE COMPANY ST PHILIPS LOGISTIC INC C R PITCHER INC MJP GROUP INC COPAN CORPORATION
VANCO LLC CDI DELIVERY INC KARREL'S TRUCKING INC

STA TRUCKING SERVICES INCORPORATED SAFOA ENTERPRISES INC
KIROUAC PACKAGE SERVICE, INC KBAMM LLC BLUE MOUNTAIN SERVICES INC
TH1020 INC WILSONTRANS INC
SADUTO, INC
T&F ACTION TRUCKING INC

J GREENWOODS DELIVERY LLC
NIGGL'S ELITE TRANSPORT INC GRANDOLFO TRUCKING INC LNR DELIVERY SERVICES

Page 324 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 332 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20181 202565 YAW OWUSU 20182 202572 CELERINO CONSUEGRA 20183 202589 CHAITRAM RAMBARON 20184 202596 MONIQUE LYNN ENRIGHT 20185 202602 HYUN HAK YI 20186 202619 MARK JACKSON 20187 202626 MATTHEW RODNEY RICHARDSON 20188 202633 DOUG TRETIAK 20189 202640 GERALD W MAVRINAC
20190 202657 MOHAMED EL BACHIR BERROHO 20191 202664 MANTAS PAGALYS 20192 202671 STACY LYNN CROSBY 20193 202688 JAMES R ROY 20194 202695 JON M DELANO JR 20195 202701 SHAWN ANDREW SIERRA 20196 202718 GEORGE HERMANSPAN 20197 202725 DAVID B CRONK 20198 202732 PAUL LOPIAN 20199 202749 PETER NATHAN DUHAMEL 20200 202756 JOHN BURT 20201 202763 MICHAEL WOLF 20202 202770 GARY W DRAKE 20203 202787 MARC E SCHWARTZ 20204 202794 SEAN EUGENE DAVIS 20205 202800 VINCENT JOE 20206 202817 MARLENE RAVEL 20207 202824 ISAAC CARDEN 20208 202831 MICHAEL JAMES TIMPANO
20209 202848 ROBERT BELLINGHAUSEN 20210 202855 NILES PINKHAM 20211 202862 MICHAEL RICHARD WHITE
20212 202879 ALEXANDRE ALCANTRA 20213 202886 LEIDEMAR PESCADOR 20214 202893 CHRISTOPHER LONGO 20215 202909 GEORGE HUTCHESON 20216 202916 JOELLE ANN BOLTON 20217 202923 GUTHER JEAN-BAPTISTE 20218 202930 ANTONIO LEON 20219 202947 JORMAIN GLASGOW
20220 202954 RICARDO FLEITAS 20221 202961 CARLOS ALVAREZ 20222 202978 MICKEY S COOKE 20223 202985 WILLIAM O REIERSEN 20224 202992 ROBERT W KENISTON 20225 203005 EMMETT DALTON 20226 203012 GAVIN SCOTT LLOYD
20227 203029 ANNE M MUNSON 20228 203036 COLIN ESMOND ARTHUR 20229 203043 MICHAEL PRICE 20230 203050 PAUL BARRETT 20231 203067 TYPHONE CHISOLM 20232 203074 WILLIAM SANTIAGO 20233 203081 JEREMY BILY 20234 203098 DIANE MARIE WOODRUFF 20235 203104 CHARLES D HARMON 20236 203111 MARK A FANTINI 20237 203128 OMAR CARDOZA 20238 203135 JAMES COE 20239 203142 PLINIO SANTOS 20240 203159 MARIO ALVAREZ

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

CAL DELIVERY INC N & T CARRIER INC H2 SHIPPING INC
RICHARDSON CONTRACTING, INC
GCVS INC; GOLD COUNTY VENDING SYSTEM INC
MP DELIVERY INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

SIERRA FREIGHT INC PHL DELIVERY INC

GBILL DRAKE LLC DJJMAX, INC MY THING PACKAGE SERVICE INC
STEPHEN P RAVEL CORP IBC INC TIMPANO'S TRANSPORTATION LLC; TIMPANO'S TRUCKING INC

TIMPANO'S TRUCKING INC

WHITE FAMILY FREIGHT INCORPORATED
LEIDE DELIVERY SERVICE LONGO DELIVERY SERVICES INC HUTCHESON, INC

4 J'S DELIVERY SERVICES CORPORATION

W O REIERSEN, INC

NEDALTON, INC GSL GROUND TRANSPORT INC; GSL TRANSPORT LLC MUNSON DELIVERY LTD COLDOR INC

GSL GROUND TRANSPORT INC

ALAJOBI INC

WOODRUFF DELIVERIES, INC RITE-WAY TRANSPORTATION INC FANMAN HD
COE SERVICES INC

Page 325 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 333 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20241 203166 PETER MUINO 20242 203173 DAVID B MCARDLE 20243 203180 CARMELA SANTOS 20244 203197 JOHN BIERS 20245 203203 PATRICK JOHN MCGEE 20246 203210 RAYMOND J STRAUB III 20247 203227 MAGDY M SALAMA 20248 203234 ALEX KARGBO 20249 203241 MIKHAIL VAYSMAN 20250 203258 GARTH MITCHELL 20251 203265 NELSON O DELAROSA 20252 203272 JOSE GOMEZ
20253 203289 KHALED T ALWARASNA 20254 203296 RASTISLAV CHALMOVSKY 20255 203302 HUSHAM YASSIN 20256 203319 RODNEY HALCOMB 20257 203326 THOMAS HEEP 20258 203333 DAVID INGOLD 20259 203340 RON J PARKER 20260 203357 ROBERT AUGUSTYNE 20261 203364 MICHAEL TIMMLER 20262 203371 MICHAEL JOHN TYLER 20263 203388 GREGORY J FOX 20264 203395 APOLINAR MOLINA 20265 203401 EMMETT BUSH JR 20266 203418 MATT MAZUR 20267 203425 LUIS CABRERA 20268 203432 STEVEN PAUL ILNICKI 20269 203449 JULIO LIZARDO
20270 203456 OLEG POLISSKY 20271 203463 RON WALKER 20272 203470 JAMES BLYDENBURGH 20273 203487 JAMES EDWARD SAMUEL III 20274 203494 JOHN IANNARELLI 20275 203500 NEIL WILLIAMS 20276 203517 FRANK ARDUINI
20277 203524 WILLIAM P FISHER 20278 203531 JOHN V MAGRINI 20279 203548 KIEYMOUL JOHNSON 20280 203555 ABDELFATTAH ELAMRI 20281 203562 NATHAN C PATTON 20282 203579 RHONDA M LUNSFORD 20283 203586 MICHAEL MCCRAY 20284 203593 WILLIAM BOBB 20285 203609 DEAN STANGAS 20286 203616 RALPH PEREZ 20287 203623 JOE SMOCER 20288 203630 MARK PURSEL 20289 203647 JUAN C HERNANDEZ 20290 203654 JAMES L MCCRAY 20291 203661 EDWIN SALGADO JR 20292 203678 VAUGHN GORDON 20293 203685 RONALD HISCOCK 20294 203692 DOMONICK PETITTI 20295 203708 YOUNG SOO CHO 20296 203715 MATHEW SHANNON 20297 203722 FRED FELKO 20298 203739 ERICK TOSO 20299 203746 JASON DEGRAFF 20300 203753 LUKE JEFFERSON SANGER 20301 203760 MOHAMED ZULFIKAR JAINUL 20302 203777 GREGORY PANTER

Company Name 1 MUINO, INC

Company Name 2

PATRICK MCGEE INCORPORATED

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

TCA TRUCKING INC S&G LOGISTIC CORP SOMO INC

NEW TRANSPORT EXPRESS INC

RMA EXPRESS INC MIKE TIMMLER ENTERPRISES INC TYLER & SON LTD GREGORY J FOX INC

MAZ ENTITIES INC
ILNICKI, INC; SANDZEE ONTAP INC JA & BL HOME DELIVERY EXPRESS INC

ILNICKI, INC

JJMAX ENTERPRISE INC
FLYING A'S INC; TORRICE TRANSPORT TORRICE TRANSPORT INC INC RAQASH INC
ZAKI SHIPPING SERVICES INC NATHAN PATTON INC POTOMAC COURIER SERVICES
TRAK INC STANGAS TRUCKING CO

C & C ROTILLE INC JAS USA INC

UKFM

DP DELIVERY SERVICES LLC NEW YOUNG GROUND, INC
TOSO INC JASON DEGRAFF INC L SANGER ENTERPRISES INC ZOPHIA & OMAR INC

PETITTI TRANSPORT INC

Page 326 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 334 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20303 203784 REUBEN BOWMAN 20304 203791 JOE WEIR 20305 203807 EDWARD MEISSNER 20306 203814 STEVEN FORMAN 20307 203821 KENNETH KLEMM 20308 203838 JOZEF KIELCZYNSKI 20309 203845 RUSSEL RODEWALD 20310 203852 THOMAS ANTHONY LAMORTE 20311 203869 WILLIAM J SICKLES 20312 203876 GLEN GLANZEL 20313 203883 EVERARD FLORES 20314 203890 MICHAEL DIEGELMAN
20315 203906 JOSE A RODRIGUEZ 20316 203913 DAVID P MERLE 20317 203920 MICHAEL J SCIDA 20318 203937 JAY SHIELDS 20319 203944 MYLES R PEARSON 20320 203951 CHRISTOPHER MOERLER 20321 203968 ANGELO JOSEPH CAGGIANO 20322 203975 JAMES W JR MOLLOY 20323 203982 FELIX CALLE 20324 203999 FRANK ANTHONY PEREZ 20325 204002 GLENRICK RHOOMS 20326 204019 FELIPE A ZAPATA 20327 204026 YUSUF HAS
20328 204033 IVAN KUZMA 20329 204040 FRANKLIN K SEY 20330 204057 ROBERT T MESERVE 20331 204064 MICHAL MICHAL HUTNIK 20332 204071 KALIECHARAN CLYDE RAMSUMAIR 20333 204088 OLABISI OLAKUNLE AJOSE 20334 204095 DENNIS W GAYLE 20335 204101 OLEKSANDR HRYHORYAN 20336 204118 RADOMIR MARCIN PISAREK 20337 204125 WOJCIECH L MICHNIK 20338 204132 FARAZ HUSSAIN 20339 204149 TODD JONES 20340 204156 FUENTES PACKAGE SERVICE INC 20341 204163 JOHN WINNARD 20342 204170 THOMAS OLDAKER 20343 204187 BRETT SKAGGS 20344 204194 JACK LEE DOBELBOWER 20345 204200 BRANDON COLE
20346 204217 JEFFERY A GARRETSON 20347 204224 STEPHEN HAYES 20348 204231 PHIL HARRIS 20349 204248 CHARLES COOPER
20350 204255 SALVATORE CARUSO 20351 204262 JOHN CASE 20352 204279 MIKE GOLDSTEIN 20353 204286 RAYMOND PAVARINI 20354 204293 DOUGLAS LANE 20355 204309 JOSEPH KENYON 20356 204316 MARK D HUSTED 20357 204323 FELICIA POWERS 20358 204330 JAMES V SPATARO III 20359 204347 JEFFREY M MCGOWN 20360 204354 MAHMOUD ZAHRIEH 20361 204361 ERVIN MEDINA
20362 204378 DAVID WARNAMALLY

Company Name 1 RUSH IT COURIER SERVICE LLC
G-DIMENSIONAL INC LEXJON TRUCKING LLC KPK TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

LEXJON TRUCKING INC

GROUND EXPEDITION CORP SICKLES ENTERPRISES INC G H GLANZEL INC I E DELIVERY CORPORATION M D DELIVERY LLC
JAR TRUCKING, INC

MIKE DIEGELMAN ENTERPRISES, INC

JAY D SHIELDS CORP
LEVIATHAN ENTERPRISES INC A J C DELIVERY SERVICE, INC
FELITOS INC
GLEN'S DELIVERY SERVICE ITZEL 94 LLC DILARA SHIPPING LLC
TAURUS EXPRESS INC
MZ HUTO EXPRESS CORP CLR USCAN TRANSPORT INC
DDG SERVICES INC OLEK EXPRESS INC
WO MI TRANSPORT LIMITED LIAB F & S DELIVERY SERVICE INC
FUENTES PACKAGE SERVICE INC WINNARD INC

ITZEL 94 INC DILARA SHIPPING CORPORATION
D & G SERVICES INC WO-MI TRUCKING INC

SADDAI INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

COLE PACKAGE SERVICE; COLE PACKAGE SERVICES INC JESUS PACKS INC MADCO INC RELIABLE TRUCKING INC
JEST DISTRIBUTING INC
CJK DELIVERY INC

THE C E COOPER CORPORATION

NJ DELIVERY EXPRESS

MEDINA GLOBAL INNOVATION CORP

Page 327 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 335 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20363 204385 PAUL THOMPSON 20364 204392 RENE VASQUEZ 20365 204408 JEMAL LEWIS WESTMORELAND 20366 204415 BILL TZIMAS 20367 204422 MURAT TOPUZOGLU 20368 204439 GARY ITINGEN 20369 204446 CESAR A ALVAREZ 20370 204453 RYSZARD KUPINSKI 20371 204460 KULDEEP SINGH 20372 204477 RALPH ARNOLD GORDON 20373 204484 HENRY BUNYAN 20374 204491 STEVEN GREEN 20375 204507 TERRY FILLENWORTH 20376 204514 ABE PAYNE 20377 204521 DAN BARNARD 20378 204538 WALLACE POPE 20379 204545 W MOORE & J FERRIER 20380 204552 TIMOTHY TALBOT 20381 204569 SCOTT COONRADT 20382 204576 RUSSELLL MAESTRE 20383 204583 SCOTT BARACH 20384 204590 PAUL PASTORE 20385 204606 JOHN DESIMONE 20386 204613 SHERRIE CHAMPAGNE 20387 204620 ROBERT W MIDDLETON 20388 204637 PETER MICHAEL STERN 20389 204644 JEFFREY L WRIGHT 20390 204651 KEVIN POLLARD 20391 204668 JOHN MURPHY 20392 204675 EVERETT TURNER 20393 204682 SHAWN LYNCH 20394 204699 EDDIE BODGE 20395 204705 ROGER BLOCK 20396 204712 PETER M CALIFANO 20397 204729 KEVIN KITTLE 20398 204736 CARL THOMAS PANARELLA JR 20399 204743 TIM A CAMILLI 20400 204750 NUNZIO S GUADAGNI 20401 204767 YOUNG HWAN PARK 20402 204774 THOMAS MICHAEL HEALY 20403 204781 JUDITH ANN BALZANO 20404 204798 ANTONIO TORNEZ 20405 204804 BAYRON GERMAN BUSTAMANTE SR 20406 204811 BORIS KITAYCHIK 20407 204828 BRENT ROBERT KELLEY 20408 204835 ALFRANE MEDINA 20409 204842 DAVID PETER DIMARCO 20410 204859 JOHNNY FAULKENBERRY 20411 204866 RICHARD CISNEROS 20412 204873 ALOYSIUS HOWELL 20413 204880 ANTHONY MANDRACCHIA 20414 204897 JAMES BYRNE 20415 204903 MICHAEL J BALDWIN 20416 204910 JOSEPH J FORISTEL 20417 204927 HENRY MORRIS 20418 204934 DENNIS GAVARIAN 20419 204941 RICH CALI 20420 204958 DAVID CURTO 20421 204965 MIGUEL MENDEZ 20422 204972 JOSEPH GRENADE 20423 204989 JOSEPH R GROSS 20424 204996 SHERYL MORIN 20425 205009 ANTHONY ROMANO 20426 205016 MARIA GRAJALES 20427 205023 CHRIS EMM

Company Name 1 RAN TRUCKING INC
SAMTEK INC PULY TRANSPORT CORP
H&H CARTAGE LET'S GO INC TJK, INC
WINGATE LABS INC
R E C R INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

J A P H TRUCKING INC DRB INC

MDJ EXPRESS INC PADGE ENTERPRISES INC

LYNCH LOVELL INC B & R RACING RACC INC
KT & T INC

LYNCH LOVELL INC

J & YOUNG SHIPPING, INC EXTERIOR DESIGNS LLC S & O DELIVERY INC
NORTH COUNTRY EXPRESS INC

DEFX INC

LET'S ROLL LLC ONE BT LLC

THREE BT, INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 328 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 336 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20428 205030 DONALD N MAGLIOLA 20429 205047 AZAEL CEBALLOS 20430 205054 MATTHEW KARL DRAKE 20431 205061 YOUNG B LEE 20432 205078 PETER FORTYGIN 20433 205085 SAMUEL ROBERT SCHILIS 20434 205092 GUILLERMO GONZALEZ 20435 205108 ORSON NELSON 20436 205115 ROHAN DEPUNT 20437 205122 ROBUSTIANO GRIFFIN 20438 205139 ELIZABETH BALO 20439 205146 DAVID A LEMAY 20440 205153 DENNIS K VANDYNE 20441 205160 DANA ANTHONY POOLER 20442 205177 LAURA RICHARDSON 20443 205184 MARGARET LURVEY 20444 205191 HENRY MAYNARD 20445 205207 JAMES R CURTIS JR 20446 205214 ANTHONY C INFANTINE 20447 205221 DANIEL P MERRITT 20448 205238 MARK MCPHERSON 20449 205245 TY FAIR 20450 205252 LLOYD A BREWER 20451 205269 GREGORY C BOEHLER 20452 205276 LEONARD H LITTMANN 20453 205283 HAROOT AVANESIAN 20454 205290 WAYNE DOUGLAS GILL 20455 205306 BRIAN PAUL HYMAN 20456 205313 JOHN CLIFFORD WHITE 20457 205320 MORRIS SCHWARTZ 20458 205337 ROBERT VINCENT FERRARA 20459 205344 CHAD WILLIAM NORTON 20460 205351 BART F SIMMONS 20461 205368 SABAN HAFIZOVIC 20462 205375 FRANCISCO JAVIER HERNANDEZ 20463 205382 DOMINGO E GARCIA 20464 205399 DANIEL VINAS DUTRA 20465 205405 RANDAL WELCH 20466 205412 LAWRENCE MONTELEONE 20467 205429 KARL J CIARDIELLO 20468 205436 VICTOR M VASQUEZ 20469 205443 ERIC LARAY YOUNG 20470 205450 SORIN TRAIAN AGAFITEIRADU 20471 205467 JOSE M VALENCIA 20472 205474 RICHARD FERNALD 20473 205481 RICHARD I TOMPKINS JR 20474 205498 DONALD JAMES VICKERD 20475 205504 CHARLES LANTERMAN 20476 205511 GREGG MAZULA 20477 205528 ROBERT STEEVES 20478 205535 LEVI SMITH 20479 205542 MICHAEL DANGELO 20480 205559 RUSSELL KING 20481 205566 JULIUS Y BAKARI 20482 205573 GUELSON NONE SIMPLICE 20483 205580 ALI TIFRANI 20484 205597 YVEVINCENT SENGUEP 20485 205603 AMBIORIX ANTONIO MATA 20486 205610 NAVNEET KUMAR 20487 205627 CHRIS JAMES LEKOUSI 20488 205634 GLENN S POLAND 20489 205641 ALEXANDRE MORAES 20490 205658 FERNANDO ALVES TEIXEIRA PINTO 20491 205665 PETER P GREEN 20492 205672 SCOTT MARSHALL

Company Name 1
YULE ENTERPRISE CORP PETEX DELIVERY INC AKS TRUCKING INC K&K TRANSPORTATION INC

Company Name 2

D A POOLER, INC

MERRICO INC

BOEHLER TRUCKING, INC CAPBUD INC
WAYNE EXPRESS INC

KKJM EXPRESS LLC NORTON TRANSPORTATION, INC BARTS TRANSFER, INC
JAVIER ENTERPRISES LLC P AND D EXPRESS INC DUTRA'S DELIVERY INC WELCH INC
VASQUEZ PND CORP ERICYOUNG INC
VALDIFRANCO INC
SURF EAGLE CORPORATION INC
GMPM INC GUAPO INC

WELCH INC

B & J DELIVERY SERVICES SIMPLICE TRUCKING, INC

CJL INC MORAES TRANSPORTATION, INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 329 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 337 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20493 205689 DAVID J MILLER 20494 205696 PHILIP GREGORY CLONEY 20495 205702 CHARLES M DOUGHTY 20496 205719 THOMAS CALMES 20497 205726 BRIAN THOMPSON 20498 205733 JAMES E MCDONALD 20499 205740 CARL ANTHONY MIOSI 20500 205757 PAUL VORNDRAN 20501 205764 RAY VASLIEV 20502 205771 JOSE L VARGAS 20503 205788 GARRY GILLES 20504 205795 JONATHAN EMMANUEL JOYCE 20505 205801 CHRISTOPHER RENSHAW 20506 205818 DALE ANTHONY MORISCO 20507 205825 MANLEY CARTER 20508 205832 JEFFREY SCOTT ABRAHAM 20509 205849 WENCESLAU A DUMAYES 20510 205856 TODD S DIBBLE 20511 205863 ABRAHAM PEREZ 20512 205870 KEITH WEIGOLD 20513 205887 ELISHA M GREER 20514 205894 FIONA STIMUS 20515 205900 DOMINIQUE BARBESINO 20516 205917 DANIEL JUNIOR MICHEL 20517 205924 MICHAEL G GILL 20518 205931 PATRICIA L CUNEO 20519 205948 JAMES ANDERSON 20520 205955 ROMAN MARMER 20521 205962 JAMES TINKHAM II 20522 205979 IGOR CHOLOMITSKI 20523 205986 DANA DREW 20524 205993 REX DELIMA 20525 206006 WAYNE PERKINS JORDAN 20526 206013 SCOTT D MANUEL 20527 206020 DAVID GLIDDEN 20528 206037 CHAD EVERETT STRATTON 20529 206044 CLARENCE GOWELL III 20530 206051 ANDY POULIN 20531 206068 STEPHEN C ZOGRAFOS 20532 206075 ROBERT BLAKE MCCANN 20533 206082 HENRY JOHN SMITH 20534 206099 JOHN OMALLEY 20535 206105 DAVID BEACH 20536 206112 JOHN GEORGE MITRINGA 20537 206129 ARTHUR JAMES 20538 206136 CURTIS C MUHAMMAD 20539 206143 CHRISTOPHER MIRASOLA 20540 206150 LUIS J RODRIGUEZ 20541 206167 FERNANDO FONTANEZJR 20542 206174 SEKOU PEAY 20543 206181 ROBERT K HAETTICH 20544 206198 DOMINIC CARISTO 20545 206204 JAMES CANTALUPO 20546 206211 DANILO J MORALES 20547 206228 TODD RYAN 20548 206235 CHARLES GANGADIN 20549 206242 JON M CHASE
20550 206259 GERSHAM LIVINGSTON HENRY 20551 206266 WISAM GHABRA 20552 206273 TERRENCE MICHEAL BOWEN 20553 206280 VITALIY TKACHENKO 20554 206297 DOUGLAS SPICER 20555 206303 VINCENT GUZZO 20556 206310 RICHARD JOHNSON

Company Name 1
PG CLONEY TRUCKING INC C M DOUGHTY INC
IKON TRUCKING LTD CAM EXPRESS INC M J C CONTRACTING
JVARGAS EXPRESS INC
OKOA CORP
DALE MORISCO INC
KELTIN LLC WENCESLAU D INC
PEREZ TRUCKING INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

KELTIN INC

CUNEX INC RUSKI EXPRESS INC
KDS COURIER INC WJBC LLC BACK BAY DELIVERY, INC

MORGAN'S EXPRESS INC
DWB SERVICES, INC ARSHA DELIVERY INC
LOUROD TRUCKING INC FONTANEZ ENTERPRISES INC

JACKS N DELIVERY INC

CHASE DELIVERY SERVICE INC; KOOL KOOL KATZ DELIVERY INC KATZ DELIVERY INC
CILINA, INC TMB TRUCKING INC MORBAS

Page 330 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 338 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20557 206327 JAMES MCKEEGAN 20558 206334 JOHN A MURPHY 20559 206341 HAROLD N WOODARD 20560 206358 GARTH KING 20561 206365 JOHN TARQUINO 20562 206372 ALEXANDER HAREWOOD 20563 206389 RUSS CORSETTE 20564 206396 ORESTES A CAL 20565 206402 HAROLD LESTER MURENESS 20566 206419 TIMOTHY TROMBLEY 20567 206426 JOEL TAYLOR 20568 206433 ANTHONY VINCENT AMMIRATI 20569 206440 DONALD FYVIE 20570 206457 JEFFREY ALLAN KALLNER
20571 206464 TERRY CHAN 20572 206471 OSBAL FLOREZ 20573 206488 MIHAILO G ESAULENKO 20574 206495 HSIN YEN LEE 20575 206501 NIKOLA INJAC 20576 206518 JEREMY AHSHAD 20577 206525 SOE WANNA 20578 206532 REBECCA G WHITE 20579 206549 WARREN W SMITH 20580 206556 JAMES MICHAEL MCGUIRE 20581 206563 ROBERT KEELING 20582 206570 JOHN F GLOUSE JR 20583 206587 GEORGE L ROBERTS 20584 206594 TIMOTHY ELLIS 20585 206600 ANTHONY MONTELEONE 20586 206617 REGINALD MAHADEO 20587 206624 GREGORY NAPOLITANO 20588 206631 CARLOS GARCIA 20589 206648 DAMON LEE 20590 206655 MICHAEL P WILSON 20591 206662 GREGORY JOHNSON 20592 206679 ROBERT LAWSON 20593 206686 JOSE ANGEL LOPEZ 20594 206693 JUAN CARLOS GARCIA 20595 206709 SAGAR BHALERAO 20596 206716 BALWINDER SINGH BHATTI 20597 206723 MATT MARTINCICH 20598 206730 ANTHONY ESPOSITO 20599 206747 BOWEN KERMITT 20600 206754 BRIAN BROOMER 20601 206761 ROBERT GILBERT 20602 206778 W GARY BUTTERFIELD 20603 206785 DENNIS A PANNENBACKER 20604 206792 ALBERT CONSTABLE 20605 206808 HENRY D LOWTHER 20606 206815 ALLAN J BEITER 20607 206822 KENNETH S CIOFFREDI 20608 206839 ANDREW JOSEPH COLOMBOS
20609 206846 DWIGHT D SANDS 20610 206853 JAMES PRIME 20611 206860 JAMES ARTHUR VARNER III 20612 206877 CHRISTOPHER MERRITT COBB 20613 206884 JEFFREY CESTA 20614 206891 BARRY GILLIAM 20615 206907 SHAWN TREVOR IRELAND 20616 206914 KEVIN HAYDEN DERR 20617 206921 GUY PENNISI 20618 206938 ROBERT TINSLEY COBB 20619 206945 LEONEL BARAHONA

Company Name 1
MURPHY PACKAGE SYSTEMS INC WOODARD TRUCKING INC GARTH KING INC
APH INDUSTRIES INC

Company Name 2

CADEN/BRYCE INC TT DELIVERY LLC TAYLOR EXPRESS OF NY INC A V AMMIRATI CORP
J A KALLNER ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED T AND M COURIER MONO CARRIER INC
DA-DI INC INJAC ENTERPRISES

CONDOR ENTERPRISES INC BOB KEELING INC ROUGH RIDERS EXPRESS INC
DANA TRUCKING INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

FLY BY NIGHT TRUCKING, INC

RLAWSON INC SALINAS LLC J C EXPRESS DELIVERIES INC SAGAR USA NORTHSTAR LOGISTIC INC HALF MOON ENTERPRISES INC

SALINAS CARRIERS INC

E-DELIVER INC

BEUFF ENTERPRISES

MM AND P DELIVERIES COMPANY L C

EM & AD PACKAGE DELIVERY INC
NACJAC TRANSPORT OF DUTCHESS COUNTY INC STUMP JUMPERS, INC

GROUND LOGISTICS LLC
BARRY GILLIAM, INC I & S DELIVERIES INC
GVMG TRANSPORT INC

GROUND LOGISTICS INC GVMG TRANSPORT INC

Page 331 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 339 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20620 206952 RICHARD CARAMANICA 20621 206969 SEJONG CHUNG 20622 206976 LIQUAT A KHAN 20623 206983 MELANIE SMALLWOOD 20624 206990 MOHAMMED SHAHADAT HOSSAIN 20625 207003 STEVEN WILLIAM JACKSON 20626 207010 GEORGE LEADIE LEWIS 20627 207027 DAVID W MCKIE 20628 207034 RYSZARD KUNICKI 20629 207041 CHAITRAM DASS 20630 207058 BRIAN DASS 20631 207065 THAER M SALAHALDIN 20632 207072 TIM GREEN 20633 207089 JARED J STRADLING 20634 207096 OWEN R COX 20635 207102 GLEN EDWARD HAFER 20636 207119 RON EVANS 20637 207126 ROY MENDELL 20638 207133 LOUIS WALLACE 20639 207140 ALBERT C PULVERE 20640 207157 JOSEPH PETRONE 20641 207164 SHAWN PATRICK WALSH 20642 207171 JOHN YONOS 20643 207188 DAVE ARTHUR MORELLE 20644 207195 EDWARD J PILGER 20645 207201 MIKE NIEVES 20646 207218 MICHAEL JOSEPH BRAZAK 20647 207225 CHARLES RICHARD SHERMAN JR 20648 207232 JAMES A LEWIS 20649 207249 YESENIA DIAZ-MERCADO 20650 207256 WALLACE J BLAISE 20651 207263 STEPHEN YEARWOOD 20652 207270 RICHARD LAMBERTSON 20653 207287 CHRISTOPHER MACKAY 20654 207294 PAUL W AUGUSTINE 20655 207300 MANUEL L ARISTY 20656 207317 BRENDA BRUCK 20657 207324 CHRISTOPHER GIORDANO 20658 207331 GREGORY ALAN GORTON 20659 207348 VICTOR MORALES 20660 207355 ANDRES B MELO 20661 207362 VALERIY KOVALENKO 20662 207379 ANDY DORANT 20663 207386 BARTLOMIEJ ZUKOWSKI 20664 207393 GEORGE JACK 20665 207409 JENSI ARIAS 20666 207416 DAVID COMSTOCK 20667 207423 WILLIAM R SMITH 20668 207430 TIMOTHY GERARD FELDBUSCH 20669 207447 GERALD MOORE 20670 207454 WILLIAM GORSKY 20671 207461 GEORGE HO 20672 207478 ANTONIA V GANTLIN 20673 207485 THOMAS J MCGOVERN 20674 207492 JAVIER VALENTIN 20675 207508 JASON PATTERSON 20676 207515 DANIEL R MARSHALL 20677 207522 GEORGE T DELPINO 20678 207539 SCOTT VANGELDER 20679 207546 MICHAEL HOLTZ 20680 207553 HARRELL LAWRENCE LEANO 20681 207560 CHRISTOPHER FAVORITE 20682 207577 GREG FIEGEL 20683 207584 DANA ERSKINE COPELAND 20684 207591 KEITH ROEHNER

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

SSWY ENTERPRISES CORP LEO & OMAR ENTERPRISES INC SMSLLWOOD TRANSPORTATION INC SPYDERX INC JAX DELIVERY SERVICE INC

RYMAK INC EMILY EXPRESS SERVICES INC BRIAN G EXPRESS INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

ORC INC

L WALLACE DELIVERIES LLC PULVERE TRUCKING INC
JJY DELIVERY, INC
C 11
M J DELIVERY INC WINGX INTERNATIONAL LEWIS DELIVERY INC

DSM DELIVERIES LLC

AUGUSTINE TRUCKING, INC MERCANTIL USA INC
CHRISTOPHER, PAUL INC NOTROG DELIVERY SERVICE INC

S&M KINGS BOROUGH CORP ZUSKI LLC; ZUSKI TRUCKING INC

ZUSKI TRUCKING INC

ICW EXPRESS LLC

SOSUMI FREIGHT INC D A GANTLIN INC
VALENTIN DELIVERY INC JDP EXPRESS CORP DRM DELIVERY SERVICE RAPTURE LOGISTICS CORP
HOLTZ EXPRESS INC
FAVS 6 , INC

Page 332 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 340 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20685 207607 MICHAEL S TEACHOUT 20686 207614 GEORGE VANDEUSEN 20687 207621 PEDRO L BATISTA 20688 207638 BRUCE HOWARD LACKEY 20689 207645 FELIX E GOMEZ 20690 207652 ERIC P CHAMBERLAIN 20691 207669 RALPH T CASTALDO 20692 207676 BERNARD CHARLES DAVIS 20693 207683 MARK BOYD 20694 207690 JERI K ROGERS 20695 207706 THOMAS FURJANIC 20696 207713 NICHOLAS WOLFE 20697 207720 MICHAEL BELLFY 20698 207737 MATT LARKINS 20699 207744 RICHARD RENNECKER 20700 207751 JAMES VANDEZOR 20701 207768 JEFFERY HENRICH 20702 207775 KENNETH FULLMER 20703 207782 DALE A ELSPAS 20704 207799 DAVID KELLY
20705 207805 LOY PRESCOTT 20706 207812 TOBY DOMSTEN 20707 207829 MATTHEW MONAGHAN
20708 207836 RALPH T BANKS 20709 207843 PHILLIP A MASON III 20710 207850 ANDREW J REID 20711 207867 DAVID BOLEN 20712 207874 VINCENT FREEMAN 20713 207881 JACQUES ROBERGE 20714 207898 RANDY EASTMAN 20715 207904 KEVIN DRAPER 20716 207911 MARK W NICHOLS 20717 207928 WILLIAM LASKEY 20718 207935 DAWN BLANCHARD 20719 207942 LAURENCE SHEFFERMAN 20720 207959 JAY PAUL MICHAUD 20721 207966 JOSHUA WILSON 20722 207973 RONALD E HEAVNER 20723 207980 EVERETT SWANSON 20724 207997 HAYDEN SIAS 20725 208000 HARRY J HAUER
20726 208017 ZAB LEKA 20727 208024 DAVID RIVERA 20728 208031 REINALDO R SANCHEZ JR 20729 208048 MARK YORK 20730 208055 NICOLO COPPOLA 20731 208062 CHRIS WALLER 20732 208079 CRAIG C BURBULES 20733 208086 SCOTT LEE 20734 208093 ROBERT C TAPHOUSE 20735 208109 THOMAS ALFRED GREENE 20736 208116 ALEXIS CORONA 20737 208123 TROY A PHILLIPS
20738 208130 GENARO DEJESUS VARGAS 20739 208147 OMAR ALMANZAR 20740 208154 MICHAEL DOOLIN 20741 208161 JEAN WAGNER DIEUJUSTE 20742 208178 MICHAEL PENDERGAST 20743 208185 BJARNE SKJETNE III 20744 208192 TIGHE SCOTT STRATTON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

BATISTA BROTHERS TRUCKING INC

CHAMBO LLC RTC TRUCKING INC

CHAMBO OF NC INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

BELLFY INC
RENNECKER ENTERPRISES INC EASY WAY INC G & G DELIVERY INC FULLMER & SONS INC
AAZ ENTERPRISES; AAZ ENTERPRISES INC
M D M ASSOCIATES INC; MDM ASSOCIATES INC
REID SERVICES INC BOLEN PROJECT MGMT SERV INC

W A LASKEY TRUCKING LLC

CJAY 5 LLC

BTV ENTERPRISES INC

RON'S INC ETMS CORPORATION

GREECE CRUISER DELIVERY INC; GREECE CRUISER INC LEX EXPRESS INC CELESTIAL TRANSPORT SERVICE CO

L&H DELIVERY INC

3 OF 3 TRUCKING CORP BURBULES INC

SADDAI INC TROY PHILLIPS DELIVERY SERVICE INC
OMARSITO TRUCKING INC

T & P TRUCKING , INC

BFE INC T&K ENTERPRISES; T&K ENTERPRISES LLC

Page 333 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 341 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20745 208208 DANA CHAMBERLIN 20746 208215 KENNETH SANDERS 20747 208222 JERALD BALLIANO 20748 208239 STEVEN VIENER 20749 208246 VITO GRECO 20750 208253 KYLE TOOF 20751 208260 FRANK BENEDETTO 20752 208277 MICHAEL LEVINE 20753 208284 JOSEPH FICO 20754 208291 DAVID COUCHMAN 20755 208307 ROBERT WALISCH 20756 208314 MARK MICHAEL BECKER 20757 208321 JONNEY BATISTA 20758 208338 ANTHONY TAN 20759 208345 ANTHONY TERINO 20760 208352 SALVATORE PASSALACQUA 20761 208369 RICKY J CHAMBERS 20762 208376 DONALD EDWARDS 20763 208383 CARLOS ZAMORA 20764 208390 SHAWN TIMOTHY WALDMANN 20765 208406 EMIL J DELLIBOVI 20766 208413 JAMES FODER 20767 208420 JOTHAN BOYD 20768 208437 RICHARD WILLIAM LAWSON 20769 208444 ALI RAZA KAZILBASH 20770 208451 MICHAEL INGALLS 20771 208468 CESAR ALFREDO ESPINOZA 20772 208475 LARRY BEVINS 20773 208482 BRIAN DAVID JENKINS 20774 208499 PAUL BROUCHOUD 20775 208505 JAMES CARUSO 20776 208512 BRANDON MARTINEZ 20777 208529 DENNIS EPPERSON 20778 208536 JAMES HARMS 20779 208543 RONALD L FISHER 20780 208550 SCOTT GILLER 20781 208567 JAYSON THORPE 20782 208574 JOHN BARRETT 20783 208581 JOHN EDWARD BAZAN 20784 208598 WAYNE C PEARSON 20785 208604 EDWARD MADIGAN 20786 208611 WILLIAM P CLARK 20787 208628 FRANK ENGLISH 20788 208635 KEVIN L DONAH 20789 208642 BRIAN LEE BURNETT 20790 208659 CLARENCE THOMAS CARSON 20791 208666 THOMAS ADAMS 20792 208673 DAVID J STEWART 20793 208680 WILLIAM GLOWATZ 20794 208697 TIM PECOR 20795 208703 STEPHEN PARKS 20796 208710 KEVIN CAGGIANO 20797 208727 KISSOON DEVINDRANAUTH 20798 208734 GLADYS GONZALES 20799 208741 TODD SWINT 20800 208758 PERWEZ SATTAR 20801 208765 ROBERTO ZAMORA 20802 208772 JAY SCOTT RUBIN 20803 208789 ERROL BARRETT 20804 208796 KERRY GLASGOW 20805 208802 JASON BENOIT 20806 208819 KENNETH BAGSHAW 20807 208826 TODD HUTCHESON 20808 208833 CHARLES WIGGINS

Company Name 1
ITCRESS INC PACKAGE DELIVERY CORP
EMERALD POWERWASH KC/DC EXPEDITING INC RAW TRUCKING INC MMBKID INC SKUNK EXPRESS INC TRINACRIA DELIVERIES CORP
LAZ TRUCKING CORP EJDHLS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MKL CORPORATION

ESPINOZA TRANSPORTATION, CORP
MARTINEZ PACKAGE CO INC D&T&K ENTERPRISES INC JDH ENTERPRISES INC RONFLO INC S&S EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE AGENT J COURIER JB'S HOME DELIVERY INC
CHARBAM, INC MADGUN INC
K DONAH, INC

PEJAYS INC R ZAMORA TRANSPORT
BG DELIVERY SERVICE INC
ADVANCE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BGRA ENTERPRISES INC DIRECT DELIVERY; DIRECT DELIVERY SERVICE INC

Page 334 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 342 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20809 208840 RONALD PATRICK FREDETTE 20810 208857 ERIK POULIN 20811 208864 ROBERT K ZINSLEY 20812 208871 BENNETT ROTH 20813 208888 CHRISTOPHER LOUDON 20814 208895 ROBERT CARPENTER 20815 208901 MICHAEL BUNCE 20816 208918 JODY FARQUHAR 20817 208925 ROY NIMMONS 20818 208932 TODD THORNTON 20819 208949 THOMAS J SHERMAN 20820 208956 SERGIUS ANDREW VONSCHISCHKOFF 20821 208963 JEFFERY J ADDINO 20822 208970 BRETT R HOFFAY 20823 208987 MILTON URENA 20824 208994 BRIAN J GILROY 20825 209007 RYAN DOLSON 20826 209014 BRYAN GROUNDS 20827 209021 RICHARD D MURRAY 20828 209038 BERNARD MUSAU 20829 209045 CARMEL WALDRON 20830 209052 IGOR A KOLOSOV 20831 209069 PAPA MADIENE DIENE 20832 209076 HESTON SCOTT 20833 209083 EDWARD DOMRES 20834 209090 CAREY SCRIVNER HIGHTOWER 20835 209106 BARBARA DOMRES 20836 209113 BRINS KENNETH JOHN 20837 209120 JOHN ASCANIO 20838 209137 DAVID SPINNING 20839 209144 DON FLETH 20840 209151 STEPHEN MICHAEL VENTO 20841 209168 RICHARD ZINK 20842 209175 STEPHEN MAZIEJKA 20843 209182 THOMAS SPITZ 20844 209199 ROBERT J DIAMOND 20845 209205 JOSEPH DONALD WEIR 20846 209212 DAVID JOHNSON 20847 209229 PATRICIA HICKOK 20848 209236 ALAN MICHAEL GINET 20849 209243 PAUL MICHAEL ORSINI 20850 209250 LARRY J BAINBRIDGE 20851 209267 GLEN SCHOLER 20852 209274 JACKSON BROWN 20853 209281 DAVID SUSSMAN 20854 209298 CHRISTOPHER LYNN SILLS 20855 209304 FREDUA AGYEMANG 20856 209311 WINSTON BREWSTER 20857 209328 JAIME GOYCO
20858 209335 ALEXANDER GONZALEZ 20859 209342 NEIL VITALE 20860 209359 CHRIS THEOFANIS 20861 209366 KELLY MEDEIROS RAPOSO
20862 209373 MICHAEL W OGDEN 20863 209380 PAUL A MATTHEWS
20864 209397 NOAH J MENZIES 20865 209403 GORDON HARRIS 20866 209410 LUIS A CARTER 20867 209427 ABRAHAM VILLARDMAN 20868 209434 EVA LUZ LOPEZ 20869 209441 ANDREI A SELENSKIKH 20870 209465 WILLIAM OZMON

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

MARS EXPRESS INC

SERGIUS ENTERPRISES INC

URENA EXPRESS INC
YANKEE DELIVERY CORP BKG DELIVERY INC RDM SERVICES
VENUS ENTERPRISES KOLOS CORPORATION

RDJJ SERVICES INC

DOMRES INCORPORATED

VENTURE ONE CORPORATION J & L FAST SERVICE INC

SAND M TRUCKING LLC RICHARD'S PACKAGE SYSTEM INC
JOCKEN INC GLMCC, INC

MVPS TRUCKING INC

2HDS INC

SUSSMAN CORP ROOSTER 21 LLC

BREWSTER BRINGS IT, INC ONE VISION NY
GONZALEZ DELIVERY CORP

ONE VISION NEW YORK CORP

THEOFANIS INC TRANSPORTER DELIVERY GROUP INC

SYNERGETIC GRP LLC DBA REL DEL SVC

LUIS A CARTER INC BRETSON FREIGHT, INC ELTL ENTERPRISES

ELTL ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 335 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 343 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20871 209472 STEVEN RAUL PRO 20872 209489 KENTON L METZ 20873 209496 FRANK PERRY 20874 209502 GRANT M SCOTT III 20875 209519 LUIS TAMAYO 20876 209526 HARRY DAYTON 20877 209533 CRAIG SALOMAN 20878 209540 DANIEL SANTIAGO 20879 209557 RICHARD S JONES 20880 209564 ERNESTO NIEVES 20881 209571 JASON AYALA 20882 209588 ROMAN NOWACKI 20883 209595 ROBERT CARPENTER 20884 209601 GONZOLO PLUAS 20885 209618 DANIEL CHRISTOPHER MAGUIRE 20886 209625 AYMAN T SULEIMAN 20887 209632 EPHRAIM AUGUSTUS GREIRSON 20888 209649 DEJAN DJORDJEVIC 20889 209656 FRANK A HIDALGO 20890 209663 WANDERSON FONSECA 20891 209670 LEANDRO FERREIRA RIOS 20892 209687 FABIANO ANDRADE 20893 209694 SERGIO DACOSTA 20894 209700 ADILSON SILVA 20895 209717 LEANDRO ALVES 20896 209724 EDWARD SADAKA 20897 209731 PETER SAXTON 20898 209748 STEVE BRYCHCY 20899 209755 PHILLIP GOLDSTEIN 20900 209762 FRANCESCO VECCHIO 20901 209779 PORTER DENSON 20902 209786 ELISIANO KAUTZMANN 20903 209793 FABRICIO R DASILVA 20904 209809 JOSE RAMIREZ 20905 209816 JAMES JANKOWSKI 20906 209823 GARY JOSEPH 20907 209830 FRANK ALFRED PERNICE 20908 209847 ENRIQUE RUIZESPARZA 20909 209854 RALPH GEE 20910 209861 JAMES PECK 20911 209878 JEREMIAH MICHAEL PALLMANN 20912 209885 CHRISTOPHER M FORSBLOM 20913 209892 JOE KELLER 20914 209908 FERNANDO OCASIO 20915 209915 MATTHEW CHARLES PLUMPTON 20916 209922 CHARLES WALTER SOUTHARD 20917 209939 AVY SILVA FUCHS 20918 209946 ISABEL GREEN 20919 209953 ADAMA DIARRASSOUBA 20920 209960 SERGIO RIBEIRO CANTOLI 20921 209977 TARAS GROMYAK 20922 209984 JAIME ENRIQUE LEYTON 20923 209991 VICTOR H MUNOZ 20924 210003 CHARLES BLESSING 20925 210010 WILLIAM WIGGINTON 20926 210027 WILLIAM RISTOV 20927 210034 PAUL MULLEN 20928 210041 RAYMOND SEYMOUR 20929 210058 ALBERT HAUS 20930 210065 BILL MARTIN 20931 210072 RYAN ASHBAUGH 20932 210089 PERCIVAL ENTERPRISES INC 20933 210096 KEVIN S DUZENBERY 20934 210102 LEO HUGHES 20935 210119 DARREN J REITZ

Company Name 1
NARUNI COPR ALYS-ALEX INC APCS LLC JAYDEN DELIVERY INC
ROMAN DELIVERY CORP ZEBAR ENTERPRISES, INC PLUAS TRANSPORTATION KADOSH HOLDINGS, INC AA EXPRESS LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

A&E DELIVERY SERVICE INC

SAXTON DELIVERY SERVICE LLC FLATLINE DELIVERIES INC
VECCHIO DELIVERY INC

PMS DELIVERY CORP

FS ROUTES INC
RELIABLE PACKAGE SERVICE, INC GARY JOSEPH ENTERPRISES LLC

SPEEDY TRUCKING, CO

KBJV TRUCKING INC CWS INC ADAM EXPRESS INC GT TRANSPORTER

T TRANSPORTER INC

RISTOV SERVICES INC BIG AND LITTLE MO INC
BILLMAR TRANSPORTATION INC S-CARGO CORP
REITZ DELIVERY INC

Page 336 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 344 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 20936 210126 ANTHONY G GENTILE 20937 210133 THOMAS B JENSEN 20938 210140 CLOVIS DEMENEZES 20939 210157 VINCENT J RAUCCI 20940 210164 DANNY LONDON 20941 210171 SAUL MOJICA 20942 210188 ROGER HAMMAN 20943 210195 ANIELLO CAIAZZA 20944 210201 MICHAEL HARRINGTON 20945 210218 PHILLIP E BESAW 20946 210225 FABIO ARAUJO 20947 210232 JOHN MATTHEW MARRIOTT 20948 210249 ROGERIO RESENDE 20949 210256 ALESSANDRO QUINTINO 20950 210263 RONALD EDWARD PETERSEN 20951 210270 CHRISTOPHER THOMAS CLINNIN 20952 210287 EDUARDO BASANTE 20953 210294 THOMAS DEMARCO 20954 210300 CHRISTOPHER M RIEDINGER 20955 210317 VALERY VISHNEVSKY 20956 210324 JIHAD RAID SAAD 20957 210331 EDUARD ELYASHOV 20958 210348 VITALIY PETRUNENKO 20959 210355 THOMAS TRINKWALDER 20960 210362 JOHN PETER ROROS 20961 210379 FRANK LOVARI 20962 210386 BILL LOVERRO 20963 210393 KEVIN GERAD FERGUSON
20964 210409 ANDREW FULLER 20965 210416 JERRY MOZETICH 20966 210423 MICHAEL GALATI 20967 210430 RICHARD KRANJAC 20968 210447 CHARLES PROCELLER 20969 210454 KEITH MICHAEL BLEYER 20970 210461 RICHARD MORE 20971 210478 CARLOS COSTA 20972 210485 RAYMOND J SIMON 20973 210492 MARK CULVER 20974 210508 JAMES L PITT 20975 210515 FRANKLIN CASTILLO 20976 210522 JEFFREY L CASE 20977 210539 WANKU YUN 20978 210546 RIGOBERTO BONILLA 20979 210553 DARRIN J GRANATO 20980 210560 ANGUS GIDEON STEPHENS 20981 210577 SHAWN STEWART 20982 210584 WINSTON CLARKE 20983 210591 DESMOND MOYNAGH 20984 210607 EDGAR GIRON 20985 210614 CHRIS CARDILLO 20986 210621 HERICK SANTOS 20987 210638 NICHOLAS P ASTBURY 20988 210645 MARCONDES BERNADES 20989 210652 PAT & SHIRLEY BALBI 20990 210669 LARRY SYKORA 20991 210676 KEN MARSHALL 20992 210683 ROBERT TERRY 20993 210690 MICHAEL E JACKSON 20994 210706 ADRIANO C GOES 20995 210713 RODRIGO SANTANA 20996 210720 GERARD ROTTKAMP 20997 210737 SCOTT ADAMS 20998 210744 VERNON KEARSE 20999 210751 ROBERT T MANN III

Company Name 1 PT & R DELIVERY INC JENSEN DELIVERY COMPANY INC
VL&D INC
BCS EXPRESS INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

MOJICA TRANSPORT INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

J MARR AND SON CORP RESENDE INC RIPPLE ROUTES INC
THOMAS DEMARCO INC
ACCORD C INC
ROROS 940 INC FRANK J LOVARI INC DMJ PRODUCTIONS INC EXPRESS PACKAGE & DELIVERY CORP FULLER TRANSPORTATION INC

KMB DELIVERY INC MORE TWO INC
79165 INC M&M HOME DELIVERY
FCF TRANSPORT INC CASE DELIVERY SERVICES INC W K EXPRESS NY, INC
ACAA LOGISTICS INC SERWA ENTERPRISES LLC
MOYNAGH CORPORATION GIRON & SON CORP

SS ENT & ASSOC LLC

SKYLINE MAIL CARRIERS CARRIAGE EXPRESS INC KEN MARSHALL TRUCKING INC E COM DELIVERY INC M E J EXPRESS INC

Page 337 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 345 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 21000 210768 JAMES CARLEY 21001 210775 MELQUISEDEQUE CANEIRO 21002 210782 ANDERSON BORGES 21003 210799 RONALD C HINE 21004 210805 ROGER PELLETIER 21005 210812 KEITH WADE KNOWLES 21006 210829 DAMON WHITFIELD 21007 210836 THOMAS J VERSCHNEIDER 21008 210843 DANIEL KROM 21009 210850 PETER MCKEVENY 21010 210867 GIACOMO ESPOSITO 21011 210874 JOSEPH C GIACCOTTO 21012 210881 PATRICK GODFREY 21013 210898 TRACY STEPHENSON 21014 210904 DAVID S HERNANDEZ 21015 210911 ANTHONY J LONTRATO 21016 210928 MICHELLE KNIGHT 21017 210935 UGUR ODES 21018 210942 DOGAN ODES 21019 210959 PHILIP BOLSTER 21020 210966 WAYNE F BIANCHI 21021 210973 LUIZ DONEGA 21022 210980 MANUEL ZHININ 21023 210997 RICHARD ASAFO-ADJEI GOE 21024 211000 OGUZHAN YUKSEL 21025 211017 FRANTISEK CERNAK 21026 211024 PARDEEP KUMAR 21027 211031 EUGENE TERLETSKY 21028 211048 TEOWCHONG KNG 21029 211055 ALFREDO LITARDO 21030 211062 DAVID TROJANOWSKI 21031 211079 CLAUDIO SANTOS 21032 211086 ILIR DISHNICA 21033 211093 ADDYCO DELIVERY SERVICE INC 21034 211109 MICHAEL THOMAS 21035 211116 FRED A SMITH 21036 211123 MIGUEL A SANDOVAL 21037 211130 CARLOS GUERRA 21038 211147 WILLIAN DEMEDEIROS 21039 211154 RANDY L MILLER 21040 211161 CHARLES G REED 21041 211178 JEFFREY R WHITTEMORE 21042 211185 KEVIN ANTHONY MCKENNA 21043 211192 HOWARD D TITUS 21044 211208 DONALD L WATERS 21045 211215 GARY NELSON 21046 211222 GEORGE P PAGE 21047 211239 JAMES A MARX 21048 211246 ANTHONY J ROBUSTO 21049 211253 ROBERT DROBNECK 21050 211260 JOSE DASILVA 21051 211277 BRUCE EDWARD PERRY 21052 211284 MARK THOMANN 21053 211291 JEFFERY HORNE 21054 211307 MATHEW SHIELDS 21055 211314 KIM SAWYER 21056 211321 MATTHEW LINKO 21057 211338 ERIC DRAFFEN 21058 211345 JAIME E ESCOBAR 21059 211352 JEREMY LONG 21060 211369 FRANK JOHN LANZILLI JR 21061 211376 HENRY GRENADE 21062 211383 PETER SIMONE 21063 211390 JOSE M GARAY 21064 211406 CHARLIS RODRIGUEZ

Company Name 1 JG CARLEY, INC
BORGES TRANSPORTATION

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

VERS INC

KING REPTILES INC PJ INTERNATIONAL FOOD INC
DCCS SERVICE INC
SEASHELLS & ROSES, INC
KOGAR DELIVERY SERVICES, INC

SEASHELLS & ROSES, INC

DONEGA EXPRESS, INC

KNG TRANSPORT, INC
ADDYCO DELIVERY SERVICE INC FASTACK INC

WHITTEMORE FAMILY FARM
E & A DELIVERY LTD PAGE DELIVERY INC JCS DELIVERY CORP ROBUSTO DISTRIBUTING LLC
BRUCE E PERRY LLC M THOMANN, INC

MAICAO INC JA LONG 3, INC

CMC DELIVERY CORPORATION

MCC DELIVERY CORP

Page 338 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 346 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 21065 211413 VITALY BRODSKY 21066 211420 FERNANDO RODRIGUES ROCHA 21067 211437 BRIAN S HOWE 21068 211444 JEREMIA B PUTNAM 21069 211451 PATRICK PORTER 21070 211468 KRZYSZTOF DWYER 21071 211475 KELLY JOANNE DUPREY 21072 211482 JON DAVID LUTZ 21073 211499 ALLEN D DOUGLASS 21074 211505 DANIELLE DUSHARM 21075 211512 JOHN VAVRICA 21076 211529 JAMES J SMITH 21077 211536 WYNSTON A SCOTT 21078 211543 THOMAS J ONEILL JR 21079 211550 WAYNE R KIMBALL 21080 211567 STEPHEN J COMINSKI 21081 211574 ROBERT ALLEN 21082 211581 JOSEPH A ARRUDA 21083 211598 CHAD BARNABY 21084 211604 PAUL DAVID REARDON 21085 211611 OBISPO GRAY 21086 211628 EDGARD PEREZ 21087 211635 RANDY BENSON 21088 211642 THOMAS MASTERSON 21089 211659 JORGE VARGAS 21090 211666 MARK KONDAK 21091 211673 THOMAS PAUL WINK 21092 211680 RON NORMANDIN 21093 211697 DONALD P PERFALL 21094 211703 DONALD ANTHONY LAROSA 21095 211710 ROBERT WILSON 21096 211727 SPENCER G LOBDELL JR 21097 211734 ROBERT J SCHMIDLIN JR 21098 211741 ALEXANDER J MCCONEGHY 21099 211758 HOWARD NEWMAN 21100 211765 SCOTT E BARROWS 21101 211772 JAMES E MULLER 21102 211789 ROBERT D THURSTON 21103 211796 DAN R OLEARY 21104 211802 CHRIS ROBIN BOARDMAN 21105 211819 FRANK ALBARELLA 21106 211826 RICHARD CLOESMEYER 21107 211833 NAVINDRA RAMNARINE 21108 211840 HURRIYET UNLU 21109 211857 MATT WALOCHA 21110 211864 PIOTR ODROWAZ-PIENIAZEK 21111 211871 ROBERT L STEARNS 21112 211888 ALJADI LAVERDE 21113 211895 RALPH GREEN 21114 211901 MIKHAIL KEXEL 21115 211918 SERGUEI PACHNINE 21116 211925 JEREMY T MACDONALD 21117 211932 ERIC ROBINSON 21118 211949 CLAYTON WHITE 21119 211956 NEIDIMAR G SANTOS 21120 211963 ADAM LEE DUMAS 21121 211970 SCOTT W SIMON 21122 211987 RUSSELL CROSBY 21123 211994 IRA M BATTINO 21124 212007 WILLIAM DICKSON 21125 212014 TERRY STINNARD 21126 212021 DENNY L HICKS 21127 212038 WILLIAM F DUDEK 21128 212045 STEVEN CIACI 21129 212052 CRAIG LARUE

Company Name 1 F AND A DELIVERIES INC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DUPREY DISTRIBUTION SERVICE DOUGLASS DELIVERY INC

SJC DELIVERY SERVICE INC

LA GRAN COSECHA FINAL
PRIME DELIVERY SERVICE, INC JOJAELY INC MY TWO SONS TRUCKING, INC JOHN ARTHUR INC
20 FOR 7 TRUCKING LLC FX DIRECT CORP

FXX DIECT CORP

PSNC CORPORATION
MUGGOTTI INC T VISK 2158, INC

R A S TRANSPORT INC JEICO INC
LAVERDE'S CORP
JTM LLC EA ARIS
DUMAS DELIVERY SERVICES LLC THE AUTOMOTIVE EMPORIUM LTD

DUDEK DELIVERY INC CIACI INC LARUE TRUCKING, INC

CIACI INC

Page 339 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 347 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 21130 212069 JEFFREY R LERMAN 21131 212076 TRAVIS BOARDMAN 21132 212083 FRANK GEORGE MANDATO III 21133 212090 JASON CHARLES SWANEY 21134 212106 RODNEY DANIELS 21135 212113 EFRAIN AVILA 21136 212120 CRAIG MATTHEW WEYANT 21137 212137 MOHAMED HUSSEIN 21138 212144 MARGARET ANN GIBSON 21139 212151 JOSEPH ESPOSITO 21140 212168 CRAIG POTVIN 21141 212175 WILFRED RODRIGUEZ 21142 212182 GREGORY SCOTT HAZELET 21143 212199 GUSTAVO ALCANTARA 21144 212205 KHALIL N ABUHAMDEH 21145 212212 DERRELL TERRAN UNDERWOOD 21146 212229 SENG BUN 21147 212236 DAVID RICHARD SCHNEIDEWIND
21148 212243 MARK K DZABA 21149 212250 GARY HUNTER 21150 212267 EDDIE J HODGSON 21151 212274 LUIS HENRIQUE PINHEIRO
21152 212281 ISMAEL DELAROSA 21153 212298 GURAM GABUNIA 21154 212304 MICHAEL BARTLETT 21155 212311 JEREMY TESSIER 21156 212328 BRIAN PITANIELLO 21157 212335 JOSH R PARISEAU 21158 212342 ROBIN BORDEAUX 21159 212359 JOSEPH V TERRITO 21160 212366 RONALD J RICCARDULLI 21161 212373 EDWARD HAWKINS 21162 212380 JERRY GOSS 21163 212397 STANLEY WILLIAMS 21164 212403 DAVID KRAUSE 21165 212410 DANIEL RIVERA 21166 212427 KURT LADU 21167 212434 CHRISTOPHER FRIZZELL 21168 212441 MICHAEL GALFANO
21169 212458 ELICEO HENRY 21170 212465 JOHN DUMONT 21171 212472 MICHAEL ASIEDU 21172 212489 SHAHARA BANKS 21173 212496 DAVID KIM 21174 212502 EDUARDO A CARDENAS 21175 212519 RADCLIFFE WILSON 21176 212526 KIRK BARRETT 21177 212533 IGOR LUKIC 21178 212540 ALEKSEI ALEKSANDROV 21179 212557 RENATO FRANCO 21180 212564 DZMITRY ANTANOVICH 21181 212571 RONALD J HANSEN 21182 212588 ADRIANA RODRIGUES DEMELLO 21183 212595 MIKE PERRY 21184 212601 BORISLAV PETROV 21185 212618 CHRIS TAYLOR 21186 212625 JEFFREY SCOTT WEAKLEY 21187 212632 FRANK A KOVALOVSKY 21188 212649 FRANK RAMBLE 21189 212656 MICHAEL JAMES ONEAL 21190 212663 CHARLES MICALLEF 21191 212670 GAVIN MANGANIELLO

Company Name 1 RYJEFF INC TRAVIS BOARDMAN INC

Company Name 2

A&A HOME DELIVERIES INC

MAGIK TRUCKING

HNIC TRUCKING CORP

KNA TRUCKING INC

MUGSY'S RUN DAVE'S PACKAGE DELIVERY SERVICE INC

A&V HUNTER INC

LUPI SERVICES

LUPI SERVICES CORPORATION

BDIX INC C & R BEVERAGE INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

DEPENDABLE GROUND DELIVERY, CORP

D&K RELIABLE SERVICE INC CARDENAS DELIVERY SERVICES

NORTHWEST EXPRESS INC ZMITSER ENTERPRISE INC

BORIS DESIGN CORP

MSFK LLC

MSFK INC

FEDEXMIKE TRUCK SERVICES CORP CTNC INC

Page 340 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 348 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 21192 212687 ALEXANDRE ALCANTARA 21193 212694 JIMMY WANG 21194 212700 ADAM FRANCIS TUZZA 21195 212717 JOSE MEZADELEON 21196 212724 FREDDY ULLOA 21197 212731 GARY MICHAEL KNIGHTON 21198 212748 JUAN PEREZ 21199 212755 HEDINSON BAEZ 21200 212762 MULCHAN DEORAJ 21201 212779 ELKHAN MEHDIEV 21202 212786 SHAIAZ MOHAMED KHAN 21203 212793 CAROL AYALA 21204 212809 CHAD INGALLS 21205 212816 JOSE ALVES 21206 212823 RUBENS T DASILVA 21207 212830 ARTHUR A DESJARDIN 21208 212847 NICHOLAS CONTE 21209 212854 DAN ZAFUTO 21210 212861 EDWARD KELLY 21211 212878 ALEXANDER LESNIEWSKI 21212 212885 RUSSELL SMITH 21213 212892 EDWIN J FARRELL 21214 212908 ANTHONY DIVITTO 21215 212915 RONALD JOSEPH PIVARO 21216 212922 WILLIAM J PIECHOCKI 21217 212939 CONNIE STUDER 21218 212946 JAMES CRUZ 21219 212953 WILLIAM ANTHONY MARTINEZ 21220 212960 CRAIG COTTEN 21221 212977 ANTHONY RINALDI 21222 212984 LOUIS MAGRINO 21223 212991 DANIEL DENTINO 21224 213004 JOHN MARTINEZ 21225 213011 MATTHEW J ROPIECKI IV 21226 213028 EDGAR E MONINGTON 21227 213035 JOHN MCCONNELL 21228 213042 DALE REHBERGER 21229 213059 JUAN CRESPO 21230 213066 PABLO PRECIADOGARCIA 21231 213073 SERGEI SELENSKIKH 21232 213080 STANISLAV TUSHNOV 21233 213097 FRANCISCO A INOA 21234 213103 KHALED HAMED 21235 213110 GARVIN THOMAS 21236 213127 JUAN CARLOS MORGADO
21237 213134 OLEKSANDR N VASKO 21238 213141 DENY BEZERA SILVA 21239 213158 ROBERT MARGENAU 21240 213165 JOHN GOWRIE 21241 213172 ROGER A GUIDO 21242 213189 THOMAS J ADAMEC 21243 213196 JOHN J SOSENKO
21244 213202 OAKFORD ZANE SMITH JR 21245 213219 JANINE WETZEL 21246 213226 JOSE A RIVERA 21247 213233 DAVID M WIRES 21248 213240 DAVID GILLARD 21249 213257 ROYAL A JANSSEN 21250 213264 MIKE BONSERA 21251 213271 FRANK RAVELO 21252 213288 SOFIEN ASAD SAAD 21253 213295 ROBERTO RENTAS JR

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

PILOT INTERNATIONAL INC ADAMMARIA INC DE LEON TRUCKING INC DEIZY ENTERPRISES CORPORATION WHITE RHINO ENTERPRISES, INC

3 G TRANSPORTATION INC

GEORGE TRUCKING INC

SHAPRE AND DAUGHTERS INC

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

NJC INC DAZ ENTERPRISES LANNIGAN CORP ICY STEEL BLUE TRUCKING INC
WALLOWA-UNION FREIGHT INC ME AND ME TRUCKING INC
GOALKEYPER CORP COTTEN'S DELIVERY, INC AKAR CORPORATION
ROJAMENTERPRISES GARMONINGTON, INC

INOA TRUCKING SERVICE CORP JC&M MORGADO

JC & M MORGADO CORPORATION

T&A UNLIMITED INC JOHN J SOSENKO TKGING INC; JOHN J SOSENKO TRK INC; JOHN J SOSENKO TRUCKING INC
LACHASE LATRUCKING INC

ADVANCED MARKETING X GROUP INC
RAVELO, INC GO GROUND LLC RENTAS INCORPORATED

GO GROUND, INC

Page 341 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 349 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 21254 213301 DANIEL MCDONOUGH 21255 213318 THOMAS FILER 21256 213325 RICHARD YACAVONE 21257 213332 MARK BREUNIG 21258 213349 MICHAEL ARTHUR 21259 213356 SCOTT EHRENREICH 21260 213363 PAUL W DALY 21261 213370 SEAN PECK 21262 213387 GUL KHILNANI 21263 213394 SAMUEL TORRES 21264 213400 COURTNEY M JOHNSON 21265 213417 JUAN EMILIO JARAMILLO 21266 213424 HARALDO RIBEIRO 21267 213431 BEESHAM NANAN 21268 213448 ILYA MARCHENKO 21269 213455 ALAN TULLY 21270 213462 JAMES MAXAM 21271 213479 DAVID THOMAS HAYES 21272 213486 DAVID WAYNE WIND 21273 213493 MARK FRANCO
21274 213509 WALLACE F FISHER 21275 213516 THOMAS VISKOVICH 21276 213523 KENNETH DONALD KNICKERBOCKER 21277 213530 SAMUEL NONE PEREZ 21278 213547 THOMAS H MCCANN 21279 213554 MARK K DIEHL 21280 213561 ROMEO FERNANDEZ PILOTIN 21281 213578 RONALD MCKAIN 21282 213585 KEITH NUNES 21283 213592 RICHARD T NICOLETTI 21284 213608 RICARDO E LEBRON 21285 213615 COURTNEY EDWARD RANDALL 21286 213622 EDWIN RICHARD NOI 21287 213639 CABA CIPRIANO 21288 213646 EDGAR J CAMACHO 21289 213653 YUKSEL AKTEKIN 21290 213660 PARAMAND UDISTUR 21291 213677 NILSON MARQUES 21292 213684 JOSEPH LIPHFORD 21293 213691 CHARLES M BENFANTE 21294 213707 DANIEL OCALLAGHAN 21295 213714 RICARDO IRIZARRY 21296 213721 ROBERT KONOPKA 21297 213738 BARBARA KING 21298 213745 GARY HELSTROM 21299 213752 VINCENT GUIDO 21300 213769 MARCOS PLANAS 21301 213776 LEONARD LOHMEYER 21302 213783 VINCENT PARISO 21303 213790 JAMES G CONNELL 21304 213806 AARON WILLIE ROBERTSON 21305 213813 DAVID VEGA 21306 213820 ROBERT RAMOS 21307 213837 JAMES FILIPKOWSKI 21308 213844 FRANCISCO J CRUZ 21309 213851 KEITH DENNIS 21310 213868 JOSEPH A PETROSINI 21311 213875 JOHN J CARR 21312 213882 GREGORY JOHNSON 21313 213899 CHRISTOPHER DAUGHERTY 21314 213905 BARRY ALEXANDER DINGLE 21315 213912 JABARI AJANI LAYNE
21316 213929 BARBARA KING

Company Name 1 ALASKA PHINS, LLC

Company Name 2

Company Name 3

TWIN CARRIERS

TWIN CARRIERS INC

JTK INC IMANI COURIERS, INC
BEESHEE INC ODESSA EXPRESS INC

KTW INC FRANCO BROTHERS LANDSCAPING & LAWN CARE, INC
T VISK 2158 INC KBK TRANSPORTATION INC
MC CANN INC A S P MANAGEMENT, INC PINOY DELIVERY SERVICE INC

PLEA & D SERVICES INC MIAG CORP CJ DELIVERY INC J&J ENTERPRISES BARON TRANS SYSTEMS INC RHK DELIVERY LLC
MILMARC TRUCKING INC ROVIN TRUCKING, INC
NWO TRUCKING CORP JFLIP, INC CRUZONWHEELS, INC PETRO TRUCKING, INC JC ALOHA TRUCKING INC DAUGHERTY INC FAST LAYNE TRANSPORT INCORPORATED

D J J W TRUCKING CORP

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 342 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 350 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 21317 213936 RICHARD ST AUBYN SCOTT 21318 213943 MICHAEL PATRICK MCGILL 21319 213950 JOAO SEVERINO 21320 213967 JIMMY GUERRERO 21321 213974 DENNY M DELOSANGELES 21322 213981 METIN UGUR 21323 213998 JOSE HERNANDEZ 21324 214001 BARRIE PARSE 21325 214018 EDWARD SHEEHAN 21326 214025 RICHARD KNOWLTON 21327 214032 ERNEST JESINGER 21328 214049 JOHN JONES 21329 214056 ANSELMO MONTANEZ 21330 214063 MARY ANN GRIFFITHS 21331 214070 RICHARD LACINA JR 21332 214087 JIM E RAINONE 21333 214094 ANTHONY DISERIO 21334 214100 GEORGE GAMMONS 21335 214117 ANTHONY POLO 21336 214124 JEFFREY EGAN 21337 214131 JOSEPH R BALKE 21338 214148 ANDREW PAULUS 21339 214155 BILLY DORMER 21340 214162 DEAN BAKER 21341 214179 CHUNG P LI 21342 214186 EDMIL THOMPSON 21343 214193 CATHERINE A MOON 21344 214209 DEANNA HANSSON 21345 214216 GEORGE ROBERT MURPHY JR 21346 214223 GUSTAVO MONA 21347 214230 DANIEL M GIROUX 21348 214247 EDWIN R VERAS 21349 214254 SHEHATA MOHAMED ALY 21350 214261 WILLIAM STORWELL 21351 214278 WILLIAM CORREIA 21352 214285 ERNEST TARR 21353 214292 HOWARD MCDONALD 21354 214308 PETER M DRISCOLL 21355 214315 PRISCILLA GROVENOR 21356 214322 ROBERT DELUCA 21357 214339 RICHARD FRANK MOSZCZYNSKI
21358 214346 MICHAEL H SWARTWOOD 21359 214353 ROBERT CIARDIELLO 21360 214360 CHARLES JAMES BARNES 21361 214377 DANIEL L VANVOORHIS 21362 214384 THOMAS C LEAR
21363 214391 ERIC J ENCK 21364 214407 JAMES J PAQUETTE 21365 214414 STEPHEN V GORZYNSKI 21366 214421 RAMON RODRIGUEZ 21367 214438 OMAR PRESTON PARKES 21368 214445 JASON DAVID HILL 21369 214452 KEVIN BRAY 21370 214469 MASSIMO I GULLO 21371 214476 ASHTON HYATT 21372 214483 AARON P RUNION 21373 214490 MAHMOUD M BADIN 21374 214506 JOAO SILVA 21375 214513 CHARLES KOLLMAN 21376 214520 MICHAEL CURTIS SILVA 21377 214537 RODNEY TREMBLAY 21378 214544 JACQUELINE LEON 21379 214551 GENNADIY OLIKHVER

Company Name 1 R SCOTT SERVICES INC MIKE MCGILL TRUCKING INC SF 21 CO
DLA GROUP, INC
ALONDRA SERVICE GROUP INC

Company Name 2 SHU KWAN INC

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

MAG DELIVERIES INC
RAINONE DISTRIBUTORS INC APD TRUCKING INC

GRM LOGISTICS INC
VERAS E INC ALY LLC

S ALY CORP

AUNT REY LLC
BAL SERVICES INC CHAJABA INC VANCO ENTERPRISES INC MTEK PACKAGE SERVICES INC
ENCKS TRUCKING , INC

R&N AND SONS TRANSPORT INC
MTEK PACKAGE SERVICES INC

OCDB INC
GULLO DELIVERY INC
A S RUNION INC SEYAM SERVICES INC JON'S TRUCKING INC

Page 343 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 351 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 21380 214568 DAVID DESCHENES 21381 214575 KEITH COTE 21382 214582 DAVID J BEGLEY 21383 214599 RAYMOND BLANCHARD 21384 214605 PAUL JACKMAUH 21385 214612 JASON C HICKS 21386 214629 MARK ROBBINS 21387 214636 TIMOTHY A FREDERES 21388 214643 ANDREW DELIN 21389 214650 JOHN OPPENHEIM 21390 214667 RONALD SWARTHOUT 21391 214674 MARLON THOMAS 21392 214681 FREDRICK A DEVANZO 21393 214698 JOHN PETER WINKLER 21394 214704 ROBERT WILLIAM REIFENHEISER 21395 214711 DAVID A LEWANDOWSKI 21396 214728 FRANK J CARPENTIERI 21397 214735 TIMOTHY A FENNELL 21398 214742 LEONARD MCCARTHY 21399 214759 ANTHONY R FREEMAN 21400 214766 JUAN BAUTISTA VARGAS 21401 214773 IL CHAN LIM 21402 214780 SCOTT E MALLEMUTH 21403 214797 TODD HAROLD HATFIELD 21404 214803 VINCENT PERRY 21405 214810 NELSON GONZALEZ 21406 214827 LAWRENCE ADAMS 21407 214834 FRANCIS D PERALTA II 21408 214841 TROY DELFINO 21409 214858 ANTONIO DE CAMARGO 21410 214865 CHARLES W HOILMAN III 21411 214872 THOMAS MANFREDI 21412 214889 ANTHONY C PALLADINO 21413 214896 THOMAS A KORDEK 21414 214902 ROBERT ECHOLS 21415 214919 THOMAS BERKERY 21416 214926 WILLIAM BARRY III 21417 214933 LINO FERRARI 21418 214940 JOHN P LAINO 21419 214957 EDWIN SAPARAGRANT 21420 214964 JOSEPH IVANOV
21421 214971 GEORGE LOCKWOOD 21422 214988 MICHAEL JOHNSON 21423 214995 FERNON MALCOLM 21424 215008 MAREK SADKOWSKI 21425 215015 JEFF JOSEPH DIENER 21426 215022 KEVIN MOYNAGH 21427 215039 JOSEPH EARL BRADBURY 21428 215046 GEORGE M RUSSELL 21429 215053 EMILIANO MILTON ROMERO 21430 215060 PATRICE M A GRANT 21431 215077 EATON GRAHAM 21432 215084 GURTTINDER SING 21433 215091 JOAO FIDELIO FERREIRA 21434 215107 JUNIOR PERALTA 21435 215114 ELEANOR AVENELLE 21436 215121 JOHN J FITZBACK 21437 215138 ROGER MCGIBNEY 21438 215145 ANTONIO THOMAS 21439 215152 WINSTON W HARRIS 21440 215169 ADINALDO ANDRADE 21441 215176 JOSEPH CASTRO 21442 215183 EPIFANIO DEJESUS 21443 215190 FRANCIS PECK

Company Name 1 K C TRUCKING INC
SAVANNAH'S DREAM, INC

Company Name 2

KEYPON TRUCKING INC RJR GENCO CORP

MALLEMUTH ENTERPRISES INC TH HATFIELD INC JVJ PERRI ENTERPRISES INC
TAGG ENTERPRISES INC
TOPSY TURVY EXPRESS INC
JP&R INC J M I GRAPHICS INC; J M I GRAPHICS, INC
LUBMAR, INC GOLDEN RETRIEVER PRESS INC MAINE EXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC FOUR RUSSELLS LLC

MCGIBNEY TRUCKING INC J-N-M TRKG & TRANSPORTATION IN DNJ TRUCKING

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

Page 344 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-CRraiLg,Met a-l.M, v.GFedGEExRGISrAoduCnoldacsPsuacmkagee Snytste3m2, In7c.9 filed 03/22/19 page 352 of 354

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 21444 215206 DAVID BRIAN MAYE 21445 215213 WILLIAM NORMAN 21446 215220 SHANE TURNER 21447 215237 KARL YOUNG 21448 215244 SILVIO MARTINEZ 21449 215251 KEVIN M KUEHL 21450 215268 MATT SETHI 21451 215275 ALEXANDER CICCIARI 21452 215282 GIOVANNI FILANGERI 21453 215299 DANIEL PERSUAD 21454 215305 JASON MATTHEW STAIE 21455 215312 JASON M SCHWEITZMAN 21456 215329 GREGORY MICHAEL DAVIS 21457 215336 KERRY AUSTIN GARMAN
21458 215343 EBEN CHRISTO DUNDAS 21459 215350 EPHRAIM RAGASA 21460 215367 OMAR HERRERA 21461 215374 JOSEPH BARTOLOME PACLEB SR
21462 215381 FRED LUBARSKY 21463 215398 JOSE SALCEDO 21464 215404 VADIM BODNIKEVICH 21465 215411 ANASTACIO SERISOLIS 21466 215428 FRANK W NEILSON 21467 215435 MIKE MANNING 21468 215442 FRED JAKUBIEC 21469 215459 CHRISTIAN M PATERNITI 21470 215466 JAMES S DEARMOND
21471 215473 JOHN GUCCIONE 21472 215480 GENE ARTHUR PESTER 21473 215497 FRED FOLTYN 21474 215503 LYNN S MESEROLE 21475 215510 DOUGLAS E HINERMAN 21476 215527 ROBSON ARAUJO

Company Name 1

Company Name 2

ALTAGRACIA TRUCKING INC
JONAS CORPORATION JAN TRANSPORTATION INC RAPIDAMENTE DELIVERY, INC

CORDUROY ENTERPRISE LIMITED; COURDUROY ENTERPRISE LIMITED
NASSAU FINEST DELIVERY SERVICES , INC J L S SERVICE

Company Name 3

Company Name 4 Company Name 5

Company Name 6

J S D EXPRESS INC; J S D EXPRESS J S D EXPRESS INC LLC; JSD EXPRESS, LLC
GNTP DELIVERIES INC
HINERMAN INC R & E TRANSPORTATION INC

Page 345 of 345

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00C5r2ai7g,-eRt Lal.M, v-.MFeGdEGx GroduondcPuamckeagnetS3y2ste7m9, Incfi.led 03/22/19 page 353 of 354
Life Insurance Class

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 1 2721 ISAAC KIAWU 2 15172 DANNY SMITH 3 15554 CLAIR EBERT 4 26093 JOHN OBRIEN 5 26949 MARK REED 6 29063 DAVID L CLAWSON 7 36672 CLEO BUNDY 8 36825 JEFFERY FARMER 9 41461 ADAM LAVELL THOUROGOOD
10 42130 RONALD COULTER 11 43205 JASON TAYLOR 12 47975 JOHN THOMAS CORAY 13 48873 CHARLES MIEDEMA 14 49719 DON ARMSTRONG 15 61506 JERALD L MULVANEY 16 62800 BRUCE KEPPLER 17 63838 SCOTT E ANDREWS 18 65818 NATHAN P MCDONALD 19 67133 GEORGE LANG 20 71710 GARRY R JONES 21 72090 BILLY DAVID WILLIAMS 22 74445 RICHARD J MARTINEAU 23 75909 JEFF WEAVER 24 77149 WADE THOMAS 25 78078 JOHN BEHRENS JR 26 79365 WAYNE L WRIGHT 27 82747 RICKY LEE DIESEN 28 84222 DANIEL H HOFFMAN 29 85816 JOSEPH WARD 30 86806 RANDALL MAILLOUX 31 87759 GERALD SZACHTA 32 91022 GORDON P OWENS 33 92371 DAVID C GAJOWSKI 34 98007 TED GIESE 35 99141 WILLIE D SMITH 36 103640 JEREMY J MARSHALL 37 103732 WILLIAM M DINGUS 38 117272 JAMES BRAKEFIELD 39 117715 GREGORY SCOTT PENDLETON 40 121125 PHILLIP G WALDROUP 41 130134 TRAVIS ZELTNER 42 131971 RONNIE SOLOMON 43 139069 JAMES L MERCIL 44 139090 RICHARD CURTIS 45 143202 WILLIAM W ONEILL 46 144599 DANIEL S DEEMIE

Company Name 1 ISAAC TRUCKING LLC D&J EXPRESS COURIERS INC DAVID & JORDAN ENTERPRISE INC
C&C DELIVERIES ENTERPRISES INC JEFFERY R FARMER INC ACT GOOD CORPORATION RONALD GENE COULTER INC
DON ARMSTRONG INC J L MULVANEY INC; JLM INC KEPPLER TRUCKING INC KNC DELIVERY INC
JONES DELIVERY, INC
JEFF WEAVER TRUCKING INC WT & DH INC THE ESTATE OF WAYNE WRIGHT
R MAIL XPRESS LLC JECHA LLC
GIESE TRUCKING LLC WILLIE SMITH TRUCKING LLC
VALERON LOGISTICS INC JIMAR CORP RICK CURTIS ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2 ISAAC TRUCKING LLC

Company Name 3

GIESE TRUCKING OF GREEN BAY INC

WILLIE SMITH LOGISTICS INC

WILLIE SMITH LOGISTICS INC

47 145534 LYNN KLEMETSON 48 146968 ALBERT DOUG VANHOOSER 49 147668 KURT SCHUYLER 50 148009 MIKE BALLEW

NEXT STOP FREIGHT INC VANHOOSER EXPRESS INC
KLEMA INC

Page 1 of 2

ERISA SETTLEMENT
USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00C5r2ai7g,-eRt Lal.M, v-.MFeGdEGx GroduondcPuamckeagnetS3y2ste7m9, Incfi.led 03/22/19
Life Insurance Class

Count Rust ID Contractor Name 51 148535 MARK ANTHONY PETER 52 148689 DON E MCCLURE 53 148696 WAYNE G SHEETZ 54 148986 JIM WIEDEN 55 150439 DAVE VALENCIA 56 152815 BRANDON SCOTT AZZOLA 57 155625 MICHAEL THOMSON 58 158770 GARY EGNEW 59 163460 KEVIN D WRIGHT 60 164351 GARY WALKER 61 164832 ALFRED L BLACK 62 167888 KEN KREY 63 168304 HERBERT K HARDING 64 169813 DAVID GABE TERAN 65 170499 JOSE DESARACHO 66 175593 MICHAEL DAVID TUTTLE 67 175807 JOHN A MARCELLINO 68 188463 TOMMY STRAHAN 69 189835 ALVIN BELL JR 70 209458 GREGORY N MURRAY

Company Name 1 MARK PETER TRANSPORT INC DCJ ENTERPRISES INC

Company Name 2

VALENCIA ENTERPRISES; VALENCIA ENTERPRISES INC VALENCIA ENTERPRISES

PRIORITY DELIVERY SERVICES, LLC
PE DELIVERY CORP D & O DELIVERY SERVICE, INC W R & J R, INC

GNM DELIVERY INC

page 354 of 354
Company Name 3

Page 2 of 2

 
 Case: 3:06-cv-528 As of: 09/25/2012 07:06 PM EDT 1 of 2
HABEAS, TERMED
U.S. District Court Northern District of Indiana [LIVE] USDC Northern Indiana (South Bend)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−00528−RL

Lynch v. Buss Assigned to: Judge Rudy Lozano Case in other court: Seventh Circuit, 06−04025
Archives Info, 021−08−00010 250 of 251 848101FAN
USCA, 06−04025 Cause: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Petitioner

Date Filed: 08/29/2006 Date Terminated: 10/02/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General) Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Orlando D Lynch

represented by Orlando D Lynch 942634 Indiana State Prison PO Box 41 Michigan City, IN 46360 PRO SE

V. Respondent Ed Buss

Date Filed 08/28/2006 09/06/2006
09/19/2006 10/02/2006
10/05/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5.) , filed by Orlando D Lynch.(kds) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
2 ORDER taking under advisement 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Orlando D Lynch. Response to Order to Show Cause why petition shound not be dismissed as untimely due by 9/29/2006. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 9/6/06. (kds) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
3 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Orlando D Lynch. (smp) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
4 OPINION AND ORDER dismissing petition pursuant to Rule 4 of rules governing Section 2254. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/2/06. (kds) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
5 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (kds) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
6 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 5 Clerks Judgment, 4 Memorandum &Opinion, Terminate Civil Case by Orlando D Lynch. (kds) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
7 Docketing Statement re: 6 Notice of Appeal filed by Orlando D Lynch. (kds) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
8 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability by Orlando D Lynch. (kds) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
9 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT re: 6 Notice of Appeal filed by Orlando D Lynch. (kds) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
10 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Orlando D Lynch. (kds) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
11 AFFIDAVIT Of Indigency of Orlando Lynch re 10 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Orlando D Lynch. (kds) (Entered: 11/06/2006)

Case: 3:06-cv-528 As of: 09/25/2012 07:06 PM EDT 2 of 2

11/06/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006 11/14/2006
11/20/2006 12/18/2006
12/22/2006

12 Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 6 Notice of Appeal. (kds) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
13 OPINION AND ORDER denying 10 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis,and 8 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by Orlando D Lynch. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 11/14/06. (kds) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
14 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 6 Notice of Appeal. (kds) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
15 USCA Case Number 06−4025 for 6 Notice of Appeal filed by Orlando D Lynch. (kds) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
16 ORDER of USCA as to 6 Notice of Appeal filed by Orlando D Lynch suspending the decision by this court as to whether to issue a certificate of appealability. The court will take no further action in this appeal until the fee status is resolved. (kds) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
17 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 6 Notice of Appeal filed by Orlando D Lynch,. USCA Case Number 06−4025. (kds ) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
18 MANDATE of USCA as to 6 Notice of Appeal filed by Orlando D Lynch that this cause is dismissed for failure to timely pay the required docketing fee pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b) and record to be returned at a later date. (kds) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
19 Appeal Record Returned: 1 volume of pleadings re 6 Notice of Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 12/27/2006)

 
 5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
APPEAL,CASREF,CLASS,CSSTAY,PROTO,R/R,REMAND,TERMED
U.S. District Court Northern District of Indiana [LIVE] USDC Northern Indiana (South Bend)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG

In re MDL-1700 FedEx Ground Package System Inc Employment Practices Litigation No II Assigned to: Judge Robert L Miller, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr Case in other court: USCA, 06cv2903
USCA, 10-02524 USCA, 10-03115 USCA, 10-03401 USCA, 11-01020 USCA, 11-01021 USCA, 11-01022 USCA, 11-01023 USCA, 11-01025 USCA, 11-01026 USCA, 11-01046 USCA, 11-01047 USCA, 11-01048 USCA, 11-01049 USCA, 11-01050 USCA, 11-01051 USCA, 11-01052 USCA, 11-01053 USCA, 11-01054 USCA, 11-01055 USCA, 11-01056 USCA, 11-01057 USCA, 11-01058 USCA, 11-01128 USCA, 11-01129 USCA, 11-01130 USCA, 11-01131 USCA, 11-01132 USCA, 11-01133 USCA, 11-01134 USCA, 11-01135 USCA, 11-01136 USCA, 11-01137 USCA, 11-01138 USCA, 11-01139 USCA, 11-01140 USCA, 11-01141 USCA, 11-01142

Date Filed: 08/26/2005 Date Terminated: 03/14/2012 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

1/498

5/8/2020
USCA, 11-01143 USCA, 11-01144 USCA, 11-01378 USCA, 11-01379 USCA, 11-01561 USCA, 11-01562 USCA, 19-01561 Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Special Master
Hon James Rosenbaum
Plaintiff
Dean Alexander Northern District of California 3:05cv38

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Beth A Ross Leonard Carder LLP - SF/CA 1188 Franklin Street Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94109 415-771-6400 Fax: 415-771-7010 Email: bross@leonardcarder.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris Leonard Carder LLP - Oak/CA 1330 Broadway Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 510-272-0169 Fax: 510-272-0174 Email: lfaris@leonardcarder.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric M Fink Leonard Carder LLP - Oak/CA 1330 Broadway Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 510-272-0169 Fax: 510-272-0174 TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

John C Hamilton Hamilton Law Firm 913 W Colfax Ave South Bend, IN 46601 574-289-9987 Fax: 574-289-8138 TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Kirsten L Zerger Leonard Carder LLP - Oak/CA 1330 Broadway Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612
2/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
510-272-0169 Fax: 510-272-0174 TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

Peter J Agostino Anderson Agostino & Keller PC 131 S Taylor St South Bend, IN 46601-1521 574-288-1510 Fax: 574-288-1650 Email: agostino@aaklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Suzanne Andrade Northern District of California 3:05cv38

Susan E Ellingstad Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-339-6900 Fax: 612-339-0981 Email: seellingstad@locklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric M Fink (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
3/498

5/8/2020
Jarrett Henderson Northern District of California 3:05cv38

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric M Fink (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ely Ines Northern District of California 3:05cv38

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric M Fink (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Peter J Agostino

4/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jorge Isla Northern District of California 3:05cv38

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric M Fink (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Paul Infantino Northern District of California 3:05cv38

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric M Fink (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

John C Hamilton

5/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bernard Mendoza Northern District of California 3:05cv38

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric M Fink (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jesse Padilla Northern District of California 3:05cv38

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Lynn R Faris (See above for address)
6/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Joey Rodriguez Northern District of California 3:05cv38

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric M Fink (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric M Fink (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

7/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Allan Ross Northern District of California 3:05cv38
Plaintiff Michael Grifﬁn Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric M Fink (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Clayton D Halunen PHV Halunen & Associates 1650 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-605-4098 Fax: 612-605-4099 Email: halunen@halunenlaw.com TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

8/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Diane Gordon Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Clarence Kelly Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton Leonard Carder LLP - SF/CA 1188 Franklin Street Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94109 415-771-6400 Fax: 415-771-7010 Email: emorton@leonardcarder.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

9/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Carlene M Craig District of Kansas 5:03cv4197

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George A Barton PHV Law Ofﬁces of George A Barton PC KC/MO 800 W 47th St Ste 700 Kansas City, MO 64112 816-300-6250 Fax: 816-300-6259 Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert I Harwood Harwood Feffer LLP 488 Madison Ave 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 212-935-7400 Fax: 212-753-3630 Email: rharwood@hfesq.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Janie L Foster
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George A Barton PHV

10/498

5/8/2020
District of Kansas 5:03cv4197

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Leo Rittenhouse District of Kansas 5:03cv4197

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeff Bramlage District of Kansas 5:03cv4197

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

George A Barton PHV (See above for address)
11/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lawrence Liable District of Kansas 5:03cv4197

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kent Whistler District of Kansas 5:03cv4197
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

12/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Mike Moore District of Kansas 5:03cv4197

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

13/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff
Keith Barry District of Kansas 5:03cv4197

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Edward Sheehan District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Liss-Riordan Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC 729 Boylston St Ste 2000 Boston, MA 02116 617-994-5800 Fax: 617-994-5801 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

14/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ronald Perry District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M Houston Harwood Feffer LLP 488 Madison Ave 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 212-935-7400 Fax: 212-753-3630 Email: mhouston@hfesq.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Liss-Riordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Randy Azzato District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Eleanor I Morton

15/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Alan Pacheco District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Liss-Riordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M Houston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Liss-Riordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

16/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff
James Lester Eastern District of Michigan 1:04cv10055 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Barry S Fagan Dib Fagan and Brault PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 248-542-6300 Fax: 248-542-6301 Email: bfagan@faganlawpc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darcie R Brault Dib Fagan and Brault PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 248-542-6300 Fax: 248-542-6301 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edith A Thomas Law Ofﬁces of Edi Thomas 214 N Ridge Drive Suite B Fallbrook, CA 92028 888-349-3940 Fax: 760-728-9518 TERMINATED: 04/13/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jerald R Cureton Cureton Clark PC 3000 Midlantic Drive Suite 200 Mt Laurel, NJ 08054 856-824-1001 Fax: 856-824-1008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert K Firsten Robert K Firsten PLC - BH/MI 4737 Pickering Road Bloomﬁeld Hills, MI 48301 248-593-6510 Email: ﬁrst10@comcast.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
17/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Plaintiff
James Kassuba Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barry S Fagan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darcie R Brault (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert K Firsten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ryan Tomaski Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barry S Fagan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Darcie R Brault (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert K Firsten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Peter J Agostino

18/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Katrina Lee District of Minnesota 0:05cv814 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne T Regan PHV Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC 8050 W 78th St Edina, MN 55439 952-941-4005 Fax: 952-941-2337 Email: aregan@hjlawﬁrm.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Cialkowski Zimmerman Reed PLLP - Min/MN 1100 IDS Center 80 S Eighth St Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-341-0400 Fax: 612-341-0844 Email: dmc@zimmreed.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad

19/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Magnus B Conroy District of Minnesota 0:05cv814 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Cialkowski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Gary Miyazaki District of Minnesota 0:05cv814 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Cialkowski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address)
20/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Fema Onayiga District of Minnesota 0:05cv814 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Gerald Pelkey District of Minnesota 0:05cv814 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David M Cialkowski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David M Cialkowski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

21/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Gary Terrio District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E McDaniel McDaniel Law Ofﬁces 4 Bicentennial Square Concord, NH 03301 603-224-4333 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kenneth M Ries District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Peter J Agostino

22/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Craig Batley District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Ralph Beaulieu District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Donald Bumford District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

23/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Dennis Burns District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Tedd Blaisdell District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Joseph Condi District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

24/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Michael Detrimont District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Mark Gagnon District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Paul Gendron District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

25/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Plaintiff Richard N Gioiosa
Plaintiff David Glidden District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Robert Grunditz District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

26/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff James Hall, Jr District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff William Hurley District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Michelle Jones District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

27/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Marie LaRoche District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Gary Lucier District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Kenneth Parnell District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

28/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Keith Repack District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Mario Russo District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Jay Trachim District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

29/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Plaintiff Christopher Van Lenten District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Donald Swazey District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Plaintiff Jessie Capers District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert E McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dan S Smith Dan Solomon Smith LLC

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

30/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
339 Main Street Suite 2D Orange, NJ 07050 973-674-7200 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter W Overs PHV , Jr Harwood Feffer LLP 488 Madison Ave 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 212-935-7400 Fax: 212-753-3630 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Patrick Ngei District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dan S Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tariq Baskerville District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dan S Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

John C Hamilton (See above for address)
31/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Gitonga Waiguchu District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352
Plaintiff Elaine Muldrow District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352
Plaintiff Michael B Kilmartin District of New Jersey 3:05cv2028 TERMINATED: 02/10/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dan S Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dan S Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Greg M Kohn PHV Nagel Rice LLP 103 Eisenhower Pkwy Ste 103 Roseland, NJ 07068 973-618-0400 Fax: 973-618-9194 Email: gkohn@nagelrice.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

32/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Curtis Johnson Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935
Plaintiff Margaret Johnson individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935 doing business as Trinstar Enterprises
Plaintiff

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Kevin M Costello Costello & Mains LLC 18000 Horizon Way Ste 800 Mt Laurel, NJ 08054 TERMINATED: 02/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Tanenbaum 1131 McDonald Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11230 718-252-3366 Fax: 718-252-9280 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Tanenbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

33/498

5/8/2020
Larry Louzau individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated as Class Representatative Southern District of New York 1:04 cv 9795 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W Overs PHV , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert I Harwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Charles Malkin individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated as Class Representatives Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W Overs PHV , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert I Harwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad

34/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Thomas Frasca individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated as Class Representatives Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Kimberly A Bunger District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Darrell Engbrecht on behalf of himself and others similarly situated District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew T Tobin PO Box 1263 Sioux Falls, SD 57101 605-332-1771 Fax: 605-274-1800 Email: matt@sdtrustco.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

35/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew T Tobin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John F Esculano on behalf of himself and others District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew T Tobin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Plaintiff
Jay Heintz on behalf of himself and other similarly situated District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew T Tobin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Peter J Agostino

36/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Steve Persing on behalf on himself and others similarly situated District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew T Tobin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chad Viereck on behalf of himself and others similarly situated District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew T Tobin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
37/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Plaintiff
John Humphreys Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Western District of Texas 1:05cv155

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald R Taylor PHV Taylor Dunham and Rodriguez LLP 301 Congress Ave Ste 1050 Austin, TX 78701 512-473-2257 Fax: 512-478-4409 Email: dtaylor@taylordunham.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Tatum Lee PHV Taylor Dunham and Rodriguez LLP 301 Congress Ave Ste 1050 Austin, TX 78701 512-473-2257 Fax: 512-478-4409 Email: jtatum@taylordunham.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

38/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff
David Meredith Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Western District of Texas 1:05cv155

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald R Taylor PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeffrey Quebe Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Western District of Texas 1:05cv155

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald R Taylor PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

39/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Plaintiff
Niles Pinkham Western District of Texas 1:05cv155

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald R Taylor PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Charles Campbell Western District of Texas 1:05cv155

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donald R Taylor PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
40/498

5/8/2020
Tim Mershon Western District of Texas 1:05cv155
Plaintiff Bradley D Gregory individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Eastern District of Virginia 2:03 cv 479 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald R Taylor PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edith A Thomas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jerald R Cureton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

41/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Randy Anﬁnson Western District of Washington 2:05cv119

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dmitri Iglitzin Schwerin Campbell Barnard LLP 18 West Mercer Street Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98119-3971 206-285-2828 Fax: 206-378-4132 Email: iglitzin@workerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin S Garﬁnkel Schroeter Goldmark & Bender 500 Central Bldg 810 Third Ave Seattle, WA 98104 206-622-8000 Fax: 206-682-2305 Email: garﬁnkel@sgb-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Plaintiff
James Geiger Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dmitri Iglitzin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Martin S Garﬁnkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

John C Hamilton

42/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Steven Hardie individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119
Plaintiff Theodore Fleming, Jr Individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals Northern Mississippi 2:05cv142 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Dmitri Iglitzin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin S Garﬁnkel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan M Purdie Purdie & Metz PO Box 2659 Ridgeland, MS 39158 601-957-1596 Fax: 601-957-2449 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard T Phillips Smith Phillips Mitchell & Scott PO Drawer 1586 Batesville, MS 38606 662-563-4613 Fax: 662-563-1546 Email: ﬂip@smithphillips.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

43/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Jeffrey Carter Individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals Northern District of Mississippi 3:05cv142 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Michael Tofaute District of New Jersey1:05cv2930 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan M Purdie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard T Phillips (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Greg M Kohn PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jerald R Cureton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

44/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Francis Dennis Lynch District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Thomas Mikulski District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jerald R Cureton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Greg M Kohn PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jerald R Cureton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

45/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff David McMahon District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff James Hough District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Frank Cucinotti District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Greg M Kohn PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jerald R Cureton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Greg M Kohn PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jerald R Cureton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Greg M Kohn PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

46/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Jerald R Cureton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Patrick Carrigan District of New Jersey 1:05cv 2930 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Greg M Kohn PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jerald R Cureton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William J Lombo
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jerald R Cureton

47/498

5/8/2020
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Plaintiff
Edward Slayman on behalf of himself and all person similarly District of Oregon 3:05cv1127

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steve D Larson Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC 209 SW Oak St Ste 500 Portland, OR 97204 503-227-1600 Fax: 503-227-6840 Email: slarson@stollberne.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter W Overs PHV , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Derek D Willis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv3836 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold L Lichten PHV Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC 729 Boylston St Ste 2000

48/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Boston, MA 02116 617-994-5800 Fax: 617-994-5801 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph A Osefchen The Law Firm of Philip Stephen Fuoco 24 Wilkins Place Haddonﬁeld, NJ 08033 856-354-1100 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paula R Markowitz Markowitz & Richman 1100 North American Building 121 S Broad St Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-875-3100 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip Stephen Fuoco Law Firm of Philip Stephen Fuoco 24 Wilkins Place Haddonﬁeld, NJ 08033 856-354-1100 Fax: unk Email: pfuoco@msn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald B Lewis 5 Cynwyd Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 610-668-0331 TERMINATED: 06/19/2017
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

49/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Gary Lee Larson on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05 cv 737 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 doing business as Drop N Run Inc

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jordan M Lewis Siegel Brill Greupner Duffy & Foster PA Phi/PA 1845 Walnut Street 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-814-9322 Fax: 215-814-9323 Email: jml@kulaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J Watton Watton Law Group 225 E Michigan St Suite 550 Milwaukee, WI 53216 414-273-6858 Fax: 414-273-6894 Email: jdrewicz@Wattongroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wood R Foster PHV , Jr Siegel Brill Greupner Duffy & Foster PA Min/MN 1300 Washington Square 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-337-6100 Fax: 612-339-6591 Email: woodfoster@sbgdf.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

50/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dominic R Lupo on behalf of himself and all person similarly situated Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

represented by Jordan M Lewis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Watton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wood R Foster PHV , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kevin Woodruff on behalf of himself and all person similarly situated Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv 737 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jordan M Lewis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J Watton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wood R Foster PHV , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

51/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kevin E Peterson on behalf of himself and all person similarly situated Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jordan M Lewis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J Watton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wood R Foster PHV , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Arthur Smith Individually and on the behalf of all other similarly situated Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne T Regan PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Charles N Nauen Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-339-6900 LEAD ATTORNEY
52/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Gordon Rudd Zimmerman Reed PLLP - Min/MN 1100 IDS Center 80 S Eighth St Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-341-0400 Fax: 612-341-0844 Email: jgr@zimmreed.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joree Brownlow Law Ofﬁce of Joree G Brownlow 1444 Gillham Dr Suite 200 Bartlett, TN 38134 901-266-9902 Fax: 901-266-5985 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R Christopher Gilreath Gilreath & Associates PLLC 200 Jefferson Ave Ste 711 Memphis, TN 38103 901-527-0511 Fax: 901-527-0514 Email: chrisgil@sidgilreath.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Joni M Thome PHV Halunen & Associates 1650 IDS Center
53/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-605-4098 Fax: 612-605-4099 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Rachella Westbrook Individually and on the behalf of all others similarly situated Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne T Regan PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles N Nauen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Gordon Rudd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joree Brownlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R Christopher Gilreath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

John C Hamilton

54/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Buddy D Johnson Individually and on the behalf of all others similarly situated Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Joni M Thome PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne T Regan PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles N Nauen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Gordon Rudd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joree Brownlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Christopher Gilreath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

55/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Joni M Thome PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Robert Erbentraut Individually and on the behalf of all other similarly situated Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne T Regan PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles N Nauen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Gordon Rudd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joree Brownlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R Christopher Gilreath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE
56/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Joni M Thome PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Herbert Humphrey Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne T Regan PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles N Nauen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Gordon Rudd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joree Brownlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R Christopher Gilreath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
57/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Joni M Thome PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Harold Mitchell Individually and on the behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne T Regan PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles N Nauen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Gordon Rudd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joree Brownlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R Christopher Gilreath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Joni M Thome PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
58/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Debbie Lindsey Individually and onthe behalf of all others similarly situated Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
PRO HAC VICE
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne T Regan PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles N Nauen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Gordon Rudd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joree Brownlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Christopher Gilreath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Joni M Thome PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE
Peter J Agostino

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

59/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff John Lindsey Individually and on the behalf of all others similarly situated Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne T Regan PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles N Nauen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Gordon Rudd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joree Brownlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Christopher Gilreath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Joni M Thome PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

60/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Terry Rodgers Individually and on the behalf of all other similarly situated Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne T Regan PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles N Nauen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J Gordon Rudd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joree Brownlow (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Christopher Gilreath (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Joni M Thome PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 PRO HAC VICE
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

61/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff
Raymond Tierney District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter N Wasylyk PHV Law Ofﬁces of Peter N Wasylyk 1307 Chalkstone Ave Providence, RI 02908 401-486-6895 Fax: 401-861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wayne F Mills, Jr District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter N Wasylyk PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
62/498

5/8/2020
Alan Ginet District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Sammy Farland District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Donald J McClafferty District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter N Wasylyk PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter N Wasylyk PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

63/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Ricardo Bacani District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Paul Luongo District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Peter N Wasylyk PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter N Wasylyk PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter N Wasylyk PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

64/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Stephen H McGuinness on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter N Wasylyk PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeffrey Hart Western District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv1015 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gary F Lynch Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP NC/PA 36 N Jefferson Street PO Box 7635 New Castle, PA 16107 724-656-1555 Fax: 724-656-1556 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

R Bruce Carlson Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP Pit/PA 1133 Penn Ave 5th Fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222
65/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
412-749-1677 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel O Myers Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman LLC - MP/SC 1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd Bldg A Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 843-727-6500 Fax: 843-216-6509 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Plaintiff
Tim Johnson individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals Southern District of Iowa 4:05cv477

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jack D Hilmes Finley Alt Smith Scharnberg Craig Hilmes & Gaffney PC 699 Walnut St 1900 Hub Tower Des Moines, IA 50309-3773 515-288-0145 Fax: 515-288-2724 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin J Driscoll Finley Alt Smith Scharnberg Craig Hilmes & Gaffney PC 699 Walnut St 1900 Hub Tower Des Moines, IA 50309-3773 515-288-0145 Fax: 515-288-2724 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Darren Zabrocki Western District of Wisconsin TERMINATED: 02/10/2006
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles N Nauen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2006

66/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clayton D Halunen PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J Gordon Rudd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maureen H Kanter von Briesen & Roper 411 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 700 Milwaukee, WI 53201-3262 414-276-1122 TERMINATED: 02/10/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Donald E Carlson Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1380 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/10/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ginger A DeGroff PO Box 10194 Tampa, FL 33679 727-510-9534 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

James A Staack Staack Simms & Hernandez PA 900 Drew Street Suite 1 Clearwater, FL 33755 727-441-2635 Fax: 727-461-4836 LEAD ATTORNEY
67/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tina L Morin PHV Morin Law Firm 125 W Granite St Ste 109 Butte, MT 59701 406-782-5621 Fax: 406-782-5701 Email: morinlawﬁrm@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sherre Harting Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1380 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ginger A DeGroff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James A Staack (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Charles House Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ginger A DeGroff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

68/498

5/8/2020
8:05cv1380 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James A Staack (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Stephen Renberg Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1380 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ginger A DeGroff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James A Staack (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Troy Upman Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1380

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ginger A DeGroff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

James A Staack (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
69/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Plaintiff Thomas Carraher Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1751 TERMINATED: 02/10/2006
Plaintiff Jim Kost Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1751 TERMINATED: 02/10/2006
Plaintiff David R Mosher Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1751 TERMINATED: 02/10/2006

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ginger A DeGroff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James A Staack (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

70/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Charlie Bertram Western District of Kentucky (Louisville) 3:05cv522

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter W Overs PHV , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Coleman Western District of Kentucky (Louisville) 3:05cv522

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
William Cress Western District of Kentucky (Louisville) 3:05cv522

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Barry Hindman Western District of Kentucky (Louisville) 3:05cv522

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

71/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff George Sanders Western District of Kentucky (Louisville) 3:05cv522
Plaintiff Clyde E Woomer Western District of pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) 2:05cv1267
Plaintiff Gregory Cooke District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588
Plaintiff

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel O Myers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert G Rikard Whetstone Perkins & Fulda 601 Devine St Columbia, SC 29201 803-799-9400 Ext 276 Fax: 803-799-7949 TERMINATED: 05/30/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

72/498

5/8/2020
Gregory Cooke District of South Carolina (Columbia) TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Roland Guillet
Plaintiff Eric J Moss
Plaintiff David Foss

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Charles W Whetstone , Jr Whetstone Perkins & Fulda 601 Devine St Columbia, SC 29201 803-799-9400 Fax: 803-799-2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl F Perkins Whetstone Perkins & Fulda 601 Devine St Columbia, SC 29201 803-799-9400 Fax: 803-799-2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

73/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Robert Gennell, Jr
Plaintiff Glenn Poland
Plaintiff Kimball Rice
Plaintiff Harold Bennett TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

74/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Rodney Owens TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Roger Riewe TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Jeffrey Shelton TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

75/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff David Stacy TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Peter Allen
Plaintiff Eric Jepson

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

76/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bernard Mondoza

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Peter Wiley

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William F Gardner, Jr

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Frederick Howell, Jr

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

77/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert Lee Taylor

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dale Fluegel

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
78/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Dennis McHenry

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Percival Currithers

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tyrone Hawkins

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
79/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Daniel Lavake

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sergei Selenskikh

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
80/498

5/8/2020
L C Bell, Jr

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rita King

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Natasha Quimby

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kenneth Steed

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Neal Bergkamp

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M Houston

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

81/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Matthew Cook
Plaintiff Heidi Law

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M Houston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

82/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Sylvia O'Brien
Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M Houston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

83/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
J Gordon Rudd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter W Overs PHV , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert I Harwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C Hamilton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/07/2007

Plaintiff
Rob Carlson TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Tina L Morin PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
84/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyler G Moss PHV O'Neill Law Ofﬁce PLLC 402 First St E Ste 201 Polson, MT 59860 406-883-5444 Fax: 406-883-1585 Email: tyler@polsonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mike Callahan

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tina L Morin PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Penny Massa
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address)

85/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tina L Morin PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Darryl M Brown

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Harvey Samuel

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
86/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Bridgette Whitehead
Plaintiff Nicholas Conte
Plaintiff George Hammer
Plaintiff Damian Ivanov

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

87/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Daniel Santa
Plaintiff Reginald Gray TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Jammie Hill TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

88/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marcus Holmes TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Roy Patton, Jr TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Peter J Agostino

89/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Tom Skundrich, Jr TERMINATED: 09/24/2010 Plaintiff James Tichenor TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Carl Tucker TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eleanor I Morton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

90/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dean Wiley

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirsten L Zerger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Albert Anaya

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gupertino Magana

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
91/498

5/8/2020
Dale Rose

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric M Fink (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2007

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Agostino Scalercio

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony Ybarra

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lance Tucker

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

92/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Shane Tucker
Plaintiff Aaron Ver Steeg
Plaintiff Jeremy Brinker
Plaintiff Lawrence Asbury TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

93/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Roger Davis
Plaintiff David Harris
Plaintiff Thomas Westcott TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Peter W Overs PHV , Jr (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W Overs PHV , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian Otto Straus & Boies LLP - Fai/VA 4041 University Dr Fairfax, VA 22030

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

94/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Walter Wallace Northern District of OH (Cleveland) 1:06cv1632
Plaintiff Tina Floyd TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
703-764-8700 Fax: 703-764-8704 Email: ecf@straus-boies.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter N Wasylyk PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Merrie M Frost 7784 Reynolds Road Mentor, OH 44060 440-856-0336 Fax: 440-856-0337 TERMINATED: 07/24/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Larry A Golston , Jr Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC - Mon/AL/218 PO Box 4160 218 Commerce St Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 334-269-2343 Fax: 334-954-7555 Email: larry.golston@beasleyallen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

95/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael B Kilmartin TERMINATED: 02/10/2006

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
David R Mosher TERMINATED: 02/10/2006

Greg M Kohn PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Darren Zabrocki TERMINATED: 02/10/2006

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Terrance E Ellison

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey A Bartos PHV Guerrieri Edmond Clayman & Bartos PC 1625 Massachusetts Ave NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

96/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff TEE One Enterprises LLC
Plaintiff Jeremiah Pedrazzi Northern District of California 5:06cv239
Plaintiff

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
202-624-7400 Fax: 202-624-7420 Email: jbartos@geclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Soye Kim Guerrieri Edmond Clayman & Bartos PC 1625 Massachusetts Ave NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 202-624-7400 Fax: 202-624-7420 TERMINATED: 02/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey A Bartos PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Soye Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by B James Fitzpatrick Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston 838 S Main Street Suite E Salinas, CA 93901 831-755-1311 Fax: 831-755-1319 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

97/498

5/8/2020
James Larry Price Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) 2:06cv263

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by William S Hommel , Jr Attorney at Law 1402 Rice Road Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 903-596-7100 Fax: 903-596-7464 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael Decesare District of Nevada 2:07cv98

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew J Kahn PHV McCracken Stemerman & Holsberry 1630 S Commerce St Suite A-1 Las Vegas, NV 89102 702-386-5107 Fax: 702-386-9848 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Carlos Quintin Gonzalez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated/Southern District of Florida 1:06cv22964

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez 9600 NW 38th Street Suite 301 Miami, FL 33178 786-845-3900 Fax: 786-593-0686 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bruce Edwin Gentle Northern District of Alabama 5:07cv392

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J Allen Brinkley Brinkley & Chesnut 307 Randolph Avenue PO Box 2026 Huntsville, AL 35801 256-533-4534 Fax: 256-539-8511

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

98/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Larry A Golston , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Meno

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Andy Parker TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Michael Vosbein TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tim Ketterhagen

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

99/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Ya Vang
Plaintiff Michael Wise TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Jeff Smith TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina L Morin PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

100/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Plaintiff Ernest Neal, III TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Genaro Vargas
Plaintiff Troy Givens individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated - Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) 2:07cv1824 TERMINATED: 09/30/2009

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce H Meizlish Meizlish & Grayson 830 Main St Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513-345-4700 Fax: 513-345-4703 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah R Grayson Meizlish & Grayson 830 Main St Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513-345-4700 Fax: 513-345-4703 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward R Forman

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

101/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Marshall and Morrow LLC 111 W Rich St Suite 4300 Columbus, OH 43215-5296 614-463-9790 Fax: 614-463-9780 Email: eforman@marshallandmorrow.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eileen S Goodin Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz LLP 250 E Broad St 10th Fl Columbus, OH 43215 614-221-4221 Fax: 614-744-2301 Email: egoodin@bnhmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Harold L Lichten PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John S Marshall Marshall and Morrow LLC 111 W Rich St Suite 4300 Columbus, OH 43215-5296 614-463-9790 Fax: 614-463-9780 Email: jmarshall@marshallandmorrow.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Mary D Walsh-Dempsey O'Malley & Langan PC Mulberry Professional Plaza 426 Mulberry St Suite 104 Scranton, PA 18503 570-344-2667 Fax: 570-344-6199

102/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M Houston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Ferraro Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz LLP 250 E Broad St 10th Fl Columbus, OH 43215 504-525-0831 Fax: 504-525-0766 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter W Overs PHV , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter D Winebrake PHV Winebrake & Santillo LLC Twining Ofﬁce Center 715 Twining Rd Ste 211 Dresher, PA 19025 215-884-2491 Fax: 215-884-2492 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert E DeRose , II Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz LLP 250 E Broad St 10th Fl Columbus, OH 43215 614-221-4221 Fax: 614-744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Robert K Handelman Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz LLP 250 E Broad St 10th Fl Columbus, OH 43215 614-221-4221 Fax: 614-744-2300

103/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert I Harwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Salvatore G Gangemi Gangemi Law Firm PC 82 Wall St Suite 300 New York, NY 10005 212-425-0630 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sanford A Meizlish Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz LLP 250 E Broad St 10th Fl Columbus, OH 43215 614-221-4221 Fax: 614-744-2300 Email: smeizlish@barkanmeizlish.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shannon Liss-Riordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd J O'Malley O'Malley & Langan PC Mulberry Professional Plaza 426 Mulberry St Suite 104 Scranton, PA 18503 570-344-2667 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Clarence Dalcour individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/30/2009
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce H Meizlish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

104/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Deborah R Grayson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward R Forman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eileen S Goodin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold L Lichten PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John S Marshall (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary D Walsh-Dempsey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew M Houston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Ferraro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter W Overs PHV , Jr

105/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter D Winebrake PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert E DeRose , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert K Handelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert I Harwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvatore G Gangemi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sanford A Meizlish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Liss-Riordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd J O'Malley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

106/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff
Frank Gruhn TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kristi Gruhn TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robert Thurston TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ernest White TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Donne Peters PHV Gorby Peters & Associates LLC PO Box 1948 Tucker, GA 30085-1948 404-239-1150 Fax: 404-239-1179 Email: mpeters@gorbypeters.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Michael J Gorby PHV Gorby Peters & Associates LLC PO Box 1948 Tucker, GA 30085-1948 404-239-1150 Fax: 404-239-1179 Email: mgorby@gorbypeters.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

107/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Daniel Emrick

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hadi Tresna

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kevin Draper

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeremy MacDonald

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Margaret Gibson TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

108/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Don Olsen TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Solomon Rachmin TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joe Shipp TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Neville Edwards TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

109/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

Plaintiff Thomas Magno TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff John Brown TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff James D Coates TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Darrell Jenkins TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Louis Wallace TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Sharon B Whiteside TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony L Marchetti Marchetti Law PC

110/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
900 N Kings Hwy Ste 306 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 856-824-1001 Email: amarchetti@MarchettiLawFirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lawrence Aubrey Wilson TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jon Leighter

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark A Friel Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC 209 SW Oak St Ste 500 Portland, OR 97204 503-227-1600 Fax: 503-227-6840 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Spicer

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Starr Denise Blanchard District of Colorado, 1:07cv902

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter J Agostino (See above for address)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

111/498

5/8/2020
TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Plaintiff Wesley Martin
Plaintiff Devon Nugent
Plaintiff Melissa Rohman
Plaintiff Ralph Carl Veal
Plaintiff Theodore Holloway, Jr

Robert A Garcin Law Ofﬁces of Robert A Garcin 210 East 29th Street # A Loveland, CO 80538 970-667-4700 Fax: 970-667-8955 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
represented by Susan E Ellingstad Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-339-6900 Fax: 612-339-0981 Email: seellingstad@locklaw.com TERMINATED: 09/30/2009
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/30/2009
represented by Soye Kim (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/11/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jean Capobianco TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Richard Syrek
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad

112/498

5/8/2020
TERMINATED: 09/24/2010 Plaintiff Scott Erickson
Plaintiff Mouloud Zouaoui
Plaintiff Elhadj Ndoye
Plaintiff Paul Fenner
Plaintiff Daniel Graham
Plaintiff Ronald Parker
Plaintiff Kwame Poku
Plaintiff Stephen Tarasiak
Plaintiff John Shinnick
Plaintiff Manuel Leite

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

113/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Aguinaldo Ferreira

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Mooney

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Smail Bencheikh

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Henry Szupel

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robson Araujo

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Vincent Laurino

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ed Rosa

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Richard Lacina, Jr

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Paulo DaSilva

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Chiasson

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Timmons

represented by Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

114/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Joseph Pasquale
Plaintiff Robert Willis
Plaintiff Wayne Curran
Plaintiff Rosita Claudio
Plaintiff Clayton Schwan
Plaintiff Michael Leto
Plaintiff Ismael de La Rosa
Plaintiff Lucas Xavier
Plaintiff Mohammed Belaabd
Plaintiff Michael Brennan

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

115/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Kevin Moynagh
Plaintiff Steven Swartwout
Plaintiff James Grasso
Plaintiff Richard Knowlton
Plaintiff Mohamed Tamart
Plaintiff Geoffrey Bowan
Plaintiff Brian Flynn
Plaintiff Laron Jones TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Horacio Flores TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Mark Niles

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Laron Jones 1505 N Ellamont St Baltimore, MD 21216 410-594-7286 PRO SE
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

116/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Dan Fishler TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 Plaintiff Jesse Ricord TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 Plaintiff Arthur R Rottini TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 Plaintiff Paul Kelly
Plaintiff Dean Johnson
Plaintiff Thomas Wenzlick
Plaintiff Kenneth R Miller

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter D Winebrake PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter D Winebrake PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter D Winebrake PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

117/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Adelbert Lawrence TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Russell Jackson TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Robert Velo
Plaintiff Ryan Boudreaux TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Plaintiff Timothy Bellow TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Peter D Winebrake PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter D Winebrake PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter D Winebrake PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony L Marchetti (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

118/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Joseph P Amato
Plaintiff Scott Anderson
Plaintiff Jorge E Ascencio
Plaintiff Ruben Austria
Plaintiff Ralph P Babcock, III
Plaintiff Reno Baietti
Plaintiff James Barr
Plaintiff Elizabeth Bergstrom
Plaintiff Christopher Bowman
Plaintiff Eric Burba

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

119/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Richard L Cadrin
Plaintiff Brian Carlin
Plaintiff David E Carlson, Sr
Plaintiff William V Catelotti
Plaintiff Abraham Cerrato
Plaintiff Steve Cohen
Plaintiff Christopher Collman TERMINATED: 07/21/2010 Plaintiff Robert C Conlon
Plaintiff Anthony Constantino

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Tina L Morin PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

120/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Robert Correia

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael H Cosgrove

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Paul Costello

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Glen Coulombe

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Manuel Da Silva

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dana A Dodd

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Donna Eickhorst

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Patrick Fletcher

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kenneth Flynn

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joseph Forgitano

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert J Francione

represented by Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

121/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Stephen Gabourel
Plaintiff Patrick J Gall
Plaintiff George T Gammons
Plaintiff Paul A Jackmauh
Plaintiff Gregory Jambora
Plaintiff Chris Johnson
Plaintiff Peter V Kiritsy
Plaintiff Roland E Klinger
Plaintiff Thomas Ladago
Plaintiff Mark Lane

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

122/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Mark A Lane, Sr

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Richard Letson

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Keith Levesque

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rod A Lopez

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Christian E MacFarland

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Charles Mack

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chester Mann

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joseph McDonald

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mark McDonough

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Charles Miedema

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John P Mikulski

represented by Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

123/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Erin L Murphy
Plaintiff Matthew T Murphy
Plaintiff Michael F Murphy
Plaintiff Michael J Murphy
Plaintiff Edward Nelson
Plaintiff Scott E O'Connell
Plaintiff J Barry O'Hagan
Plaintiff Matthew Oppel
Plaintiff Danilo Orquiola
Plaintiff Fritz Pady

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

124/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Brian F Parse

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jason Pike

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Prokopovich

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Rhoades

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ronald Ricciardi

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Edward M Rizzuto, Sr

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Thomas Robinson

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert J Ross

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rafﬁque Sabare

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shelly A Samuel

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Milton M Sanchez

represented by Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

125/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Ernani T S Santana
Plaintiff Clay Seaver
Plaintiff William E Shallies
Plaintiff Sheila St Cyr
Plaintiff George Stephenson
Plaintiff Donnalee L Straube
Plaintiff Ernest F Tarr
Plaintiff George M Therrien
Plaintiff Richard Townes
Plaintiff Rodney Tremblay

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

126/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Eduardo Vazquez
Plaintiff David Walsh
Plaintiff Mohamoud Warfa
Plaintiff Christian J Wilson
Plaintiff Stephen C Wood
Plaintiff Vernon Yates
Plaintiff Gordon Lane

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Roscoe Haggerty

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wallace Koehmstedt

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

127/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Erik Olson

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeff Rohrer

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tony Rand

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Monty Smith

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Rick Allen

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

128/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Jerry Steward
Plaintiff Charley Johnson
Plaintiff Steven Sholey
Plaintiff Fred Walton
Plaintiff Todd Edelen

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

129/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff James Daly
Plaintiff Wes Bird
Plaintiff David Taylor
Plaintiff Terri Bibeau
Plaintiff Talliesin Dodd Hayden

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

130/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Kent Belcher

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shawn Penrod

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ken Beck

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dallas Crnich

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jim Pantojs

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Donna Jones
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address)

131/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Floyd Hagen

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Peter McDonald
Plaintiff Mark Phillips
Plaintiff Nathan Gross
Plaintiff John Whymss
Plaintiff Graylon Anderson
Plaintiff Catherine Mack
Plaintiff Latif Atanda
Plaintiff
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

132/498

5/8/2020
Jeff Layﬁeld
Plaintiff Marvin Washington
Plaintiff Bobby Brown

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Michael Jost

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Rich Mitchell

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Mike Sheffer

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff John Waweru

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

133/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Kevin Pour
Plaintiff Jamie Tenison
Plaintiff Seid Huskic
Plaintiff Bob Candella
Plaintiff Dave King
Plaintiff Michael Light

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

134/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Mike Sanders

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Bob Arbutti

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Ken Stibor

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Gary Austin

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff Don Blackmon

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Darrin Ray
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

135/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Michael Blauvelt

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Assaff

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carl Candy

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Greg Kane

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony King

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Thomas Chalker

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rodney Flaga

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Testori

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Spencer Williams

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Thomas Suchan

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Arthur King, Jr
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

represented by Susan E Ellingstad

136/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Robert Abdullah
Plaintiff Christine Constantino
Plaintiff Scott Baker
Plaintiff Mark Levine
Plaintiff Linda Brankley Bowman
Plaintiff Temple Jackson
Plaintiff Charles Perdwe
Plaintiff Donald Powell
Plaintiff Karen Pryor
Plaintiff Guy Willis

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

137/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Bruce Wittmeier

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rodolpho M Perez

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ricardo Huerta

represented by Ricardo Huerta PRO SE

Plaintiff Larry Armstrong

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mark Autry

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Bolen

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gary Bozlinski

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kathy Carkhuff

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mauria Clark

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joseph Crawley

represented by Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

138/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Douglas Culver

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Aaron Dahl

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Girmay Dawit

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sherry Dover

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert Eusebio

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kimberly Fletcher

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Donald French

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Eric Gengenbach

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

139/498

5/8/2020
Thomas Ghiazza
Plaintiff Girum Alemayehu Glmariam
Plaintiff Kay Goldsmith
Plaintiff Allen Gonsorowski
Plaintiff Jason R Harry
Plaintiff Eric P Herbert
Plaintiff Steve Hobbs
Plaintiff Dan Hoyberg-Nielsen
Plaintiff Ryan Hudson

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

140/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Larry Jackson, Jr
Plaintiff Steven L James
Plaintiff Chris M Kaspar
Plaintiff Raymond Killen
Plaintiff Kristopher Klockenteger
Plaintiff Jeffrey LaFleur
Plaintiff Rafus LaGree
Plaintiff Johnny Dane Leonard
Plaintiff Julius Lester

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

141/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Margaret Lurvey
Plaintiff Bruce McCloskey
Plaintiff Aaron McCray
Plaintiff William Meltz
Plaintiff Cheryl L Meyers
Plaintiff Michael Millinder
Plaintiff John Morrissey
Plaintiff Norm Neiberger
Plaintiff

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

142/498

5/8/2020
Kim Nelson
Plaintiff David Nielsen
Plaintiff Patrick Oehmke
Plaintiff Michael Orin
Plaintiff Rick Pannullo
Plaintiff Samuel Parker
Plaintiff Shawn Parker
Plaintiff Stanislav Pavlovski
Plaintiff Gerald Petersen

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

143/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Raymond G Repola
Plaintiff Larry Richard
Plaintiff Larry Roland
Plaintiff Joe Roybal
Plaintiff Michael Roybal
Plaintiff Keith Rudolph
Plaintiff Mario Ruiz
Plaintiff Karen L Salensky
Plaintiff Ricky Schissler

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

144/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Terry L Scott
Plaintiff Del Sharp
Plaintiff Jason E Sharp
Plaintiff Brycen M Smith
Plaintiff Melvin Smith
Plaintiff Patrick H Smith
Plaintiff John W Stein
Plaintiff James Switzer
Plaintiff

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

145/498

5/8/2020
John Teman
Plaintiff Paul Thill
Plaintiff William Thompson
Plaintiff Benjamin Valentin
Plaintiff David Velasquez
Plaintiff Richard Vicars
Plaintiff Kenneth Wagner
Plaintiff Robert Waid
Plaintiff Robert Wall

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

146/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Bret Wallman

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nicholas N Wolfe

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Victor A Zink, III

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert Ajanku

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Paul Alfano

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kamal Aly

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Amusu

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Douglas Bailey

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Colin Baker

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Earnest Baldwin

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

147/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Kevin Barnes

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Johnny Batista

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Brian Belisle

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kevin Blackler

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michael Boiteux

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff James Burnett

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff W Gary Butterﬁeld

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Orestes Cal

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Richard Cali

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sean Cappalla

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Thomas Castellani
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

represented by Susan E Ellingstad

148/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Wayne Chase
Plaintiff David Chauvin
Plaintiff Lawrence Chenkus
Plaintiff Robert Christ
Plaintiff Mark Corso
Plaintiff Douglas Demars
Plaintiff Heidi Densmore
Plaintiff Mark Desormeaux
Plaintiff James Dobensky
Plaintiff Kimberly Dore

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

149/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Marek Drelichowski

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Howard Eddy

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Edward Ellenberg

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Ferrigno

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ary Fuchs

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Darrin Gerst

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Patrick Giglio

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Carl Hester

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joseph Iacampo

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Errol James

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Huntley Jameson

represented by Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

150/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Ernest Johnson
Plaintiff Gilbert Johnson
Plaintiff Burton Jones
Plaintiff Ed Kalinowski
Plaintiff George Kalmancy
Plaintiff James Kelleher
Plaintiff Ian Kowza
Plaintiff Richard Langley
Plaintiff John Lattimer
Plaintiff Godfrey Lee, Jr

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

151/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Joseph Lombardo

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Peter Luedke

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Allan May

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dennis Monahan

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert Moore

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Neely

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Guy Nyswaner

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Richard Oblinger

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Paul Orsini

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Remzi Ozturk

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jim Rainone

represented by Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

152/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Stephen Randazzo
Plaintiff Thomas Reardon
Plaintiff Eberto Rodriguez
Plaintiff William Rodriguez
Plaintiff Bryce Rooney
Plaintiff Leonardo Salazar
Plaintiff James Schultz
Plaintiff Michael Silva
Plaintiff Dan Stender
Plaintiff Winston Stephenson

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

153/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Bruce Telhiard

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yerodin Thompson

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Anthony Tyson

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Ulysse

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dewitt Watson

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Barry Whittemore

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeffrey Wild

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Peter Woods

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Attilio Cantanese TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sean Dunmire TERMINATED: 04/07/2010

represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Steve Hatton

represented by Susan E Ellingstad

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

154/498

5/8/2020
TERMINATED: 04/07/2010
Plaintiff Kevin Hiscox TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Carl Veal TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Plaintiff Kenneth Miner TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Peter D Winebrake PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chung Byungchul
Plaintiff Wylie Smith
Plaintiff Richard H Somers, II
Plaintiff Dale Urbank TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 Plaintiff All Plaintiffs

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Beth A Ross (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Lynn R Faris

155/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew M Houston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert I Harwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Manny Bejaran
Plaintiff Kevin Hauge
Plaintiff James Pitt
Plaintiff Junior Schock
Plaintiff Daniel Wells

Anne T Regan PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/16/2016 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lynn R Faris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Susan E Ellingstad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

156/498

5/8/2020
Plaintiff Stephanie Sullins Gentle
Plaintiff Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
Plaintiff Co-Lead Counsel

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Stephanie Sullins Gentle PRO SE
represented by Plaintiffs' Steering Committee PRO SE
represented by Co-Lead Counsel PRO SE

V. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc Northern District of California 3:05cv38
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

represented by C Victor Pyle , III Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC - Col/SC 1320 Main St Ste 600 Columbia, SC 29201 803-252-1300 Fax: 803-254-6517 Email: victor.pyle@ogletreedeakins.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chris A Hollinger O'Melveny & Myers LLP - SF/CA Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 415-984-8906 Fax: 415-984-8701 Email: chollinger@omm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Evelyn L Becker PHV O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5378 Fax: 202-383-5414 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rygiel Boyd Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC - Mor/NJ 10 Madison Ave Ste 402 Morristown, NJ 07960 973-656-1600 ext 239 Fax: 973-656-1611
157/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV Jackson Lewis PC - Sea/WA One Union Square 600 University St Ste 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 206-405-0404 Fax: 206-405-4450 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Lee Blalack , II O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 Email: lblalack@omm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Puma PHV Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP - Phi/PA 1701 Market St Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 215-963-5305 Fax: 215-963-5001 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R Jay Taylor , Jr Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC - Ind/IN 10 W Market St Ste 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-637-1777 Fax: 317-687-2414 Email: jtaylor@scopelitis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert I Harwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Robert M Schwartz PHV Irell & Manella LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900

158/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Los Angeles, CA 90067 310-277-1010 Fax: 310-203-7199 Email: rschwartz@irell.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steve Dennis PHV Reid & Dennis PC 15660 Dallas Parkway Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75248-3328 214-991-2626 Fax: 972-991-2678 Email: sdennis@reiddennis.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox Faegre Baker Daniels LLP - SB/IN 202 S Michigan St Ste 1400 South Bend, IN 46601 574-234-4149 Fax: 574-239-1900 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FedEx Corporation Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Thomas J Brunner , Jr Faegre Baker Daniels LLP - SB/IN 202 S Michigan St Ste 1400 South Bend, IN 46601 574-234-4149 Fax: 574-239-1900 Email: Tom.Brunner@FaegreBD.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward J Efkeman Federal Express Corporation Legal Department 3620 Hacks Cross Rd Bldg B 3rd Floor Memphis, TN 38125-8800 901-434-8555 Fax: 901-434-9271 Email: eefkeman@fedex.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Richard R Roberts Federal Express Corporation 3620 Hacks Cross Road Building B Third Floor Memphis, TN 38125-8800 901-434-8521

159/498

5/8/2020
Defendant FedEx Ground System Inc Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Defendant FedEx Home Delivery Inc Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010 Defendant Does 1-20 Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010 Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc District of Kansas 5:03cv4197

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
TERMINATED: 06/29/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

160/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steve Dennis PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J Yates Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP 4801 Main St Ste 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 816-329-4772 TERMINATED: 07/22/2010

Defendant FedEx Corporation District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Michael J Puma PHV

161/498

5/8/2020
Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010 doing business as FedEx Home Delivery Inc

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

162/498

5/8/2020
Defendant Federal Express Corporation Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010 Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FedEx HomeDelivery a division of FedEx Ground Package System, Incorporated Eastern District of Michigan 1:04cv10055 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Defendant
FedEx Corporation District of Minnesota 0:05cv814 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward J Efkeman (See above for address)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

163/498

5/8/2020
Defendant FedEx Ground System Inc District of Minnesota 0:05cv814 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Duddleston Jackson Lewis LLP 225 S 6th St Suite 3850 Minneapolis, MN 55402 TERMINATED: 07/12/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant FedEx Home Delivery Inc and their respective health and beneﬁts plans District of Minnesota 0:05cv814 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Defendant FedEx Corporation District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145 TERMINATED: 05/19/2011
Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward J Efkeman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

164/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence J Rosenfeld Greenberg Traurig LLP - Pho/AZ 2375 E Camelback Rd Ste 700 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602-445-8000 Fax: 602-445-8100 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FedEx Express Home Delivery Division of FedEx Ground District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145
Defendant
FedEx Ground and its Ofﬁcers and/or Employees District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carolyn J Kubota O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/SH 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-403-6000 Fax: 213-430-6407 Email: ckubota@omm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chris A Hollinger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address)

165/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Voelz O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/SH 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-430-6000 Fax: 213-430-6407 Email: svoelz@omm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steve Dennis PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew M Weiner O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 TERMINATED: 11/20/2008

Anh-Nguyet Tran LyJordan O'Melveny & Myers LLP - NY/NY 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 212-326-2000 Fax: 212-326-2061 TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aparna B Joshi O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Cameron H Biscay O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/AS 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 310-553-6700
166/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Fax: 310-246-6779 Email: cbiscay@omm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carla D Macaluso Jackson Lewis LLP - Mor/NJ 220 Headquarters Plaza 7th Floor East Tower Morristown, NJ 07960 973-638-6890 TERMINATED: 09/01/2010

David G Caperton O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorothy Anne Jarrell O'Melveny & Myers LLP - NY/NY 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 212-326-2000 Fax: 212-326-2061 TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dulany Lucetta Pope Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Den/CO 1144 Fifteenth St Ste 3400 Denver, CO 80202 303-607-3500 Email: Lucetta.pope@faegredrinker.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Brenner O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Jeff R Heck Indiana Legal Services Inc - Ind/IN/1850 151 N Delaware St Ste 1850 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-613-7102 Email: jeff.heck@ilsi.net TERMINATED: 04/13/2006
167/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey S Nestler O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 Email: jnestler@omm.com TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey A Trimarchi O'Melveny & Myers LLP - NY/NY 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 212-326-2000 Fax: 212-326-2061 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lee Merzon O'Melveny & Myers LLP - NY/NY 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 212-326-4327 Fax: 212-326-2061 Email: jmerzon@omm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M Nolan Jackson Lewis PC - Mor/NJ 7th Floor East Tower 220 Headquarters Plz Morristown, NJ 07960 TERMINATED: 09/01/2010

Kenneth Lee Blalack , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura C Bremer O'Melveny & Myers LLP - SF/CA Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 415-984-8700 Fax: 415-984-8701 TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Laura E Robinson O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/AS 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 310-553-6700
168/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Fax: 310-246-6779 Email: lrobinson@omm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee K Fink O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/SH 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 310-553-6700 Fax: 310-246-6779 TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lesley A Pate Venable LLP - Was/DC 600 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20001 202-344-8033 Fax: 202-344-8300 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew J Merrick O'Melveny & Myers LLP - NY/NY 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 212-326-2000 Fax: 212-326-2061 TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael C Camunez O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/SH 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-430-6000 Fax: 213-430-6407 TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael W Garrison , Jr O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/SH 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-430-6000 Fax: 213-430-6407 Email: mgarrison@omm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Michael W Kopp O'Melveny & Myers LLP - SF/CA Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 415-984-8700 Fax: 415-984-8701

169/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael G McGuinness O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/SH 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-420-6000 Fax: 213-420-6407 Email: mmcguinness@omm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora M Puckett O'Melveny & Myers LLP - SF/CA Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 415-984-8700 Fax: 415-984-8701 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Raquel A Millman O'Melveny & Myers LLP - NY/NY 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 212-326-2000 Fax: 212-326-2016 TERMINATED: 11/20/2008

Robert G Ames Venable LLP - Was/DC 600 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20001 202-344-4000 Fax: 202-344-8300 Email: rgames@venable.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robin Dean O'Melveny & Myers LLP - SF/CA Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 415-984-8700 Fax: 415-984-8701 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rosemary J Bruno Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - New/NJ 550 Broad Street Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102 973-273-9800 Fax: 973-273-9800 Email: rosemary.bruno@bipc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Stacy J Hauf

170/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore B Schroeder O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas P Jirgal O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/SH 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 310-246-8456 Fax: 310-246-6779 TERMINATED: 06/04/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Tyrone Gaskins District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352

Victor H Jih O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/SH 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 310-553-6700 Fax: 310-246-6779 Email: vjih@omm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carla D Macaluso Jackson Lewis PC - Mor/NJ 7th Floor East Tower 220 Headquarters Plz Morristown, NJ 07960 973-638-6890 TERMINATED: 09/01/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Dulany Lucetta Pope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

171/498

5/8/2020
Defendant Albert Rettinger District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352
Defendant Jim Gelhausen District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352
Defendant

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeff R Heck (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carla D Macaluso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dulany Lucetta Pope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeff R Heck (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carla D Macaluso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dulany Lucetta Pope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeff R Heck (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

172/498

5/8/2020
Joe Collins District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Carla D Macaluso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dulany Lucetta Pope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Tom Dimaio District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352

Jeff R Heck (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carla D Macaluso (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dulany Lucetta Pope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Federal Express Corporation District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352 TERMINATED: 05/19/2011
Defendant John Doe District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352
Defendant Jane 1-10 Doe Individually Jointly Severally and or in the Alternative District of New Jersey 2:02cv5352
Defendant Federal Express Inc District of New Jersey 3:05cv2028

Jeff R Heck (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward J Efkeman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl M Stanton Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

173/498

5/8/2020
Defendant Federal Express Cranbury Location District of New Jersey 3:05cv2028
Defendant John Does 1 through 5 District of New Jersey 3:05cv2028 Defendant FedEx Home Delivery Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935 Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
10 Madison Avenue Suite 402 Morristown, NJ 07960 973-656-1600 TERMINATED: 11/15/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl M Stanton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

174/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chris A Hollinger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert I Harwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FedEx Ground Package System Inc District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address)

175/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra K Hoglund-Hanson Davenport Evans Hurwitz & Smith PO Box 1030 Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030 TERMINATED: 08/19/2010

Susan Brunick Simons Davenport Evans Hurwitz & Smith PO Box 1030 Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030 TERMINATED: 08/19/2010

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FedEx Ground Package System Inc District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010 also known as FedEx Home Delivery

Thomas J Welk Boyce Greenﬁeld Pashby & Welk LLP PO Box 5015 Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5015 605-226-2724 Fax: 605-334-0618 Email: tjwelk@bgpw.com
represented by Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

176/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra K Hoglund-Hanson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2010

Susan Brunick Simons (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2010

Defendant Federal Express Corporation Western District of Texas 1:05cv155 TERMINATED: 05/19/2011
Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc Western District of Texas 1:05cv155

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward J Efkeman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

177/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joe E Lea , Jr McGinnis Lochridge & Kilgore LLP 600 Congress Ave Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701 512-495-6065 Fax: 512-505-6365 Email: jlea@mcginnislaw.com TERMINATED: 08/19/2010

Steve Dennis PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant FedEx Home Delivery a division of FedEx Ground Package System Inc Western District of Texas 1:05cv155
Defendant FedEx Corporation Eastern District of Virginia 2:03 cv 479 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward J Efkeman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brett J Preston Hill Ward Henderson PA 101 E Kennedy Blvd Suite 3700 PO Box 2231 Tampa, FL 33601 813-221-3900 Fax: 813-221-2900 Email: bpreston@hwhlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

178/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Evelyn L Becker PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert I Harwood (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Schnebeck Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Roblan Jackson Lewis 520Pike Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 206-405-0404 Fax: 206-405-4450 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Dulany Lucetta Pope

179/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Cheryl Pilakowski Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119

Jeff R Heck (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aaron Roblan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dulany Lucetta Pope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John Does 1-10 Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119
Defendant FedEx Corporation Northern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Defendant
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Jeff R Heck (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard R Roberts (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

180/498

5/8/2020
FedEx Ground Package System Inc Nortern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Defendant FedEx Home Delivery Inc Northern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010 Defendant Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth E Milam Watkins & Eager PO Box 650 Jackson, MS 39205-0650 601-948-6470 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kenneth E Milam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl M Stanton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

181/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FedEx Ground Package System Inc District of Oregon 3:05cv1127

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy P Michelson Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154 206-625-8600 Fax: 206-625-0900 Email: eharris@corrcronin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Kelly P Corr Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154 206-625-8600 Fax: 206-625-0900
182/498

5/8/2020
Defendant Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv3836
Defendant Federal Express Corporation Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv 3836 TERMINATED: 05/19/2011
Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Email: kcorr@corrcronin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Steve Dennis PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher J Moran Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC - Pit/PA Suite 400 Four Gateway Center 444 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1237 TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Shannon H Paliotta Littler Mendelson PC - Pit/PA 625 Liberty Ave 26th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3110 412-201-7600 TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
Sidney Zonn Littler Mendelson PC - Pit/PA 625 Liberty Ave 26th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3110 412-201-7620 TERMINATED: 08/26/2010
represented by Eric E Hobbs PHV Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC - Mil/WI Pabst Boiler House 1243 N 10th St Ste 200 Milwaukee, WI 53205-2559 414-239-6414

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

183/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Fax: 414-755-8289 Email: eric.hobbs@ogletree.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric H Rumbaugh PHV Michael Best & Friedrich LLP - Mil/WI 790 N Water St Ste 2500 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-271-6560 Fax: 414-277-0656 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John H Beisner PHV O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5370 Fax: 202-383-5414 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Tom A Jerman O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001

184/498

5/8/2020
Defendant FedEx Home Delivery Inc and their respective health and beneﬁts plans Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010
Defendant Does 1-20 Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 Defendant FedEx Ground System Inc and their respective health and beneﬁts plans Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
202-383-5233 Fax: 202-383-5414 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alison G Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James R Mulroy , II Kiesewetter Wise Kaplan Prather PLC 3725 Champion Hills Dr Suite 3000 Memphis, TN 38125 901-795-6695 Fax: 901-795-1646 Email: mulroyj@jacksonlewis.com TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William T Fiala Lewis Fisher Henderson Claxton & Mulroy LLP 6410 Poplar Avenue Suite 300 Memphis, TN 38119 901-767-6160 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James R Mulroy , II (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William T Fiala (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

185/498

5/8/2020
Defendant
Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220 TERMINATED: 12/15/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
represented by Patricia A Sullivan Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP - Pro/RI 2800 Financial Plaza Providence, RI 02903 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steve Dennis PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FedEx Ground Package System Inc Western District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv1015

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen P Kruse PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
FedEx Ground System Inc and their respective health and beneﬁt plans

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael R Reck Belin McCormick 666 Walnut St Ste 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-3989 515-283-4645

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

186/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Fax: 515-288-8714 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant FedEx Home Delivery Inc
Defendant FedEx Ground System Inc

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael R Reck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John H Beisner PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant FedEx Home Delivery Inc
Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John H Beisner PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chris A Hollinger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Rygiel Boyd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/26/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Murphy Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC - Was/DC

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

187/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1909 K St NW Ste 1000 Washington, DC 20006 202-887-0855 Fax: 202-887-0866 TERMINATED: 08/19/2010

Rafael Eloy Morell Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC - Was/DC 2400 N Street NW Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20037 TERMINATED: 08/19/2010

Defendant Christopher Parker District of Colorado, 1:07cv902 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010
Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc District of Colorado 1:07cv902 TERMINATED: 09/24/2010

Ronald E Jenkins Jenkins and Kling PC 10 S Brentwood Boulevard Suite 200 Clayton, MO 63105 314-721-2525 Fax: 314-721-5525 TERMINATED: 08/19/2010
represented by Robert James Penny Wick Bramer Ukasick & Trautwein LLC 323 S College Ave PO Box 2166 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-482-4011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin H Hill , III Hill Ward Henderson PA 101 E Kennedy Blvd Suite 3700 PO Box 2231 Tampa, FL 33601 813-221-3900 Fax: 813-221-2900 Email: bhill@hwhlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chris A Hollinger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

James P Cooney , III Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP Cha/NC One Wachovia Ctr Ste 3500 301 S College St Charlotte, NC 28202-6037
188/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
704-331-4980 Fax: 704-338-7838 Email: jcooney@wcsr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John B Renick McMahon Berger PC 2730 N Ballas Rd Ste 200 PO Box 31901 Saint Louis, MO 63131-3039 314-567-7350 Fax: 314-567-5968 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin H Perl Maslon LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 S Seventh St Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-672-8200 Fax: 612-642-8372 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth G Haynes Wyatt Tarrant and Combs - Lou/KY 400 W Market St Ste 2000 Louisville, KY 40202 502-589-5235 Fax: 502-589-0309 Email: ghaynes@wyattﬁrm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael L Banks PHV Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP - Phi/PA 1701 Market St Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 215-963-5387 Fax: 215-963-5001 Email: mbanks@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J Puma PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Robert I Harwood

189/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert W McFarland McGuireWoods LLP - Nor/VA 9000 World Trade Center 101 W Main St Norfolk, VA 23510 757-604-3700 Fax: 757-640-3966 Email: rmcfarland@mcguirewoods.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah E Bouchard Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP - Phi/PA 1701 Market St Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 215-963-5077 Fax: 215-963-5001 Email: sbouchard@morganlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Matthew Kelso Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP 370 17th St Ste 4500 Denver, CO 80202 303-244-1800 Fax: 303-294-1879 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William H Haltom , Jr Thomason Hendrix Harvey Johnson & Mitchell PLLC 40 South Main Suite 2900 Memphis, TN 38103 901-525-8721 Fax: 901-525-6722 Email: haltomw@thomasonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Bryan D LeMoine McMahon Berger PC 2730 N Ballas Rd Ste 200 PO Box 31901 Saint Louis, MO 63131-3039 314-567-7350 Fax: 314-567-5968 Email: lemoine@mcmahonberger.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
190/498

5/8/2020
Defendant Laron Jones TERMINATED: 12/15/2010 Defendant All FedEx Ground Defendants

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Jessica G Simbalenko Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP 370 17th St Ste 4500 Denver, CO 80202 303-244-1846 Fax: 303-256-3846 Email: simbalenko@wtotrial.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark T Clouatre Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP 370 17th St Ste 4500 Denver, CO 80202 303-244-1800 Fax: 303-244-1879 Email: clouatre@wtotrial.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall J Forbes Frieden Unrein Forbes & Biggs LLP 555 S Kansas Ave Suite 303 Topeka, KS 66603 785-354-1100 Fax: 785-354-1113 Email: rforbes@fufblaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alison G Fox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aparna B Joshi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin J Ferron PHV FedEx Ground Legal Department 1000 FedEx Dr Moon Township, PA 15108 412-859-5945 Fax: 412-859-5450 Email: benjamin.ferron@fedex.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

191/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Cameron H Biscay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carolyn J Kubota (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chris A Hollinger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dulany Lucetta Pope (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Guy Brenner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C English PHV FedEx Ground Legal Department 1000 FedEx Dr Moon Township, PA 15108 412-859-5720 Fax: 412-859-5450 Email: james.english@fedex.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason W Norris PHV FedEx Ground Legal Department 1000 FedEx Dr Moon Township, PA 15108 412-859-5720 Fax: 412-859-5450 Email: jason.norris@fedex.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey S Nestler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Jennifer Lee Merzon

192/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Lee Blalack , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly K Kefalas Miller Canﬁeld Paddock and Stone PLC AA/MI 101 N Main St 7th Fl Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734-663-2445 Fax: 734-663-8624 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura E Robinson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael W Garrison , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael G McGuinness (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora M Puckett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick H Hicks Littler Mendelson PC - LV/NV 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 702-862-8800 Fax: 702-862-8811 Email: phicks@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Rick D Roskelley Littler Mendelson PC - LV/NV 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 702-862-8800
193/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Fax: 702-862-8811 Email: rroskelley@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert J Wierenga Miller Canﬁeld Paddock and Stone PLC AA/MI 101 N Main St 7th Fl Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734-663-2445 Fax: 734-663-8624 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robin Dean (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Voelz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas J Brunner , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Cranmer Miller Canﬁeld Paddock and Stone PLC Tro/MI 840 W Long Lake Rd Ste 200 Troy, MI 48098-6358 248-879-2000 Fax: 248-879-2001 Email: cranmer@millercanﬁeld.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor H Jih (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

Wendy M Krincek Littler Mendelson PC - LV/NV 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 702-862-8800 Fax: 702-862-8811 Email: wkrincek@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY
194/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Guy P Michelson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert M Schwartz PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stevan E Bunnell O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Was/DC 1625 Eye Street NW Suite 10 Washington, DC 20006-4001 202-383-5300 Fax: 202-383-5414 Email: sbunnell@omm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steve Olson O'Melveny & Myers LLP - LA/CA/SH 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-430-6000 Fax: 213-430-6407 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph P Milcoff PHV FedEx Ground Legal Department 1000 FedEx Dr Moon Township, PA 15108 412-859-5918 Email: joseph.milcoff@fedex.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant Jonathan Lee Riches 40948-018 LEXINGTON FMC FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER Inmate Mail/Parcels PO BOX 14500 LEXINGTON, KY 40512 TERMINATED: 10/14/2008
Miscellaneous Party Palmer Freeman, Jr
https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

represented by Palmer Freeman PHV , Jr Whetstone Perkins & Fulda 601 Devine St

195/498

5/8/2020
Miscellaneous Party Law Ofﬁces of George A. Barton 7227 Metcalf Suite 301 Overland Park, KS 66204 913-563-6250

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Columbia, SC 29201 803-799-9400 x296 Fax: 803-799-2017 Email: palmerfree@msn.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by George A Barton PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

08/10/2005

1 Case transferred in from Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation; Case Number MDL1700, certiﬁed copy of transfer order. (Attachments: # 1 Transfer letter to Clerk# 2 Order Adopting Rules of Procedure# 3 Panel Attorney Service List)(lpw) (Entered: 08/26/2005)

08/30/2005

2 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ORDER UPON TRANSFER UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1407(a) First Pretrial Conference set for 9/26/2005 03:00 PM in South Bend before Judge Robert L Miller Jr.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 8/30/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) Modiﬁed on 9/13/2005 to reﬂect correct contact number for case management deputy to Chief Judge Miller Jr. (arl, ). (Entered: 08/31/2005)

09/09/2005

3 RECEIPT of entire record of case from District Court of South Dakota; case #4:05cv4056(new Northern District of Indiana case #3:05cv539) (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

09/12/2005

4 RECEIPT of entire record from Eastern District of Virginia; case #2:03cv4790 (new Northern District of Indiana case #3:05cv541) (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

09/15/2005

16 Letter from District of Kansas acknowledging transfer of MDL case (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

09/16/2005

11 RECEIPT of record from District of Minnesota. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

09/19/2005

7 RECEIPT of record from Western District of Texas. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

09/19/2005

8 RECEIPT of record from District of Massachusetts. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

09/19/2005

9 RECEIPT of certiﬁed docket sheet and disk with entire record from Western District of Washington. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

09/19/2005

10 RECEIPT of ORIGINAL record from Northern District of California. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

09/19/2005

14 Letter from District of New Jersey regarding tranfer of case (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

196/498

5/8/2020
09/19/2005 09/20/2005
09/20/2005 09/20/2005 09/20/2005 09/20/2005 09/21/2005 09/21/2005
09/22/2005 09/23/2005

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
15 Letter from District of New Jersey acknowledging tranfer of MDL case (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas J Brunner Jr on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc( Western District of Texas 1:05cv155), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119), FedEx Ground System Inc(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), FedEx Ground System Inc(District of Minnesota 0:05cv814) (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
6 STATEMENT of Facts and Critical Factual and Legal Issues on Behalf of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Corporation and FedEx Express. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Pending Related Cases and Motions)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
12 PLAINTIFFS' JOINT STATEMENT OF COMMON FACTS & Legal Issues Regarding Employment Status of Fedex Ground Drivers as to member case #'2 3:05cv528 & 3:05cv538 (sdf, ) Modiﬁed on 9/21/2005 (sdf, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 9/21/2005 (sdf, ). (Entered: 09/21/2005)
13 . RECEIPT of letter and certiﬁed copy of docket sheet from Northern District of Illinois. (sdf, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/21/2005 (sdf, ). (Entered: 09/21/2005)
19 Certiﬁed copy of Conditional Tranfer Order for addtional MDL 1700 cases 3:05cv593, 3:05cv595, 3:05cv596, 3:05cv597, 3:05cv598, 3:05cv599, 3:05cv600, 3>05cv601 (Attachments: # 1 Letter of Tranfer to Clerk)(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
17 AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Amendment to 12 Statement of Material Facts. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
18 ORDER : The court orders that this case be consolidated with case 3:05md527(MDL 1700).. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 9/21/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
21 RECEIPT of letter acknowledging MDL transfer from Eastern District of Wisconsin. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁed copy of docket sheet)(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Alison G Fox on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), FedEx Ground, Tyrone Gaskins, Albert Rettinger, Jim Gelhausen, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc( Western District of Texas 1:05cv155), FedEx Ground

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

197/498

5/8/2020
09/26/2005 09/26/2005 09/26/2005 09/26/2005 09/26/2005 09/27/2005 09/27/2005
09/27/2005

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119), John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Nortern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Oregon 3:05cv1127), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv3836), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737), FedEx Ground System Inc(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), FedEx Ground System Inc(District of Minnesota 0:05cv814) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by John C Hamilton on behalf of all plaintiffs (Hamilton, John) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
23 APPLICATION for Attorney Robert Schwartz to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc ; Receipt #3327089. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
25 (MOTION) Defendant's Notice of Designation of Liaison Counsel: Requesting the Attorney Thomas J Brunner be approved as liaison counsel for all defendants. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
26 ATTORNEY CORPORATE PARTY DISCLOSURE by all Defendants(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
27 DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS SERVICE LIST (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
24 ORDER granting 23 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Robert Schwartz for Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/27/05. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
28 ORDER: Joint Discovery Plan due by 10/11/2005. Document outlining the agreed upon counsel structure for Plaintiffs and Defendants due by 10/11/05. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 10/24/2005 11:00 AM in South Bend before Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein with the court initiating the call. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/27/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
29 OPINION AND ORDER denying any pending motion to stay and/or motion for enlargement of time in anticipation of the upcoming scheduling conference. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 9/27/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

198/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)

09/27/2005

30 APPLICATION for Attorney Karen P Kruse to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc ; Receipt #3327106. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)

09/28/2005

31 ORDER concerning telephone contact list. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/28/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)

09/28/2005

33 ORDER granting 30 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Karen P Kruse for FedEx Ground Package System Inc . Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/28/05. (sdf, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)

09/30/2005

32 NOTICE of Appearance by Philip Stephen Fuoco on behalf of Derek D Willis (sdf, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)

10/07/2005

34 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Case Management Order by Defendants FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 10/07/2005)

10/11/2005

35 CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (certiﬁed copy). Signed by Michael J Beck, Clerk of the MDL Panel on 10/4/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

10/17/2005

36 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 10/17/2005)

10/19/2005

37 STATEMENT by Plaintiffs Regarding Proposed Case Management Order. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

10/19/2005

38 STATEMENT of Defendants regarding 36 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

10/24/2005

39 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel O Myers on behalf of Jeffrey Hart, Clyde E Woomer

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

199/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Myers, Daniel) (Entered: 10/24/2005)

10/24/2005

40 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Plaintiff Jeffrey Hart. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion to Remand# 2 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Myers, Daniel) (Entered: 10/24/2005)

10/24/2005

41 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Plaintiff Clyde E Woomer. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion to Remand# 2 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Myers, Daniel) (Entered: 10/24/2005)

10/24/2005

42 INTERIM PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 10/24/2005 before Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein. Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 11/28/2005 04:00 PM in South Bend before Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein. (Tape #FTR 10/24/2005.) (slm, ) (Entered: 10/24/2005)

10/27/2005

THIS IS A TEST ENTRY DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH CERTAIN ATTORNEYS EMAIL ADDRESSES. (lpw) (Entered: 10/27/2005)

10/28/2005

43 ORDER denying as moot 34 Motion for Extension of Time . Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 10/28/05. (sdf, ) (Entered: 10/28/2005)

11/03/2005

44 NOTICE of Appearance by Donald B Lewis on behalf of Derek D Willis (sdf, ) (Entered: 11/04/2005)

11/07/2005

45 REPORT by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc( Western District of Texas 1:05cv155), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Nortern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Oregon 3:05cv1127), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv3836), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737), FedEx Ground System Inc(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326), FedEx Ground System Inc(and their respective health and beneﬁts plans Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv1015), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197), FedEx Ground System Inc(and their respective health and beneﬁt plans), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), FedEx Ground System Inc(District of Minnesota 0:05cv814) Proposed Case Management Order. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 11/07/2005)

11/14/2005

46 STATEMENT (Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement Regarding Proposed Case Management Order) re 37 Statement ﬁled by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 11/14/2005)

11/14/2005

47 BRIEF Memorandum in Support of Second Proposed Case Management Order. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2005)

11/14/2005

48 RESPONSE in Opposition re 40 MOTION to Remand to State Court ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935), Fedex

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

200/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc( Western District of Texas 1:05cv155), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Nortern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Oregon 3:05cv1127), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv3836), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737), FedEx Ground System Inc(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326), FedEx Ground System Inc(and their respective health and beneﬁts plans Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv1015), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197), FedEx Ground System Inc(and their respective health and beneﬁt plans), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), FedEx Ground System Inc(District of Minnesota 0:05cv814). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Hoppy# 2 Errata Declaration of Hinsey# 3 Exhibit Declaration of McDermott# 4 Exhibit Mayﬂower Case)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2005)

11/14/2005

49 RESPONSE in Opposition re 41 MOTION to Remand to State Court ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc( Western District of Texas 1:05cv155), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Nortern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Oregon 3:05cv1127), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv3836), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737), FedEx Ground System Inc(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326), FedEx Ground System Inc(and their respective health and beneﬁts plans Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv1015), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197), FedEx Ground System Inc(and their respective health and beneﬁt plans), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), FedEx Ground System Inc(District of Minnesota 0:05cv814). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Hoppy# 2 Exhibit Declaration of Hinsey# 3 Exhibit Declaration of McDermott# 4 Exhibit Mayﬂower Case)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2005)

11/15/2005

50 CERTIFICATE Of Service. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 11/15/2005)

11/15/2005

51 STATEMENT (Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement Regarding Proposed Case Management Order with Certiﬁcate of Service) re 37 Statement ﬁled by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 11/15/2005)

11/15/2005

52 SCHEDULING ORDER . Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/15/05.

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

201/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00653-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00665-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)

11/15/2005

53 TRANSCRIPT of Rule 16(b) Conference held on 10/24/05 before Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein. Court Reporter: Geneva L Sones. (sdf, ) (Entered: 11/17/2005)

11/22/2005

54 PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/22/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00653-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00665-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 11/22/2005)

11/22/2005

55 REPLY to Response to Motion re 41 MOTION to Remand to State Court ﬁled by Clyde E Woomer. (Myers, Daniel) (Entered: 11/22/2005)

11/22/2005

56 REPLY to Response to Motion re 40 MOTION to Remand to State Court ﬁled by Jeffrey Hart. (Myers, Daniel) (Entered: 11/22/2005)

11/23/2005

57 NOTICE by Dean Alexander PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF RELATED STATE CASES (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 11/23/2005)

11/29/2005

58 SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/29/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00653-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00665-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005)

12/02/2005

59 CERTIFIED COPY OF MDL 1700 TRANSFER ORDER . Signed by Wm. Terrell Hodges, Chairman of the MDL Panel on 12/2/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

202/498

5/8/2020
12/09/2005
12/12/2005 12/14/2005 12/14/2005 12/15/2005

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00653-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00665-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/8/2005 (sdf, ). (Entered: 12/06/2005)
61 NOTICE: It has come to the court's attention that 3:05cv668 and 3:05cv720 are identical cases arising from the same transferor court case. For docket clarity, the court proposes to close 3:05cv720 as an indavertent duplicate of 3:05cv668, an action that would have no impact on the legal rights of any party. The affords the parties 10 days from the dae of this order to object to the court's proposal, otherwise an order closing 3:05cv720 will be issued. Response to be ﬁled by 12/19/2005. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 12/9/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00653-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00665-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
60 TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Conference held on 11/28/05 before Judge Magistrate Christopher A Nuechterlein. Court Reporter: Geneva L Sones. (sdf, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
62 MOTION for Protective Order by Defendants FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Stipulation and Protective Order)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
63 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Defendants FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Stipulation and Protective Order)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) Modiﬁed on 12/15/2005 to remove attached form of order(smp). (Entered: 12/14/2005)
64 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Plaintiffs Randy Anﬁnson, James Geiger, Steven Hardie. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion to Remand# 2 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Garﬁnkel, Martin) (Entered: 12/15/2005)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

203/498

5/8/2020
12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/20/2005
12/27/2005 12/28/2005 12/28/2005 01/06/2006
01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/07/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
65 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 64 MOTION to Remand to State Court (Declaration of Martin S. Garﬁnkel with Exhibits) ﬁled by Randy Anﬁnson, James Geiger, Steven Hardie. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pages 26-50# 2 Exhibit Pages 51-75# 3 Exhibit Pages 76-100# 4 Exhibit Pages 101-125# 5 Exhibit Pages 126-157)(Garﬁnkel, Martin) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
66 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert G Rikard on behalf of Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588) (sdf, ) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
67 OPINION AND ORDER : On December 9, 2005 the court gave notice to the parties of its proposal to close 3:05cv720 as an identical case to 3:05cv668. Ten days has passed without objection so the court now orders 3:05cv720 closed. This order has no impact on the legal rights of any party involved.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 12/20/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00653-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00665-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
68 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588) re 66 Notice of Appearance (Rikard, Robert) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
69 RESPONSE in Opposition re 62 MOTION for Protective Order, 63 Joint MOTION for Protective Order ﬁled by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Thomas Frasca. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
70 CERTIFICATE of Service ( to Docket # 69). (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
71 RESPONSE in Opposition re 64 MOTION to Remand to State Court ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935), John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Part 1 Crosley Declaration# 2 Afﬁdavit Part 1 of Exh A Crosley Decl# 3 Afﬁdavit Part 2 of Exh A Crosley# 4 Afﬁdavit Part 3 of Exh A Crosley# 5 Afﬁdavit Part 1a of Exh B Crosley# 6 Afﬁdavit Part 1b of Exh B Crosley# 7 Afﬁdavit Part 2a of Exh B Crosley# 8 Afﬁdavit Part 2b of Exh B Crosley# 9 Afﬁdavit Myers Declaration# 10 Afﬁdavit Part 1 Jean Declaration# 11 Afﬁdavit Part 2 Jean Declaration# 12 Afﬁdavit Part 3 Jean Declaration# 13 Afﬁdavit Part 4 Jean Declaration# 14 Afﬁdavit Part 1 Kruse Declaration# 15 Afﬁdavit Exh A of Kruse# 16 Afﬁdavit Exh B Kruse# 17 Afﬁdavit Exh 1 to Exh B Kruse# 18 Afﬁdavit Exh C Kruse# 19 Afﬁdavit Exh 1 to Exh C Kruse# 20 Exh D Kruse)(Fox, Alison) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
72 AFFIDAVIT of Kruse Exh 2 to Exh B to Kruse by John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055). (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 01/07/2006)
96 MOTION to Withdraw Kara M Dorssom as attorney for FedEx Ground Package System Inc (NO APPEARANCE WAS ENTERED) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Oregon 3:05cv1127). (sdf, ) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
73 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski, FedEx Ground

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

204/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Package System Inc(District of Oregon 3:05cv1127) re 72 Afﬁdavit Exh 2 to Exh B to Kruse (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 01/07/2006)

01/09/2006

74 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(IL 3:05cv529) ﬁled by Michael Grifﬁn, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

75 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(IA 3:05cv652)ﬁled by Tim Johnson.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

76 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(TX 3:05cv540)ﬁled by John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Niles Pinkham, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

77 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc((KY 3:05cv666) ﬁled by Charlie Bertram, John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

78 AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(RI 3:05cv599) ﬁled by Roland Guillet, Eric J. Moss, Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

79 AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc (SD 3:05cv539)ﬁled by Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck.(Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 1/11/2006 (sdf, ). (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

80 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(FL 3:05cv664) ﬁled by Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, Thomas Carraher, Jim Kost, David R Mosher.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

81 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(SC 3:05cv668) ﬁled by Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588).(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

82 AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(KS 3:05cv530) ﬁled by Dominic R Lupo, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Ronald Perry, Alan Pacheco.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

83 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc (MS 3:05cv593) ﬁled by Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

84 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(NH 3:05cv534) ﬁled by David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Kimball Rice, Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, Christopher Van Lenten, Donald Swazey, Gary Terrio, Kenneth M Ries, Craig Batley, Ralph Beaulieu.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

85 AMENDED COMPLAINT (THIRD) (against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(VA 3:05cv541) ﬁled by Bradley D Gregory.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

86 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(WI 3:05cv601) ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Kevin Woodruff, Kevin E Peterson, Darren Zabrocki.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

205/498

5/8/2020
01/09/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
87 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(NY 3:05cv538) ﬁled by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

88 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(IN 3:05cv390) ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

89 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(MN 3:05cv533)ﬁled by Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Fema Onayiga, Gerald Pelkey.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

90 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(CA 3:05cv528) ﬁled by Peter Allen, Eric Jepson, Bernard Mondoza, Peter Wiley, Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Jesse Padilla, Joey Rodriguez, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

91 AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(TN 3:05cv600) ﬁled by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, Herbert Humphrey, Debbie Lindsey, John Lindsey.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

92 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(OR 3:05cv596) ﬁled by Edward Slayman.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

93 AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc (MA 3:05cv531) ﬁled by William Gardner, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

94 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(NJ 3:05cv595) ﬁled by Michael B Kilmartin, Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan.(Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 1/12/2006 (sdf, ). (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/09/2006

95 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(PA 3:05cv597) ﬁled by Derek D Willis.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/09/2006)

01/10/2006

97 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc (MA 3:05cv796) ﬁled by Ronald Perry.(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) Modiﬁed on 1/12/2006 (sdf, ). (Entered: 01/10/2006)

01/11/2006

98 REPLY to Response to Motion re 62 MOTION for Protective Order ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc( Western District of Texas 1:05cv155), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Nortern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Oregon 3:05cv1127), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv3836), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737), FedEx Ground System Inc(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326), FedEx Ground System Inc(and their respective health and beneﬁts plans Western District of Tennessee 2:05cv2447), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(District of Rhode Island 1:05cv220), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv1015), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

206/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
5:03cv4197), FedEx Ground System Inc(and their respective health and beneﬁt plans), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), FedEx Ground System Inc(District of Minnesota 0:05cv814). (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/11/2006)

01/11/2006

99 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Ronald Perry re 97 Amended Complaint (LissRiordan, Shannon) (Entered: 01/11/2006)

01/11/2006

100 ORDER denying as moot Attorney Kara Dorssom's 96 Motion to Withdraw as council of record for FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 1/11/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)

01/13/2006

101 ORDER denying 62 Motion for Protective Order, granting 63 Motion for Joint Protective Order . Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 1/13/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 01/13/2006)

01/13/2006

102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Jorge Isla, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Paul Infantino, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, Christopher Van Lenten, Donald Swazey, Jesse Padilla, Michael B Kilmartin, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Joey Rodriguez, Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck, John Humphreys, Allan Ross, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon, Bradley D Gregory, Steven Hardie, Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter, Michael Grifﬁn, Dean Alexander, Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan, Diane Gordon, Edward Slayman, Derek D Willis, Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Clarence Kelly, Kevin Woodruff, Kevin E Peterson, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, Herbert Humphrey, Carlene M Craig, Debbie Lindsey, Janie L Foster, John Lindsey, Leo Rittenhouse, Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Jeff Bramlage, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Jeffrey Hart, Lawrence Liable, Suzanne Andrade, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, Tim Johnson, Darren Zabrocki, Jarrett Henderson, Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, Thomas Carraher, Jim Kost, David R Mosher, Charlie Bertram, John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588), Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)), Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Roland Guillet, Eric J. Moss, Fema Onayiga, Gerald Pelkey, David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Ely Ines, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy, Kenneth M Ries, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson, Bernard Mondoza, Peter Wiley, Craig Batley, William Gardner, Ralph Beaulieu re 92 Amended Complaint, 93 Amended Complaint, 77 Amended Complaint, 88 Amended Complaint, 89 Amended Complaint, 82 Amended Complaint,, 94 Amended Complaint,, 84 Amended Complaint,,, 78 Amended Complaint,, 83 Amended Complaint, 74 Amended Complaint, 85 Amended Complaint, 75 Amended Complaint, 79 Amended Complaint, 86 Amended Complaint, 95 Amended Complaint, 90 Amended Complaint,, 76 Amended Complaint, 87 Amended Complaint, 80 Amended Complaint, 91 Amended Complaint, 81 Amended Complaint (Amended) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2006)

01/13/2006

103 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 41 Motion to Remand to State Court . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 1/13/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 01/18/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

207/498

5/8/2020
01/13/2006 01/18/2006
01/18/2006 01/27/2006
01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006 01/27/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
104 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 40 Motion to Remand to State Court . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 1/13/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
105 REPLY to Response to Motion re 64 MOTION to Remand to State Court RE: FedEx's Opposition ﬁled by Randy Anﬁnson, James Geiger, Steven Hardie. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit William Rutzick pp. 1-15# 2 Afﬁdavit William Rutzick pp. 16-30# 3 Afﬁdavit William Rutzick pp. 31-37)(Garﬁnkel, Martin) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
106 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Garﬁnkel, Martin) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
107 NOTICE by Jeffrey Hart of Filing of Petition to 7th Circuit for Permission to Appeal Remand Order (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9)(Myers, Daniel) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
108 ANSWER to 88 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Riewe 3L05cv390)).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
109 ANSWER to 74 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Grifﬁn 3:05cv529).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (sdf, ). (Entered: 01/27/2006)
110 ANSWER to 82 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Craig 3L05cv530).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
111 ANSWER to 89 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Lee 3:05cv533).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
112 ANSWER to 79 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Bunger 3:05cv539).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
113 ANSWER to 85 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Gregory 3:05cv541).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
114 ANSWER to 92 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Slayman 3:05cv596).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
115 ANSWER to 95 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Willis 3:05cv597).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
116 ANSWER to 78 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Tierney 3:05cv599).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
117 ANSWER to 75 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Johnson 3:05cv652).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
118 ANSWER to 77 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Bertram 3:05cv666).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
119 ANSWER to 76 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Humphreys 3:05cv540).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
120 ANSWER to 83 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Fleming Jr. 3:05cv593).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
121 ANSWER to 91 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Smith 3:05cv600).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
122 ANSWER to 86 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Larson 3:05cv601).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
123 ANSWER to 80 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Carlson 3:05cv664).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

208/498

5/8/2020
01/27/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
124 ANSWER to 93 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Sheehan 3:05cv531).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)

01/27/2006

125 ANSWER to 87 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Louzau 3:05cv538).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)

01/27/2006

126 ANSWER to 90 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Alexander 3:05cv528).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)

01/27/2006

127 ANSWER to 94 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Tofaute 3:05cv595).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)

01/27/2006

128 ANSWER to 92 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Slayman 3:05cv596).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) Modiﬁed link on 2/1/2006 (ksc). (Entered: 01/27/2006)

01/27/2006

129 ANSWER to 84 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Gennell Jr. 3:05cv534).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/27/2006)

01/29/2006

130 ANSWER to Complaint of Gregory Cooke (05-668) 81 by Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Cooke 3:05cv668).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/29/2006)

01/30/2006

131 ANSWER to Complaint of Ronald Perry (05-796) 97 by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/30/2006

132 MOTION for Reconsideration of January 13 101 Order Denying FedEx Ground's Motion for Entry of Protective Order by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner Jr, Thomas) Modiﬁed to add link on 2/2/2006 (ksc). (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/30/2006

133 MEMORANDUM in Support of 132 MOTION for Reconsideration of January 13 Order Denying FedEx Ground's Motion for Entry of Protective Order ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Entered Order# 2 Exhibit B - FedEx Ground Proposed Order)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 01/30/2006)

01/30/2006

134 MOTION Oral Argument Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5 on Pending Motion to Reconsider Magistrate Judge's January 13, 2006 101 Order by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner Jr, Thomas) Modiﬁed to add link on 2/2/2006 (ksc). Modiﬁed on 3/24/2006 (sdf, ). (Entered: 01/30/2006)

02/01/2006

135 MOTION to Compel PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Dean Alexander. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert I. Harwood)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 02/01/2006)

02/02/2006

136 STIPULATION to Dismiss (VOLUNTARY) by Michael B Kilmartin, Michael B Kilmartin, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/02/2006)

02/02/2006

137 STIPULATION to Dismiss (VOLUNTARY) by Darren Zabrocki, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), Darren Zabrocki. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/02/2006)

02/02/2006

138 STIPULATION to Dismiss (VOLUNTARY) by Thomas Carraher, Jim Kost, David R Mosher, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), Thomas Carraher, Jim Kost, David R Mosher. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/02/2006)

02/02/2006

139 STIPULATION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT by Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795), Bradley D Gregory. (Ellingstad, Susan)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

209/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Entered: 02/02/2006)

02/03/2006

140 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Bradley D Gregory. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Amended Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/03/2006)

02/07/2006

141 ORDER granting Plaintiff's (3:05cv541) 140 Motion for leave to amend complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/7/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)

02/08/2006

142 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

143 MEMORANDUM in Support of 142 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

144 APPENDIX Exhibit A to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 530 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

145 APPENDIX Exhibit B to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 530 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

146 APPENDIX Exhibit C to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 530 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

147 APPENDIX Exhibit D to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 530 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Attachments: # 1)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

148 APPENDIX Exhibit E to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 503 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

149 APPENDIX Exhibit F to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 503 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

150 APPENDIX Exhibit G1 to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 503 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Attachments: # 1 Gb# 2 Gc# 3 Gd)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

151 APPENDIX Exhibit G2 to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 503 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Attachments: # 1 # 2) (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

152 APPENDIX Exhibit G3 to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 503 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3) (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

210/498

5/8/2020
02/08/2006
02/08/2006
02/08/2006
02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006 02/08/2006
02/08/2006 02/08/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
153 APPENDIX Exhibit G4 to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 503 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Attachments: # 1 # 2) (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
154 APPENDIX Exhibit G5 to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 503 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Attachments: # 1)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) Modiﬁed (Entered: 02/08/2006)
155 APPENDIX Exhibit H to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke, 599 Tierney, 601 Larson, 531 Sheehan, 541 Gregory, 596 Slayman, 593 Fleming, 503 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Attachments: # 1)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
156 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-599 Tierney by FedEx Ground Package System Inc((Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
157 MEMORANDUM in Support of 156 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-599 Tierney ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
158 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-601 Larson by FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
159 MEMORANDUM in Support of 158 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-601 Larson ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
160 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-531 Sheehan by FedEx Ground Package System on 2/9/2006 (sdf, ).Inc(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
161 MEMORANDUM in Support of 160 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-531 Sheehan ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
162 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-541 Gregory by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
163 MEMORANDUM in Support of 162 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-541 Gregory ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ia# 2 Ib)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
164 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-596 Slayman by FedEx Ground Package System Inc (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
165 MEMORANDUM in Support of 164 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-596 Slayman ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ia# 2 Ib# 3 Exhibit J) (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
166 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-593 Fleming by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
167 MEMORANDUM in Support of 166 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-593 Fleming ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

211/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ia# 2 Ib# 3 Exhibit Ja# 4 Jb# 5 Errata K)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

168 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-530 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

169 MEMORANDUM in Support of 168 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-530 Craig ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit Ja# 3 Jb# 4 Jc) (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

170 APPENDIX 1 to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv-530 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Kb# 2 Exhibit L)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

171 APPENDIX 2 to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv-530 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Mb# 2 Mc# 3 Md)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/08/2006

172 APPENDIX 4 to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in 3-05-cv-530 Craig by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Nb)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

02/09/2006

173 RESPONSE to Motion re 135 MOTION to Compel PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/09/2006

174 STIPULATION to Dismiss FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION by James Lester, James Kassuba, Ryan Tomaski, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795), James Lester, James Kassuba, Ryan Tomaski, Federal Express Corporation(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055). (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/10/2006

175 MOTION Leave to ﬁle supplemental brieﬁng on Plaintiffs' 64 Motion to Remand by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) Modiﬁed on 2/14/2006 (khr). (Entered: 02/10/2006)

02/10/2006

178 ORDER granting 136 Stipulation to Dismiss. Copy of this order and stipulation sent to Clerk for the District of New Jersey - Trenton Division . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 2/10/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

02/10/2006

179 ORDER granting 137 Stipulation to Dismiss for memeber case #3:05cv653 . Copy of this court's order and stipulation to be sent to Western District of Wisconsin. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 2/10/06. (sdf, ) Modiﬁed on 2/14/2006 (sdf, ). (Entered: 02/14/2006)

02/10/2006

180 ORDER granting 138 Stipulation to Dismiss. Copy of this court's order and copy of stipulation sent to Middle District of Florida - Tampa Divison . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 2/10/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

02/13/2006

176 RESPONSE to Motion re 175 MOTION Leave to ﬁle supplemental brieﬁng on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand ﬁled by Randy Anﬁnson, James Geiger, Steven Hardie. (Garﬁnkel, Martin) (Entered: 02/13/2006)

02/13/2006

177 ORDER granting Defendants' 175 Motion for Supplemental Brieﬁng on Plaintiff's 64 Motion to Remand (case #3:05cv542). Parties additional brieﬁng to be ﬁled within 14

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

212/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
days of this court's order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 2/13/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

02/13/2006

189 ORDER grantting the 174 Stipulation for voluntary dismissal dismissing case against Federal Express Corp. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 2/13/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)

02/14/2006

181 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOURTH (Eastern District of Virginia 3:05cv541) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), ﬁled by Frederick Howell, Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

02/14/2006

182 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 132 MOTION for Reconsideration of January 13 Order Denying FedEx Ground's Motion for Entry of Protective Order ﬁled by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

02/14/2006 183 CERTIFICATE of Service to entry 182. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/14/2006)

02/15/2006

184 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. Amendment to 183 CERTIFICATE of Service to entry 182. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/15/2006)

02/15/2006

185 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF 176 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO MOTION RE: MOTION TO LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BREIFING. (Garﬁnkel, Martin) Modiﬁed on 2/16/2006 (khr). (Entered: 02/15/2006)

02/16/2006

186 MOTION for Protective Order Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order in Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories by Dean Alexander. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 02/16/2006)

02/16/2006

187 MOTION for Protective Order Certiﬁcation of Good Faith in Support of Named Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order from Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Declaration of Good Cause by Dean Alexander. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 02/16/2006)

02/16/2006

188 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dean Alexander re 186 MOTION for Protective Order Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order in Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, 187 MOTION for Protective Order Certiﬁcation of Good Faith in Support of Named Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order from Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Declaration of Good Cause Certiﬁcate of Service (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 02/16/2006)

02/17/2006

190 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 135 Motion to Compel without prejudice. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/17/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)

02/23/2006

191 BRIEF in Opposition to 142 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 305-cv-668 Cooke, 160 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv531 Sheehan, 162 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-541 Gregory, 164 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-596 Slayman, 166 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-593 Fleming, 168 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-530 Craig, 156 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-599 Tierney, 158 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-601 Larson This Document Relates to All Actions ﬁled by Bradley D Gregory, Theodore Fleming Jr, Edward Slayman, Gary Lee Larson, Carlene M Craig, Raymond Tierney, Edward Sheehan, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)). (Attachments: # 1 # 2) (Overs Jr, Peter) (Entered: 02/23/2006)

02/24/2006 192 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph A Osefchen on behalf of Derek D Willis (sdf, )

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

213/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Entered: 02/27/2006)

02/27/2006

193 REPLY to Response to Motion re 132 MOTION for Reconsideration of January 13 Order Denying FedEx Ground's Motion for Entry of Protective Order ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/27/2006)

02/27/2006

194 SUPPLEMENT Defendants' Supplemental Brief Opposing Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand in 3-05-cv-542 Anﬁnson ﬁled by FedEx Ground, John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Katherine Crosley)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 02/27/2006)

02/27/2006

195 SUPPLEMENT to 194 Supplement, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum RE Motion to Remand ﬁled by Randy Anﬁnson, James Geiger, Steven Hardie. (Garﬁnkel, Martin) (Entered: 02/27/2006)

02/28/2006

196 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORRANDUM RE MOTION TO REMAND. (Garﬁnkel, Martin) (Entered: 02/28/2006)

03/01/2006

197 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Initial Disclosure Obligations by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 03/01/2006)

03/01/2006

198 MEMORANDUM in Support of 197 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Initial Disclosure Obligations ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Part 1 Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures# 2 Exhibit A - Part 2 - Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures# 3 Exhibit B - Certiﬁcation# 4 Exhibit C - Copart Long Opinion and Order# 5 Exhibit D Laketon Reﬁning Opinion and Order)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 03/01/2006)

03/02/2006

199 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeff R Heck on behalf of FedEx Ground, Tyrone Gaskins, Albert Rettinger, Jim Gelhausen, Joe Collins, Tom Dimaio, John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski (Heck, Jeff) (Entered: 03/02/2006)

03/03/2006

200 RESPONSE in Opposition re 186 MOTION for Protective Order Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order in Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Letter dated February 13, 2006)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 03/03/2006)

03/06/2006

201 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief Exceeding 15 Pages in 3-05-cv-530 Craig, -531 Sheehan, -593 Fleming, -596 Slayman, -599 Tierney, -601 Larson and 668 Cooke by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

03/06/2006

202 ANSWER to Complaint to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05cv-541 Gregory (Docket Entry 181) by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

03/06/2006

203 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-541 Gregory by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

03/06/2006

204 MEMORANDUM in Support of 203 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-541 Gregory ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 03/06/2006)

03/09/2006

205 MEMORANDUM in Support of 142 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke, 160 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-531 Sheehan, 162 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05cv-541 Gregory, 164 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv596 Slayman, 166 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-593 Fleming, 168 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-530 Craig, 156 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-599 Tierney, 158

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

214/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-601 Larson ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Craig Petition# 2 Exhibit B - Craig Complaint)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 03/09/2006)

03/14/2006

206 REPLY to Response to Motion re 186 MOTION for Protective Order Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order in Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 03/14/2006)

03/14/2006

207 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dean Alexander re 206 Reply to Response to Motion, (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 03/14/2006)

03/16/2006

208 BRIEF in Opposition to 197 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Initial Disclosure Obligations ﬁled by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lynn R. Faris In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Damage Discovery)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2006)

03/16/2006

209 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin re 208 Brief in Opposition, to Defendant's Motion to Compel (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2006)

03/16/2006

214 ORDER denying 132 Motion for Reconsideration, denying as moot 134 Motion for Oral Argument. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 3/16/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)

03/21/2006

210 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 203 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-541 Gregory ﬁled by Bradley D Gregory. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/21/2006

211 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Bradley D Gregory re 210 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant FedEx Ground's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim Under ERISA (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/21/2006

212 MOTION for an Initial Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery or, in the Alternative, a Protective Order by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Evelyn Becker)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/21/2006

213 STATEMENT Certiﬁcation Statement in Support of Rule 26(C) Alternative Motion ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/24/2006

215 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 186 Motion for Protective Order, granting Defendants' 197 Motion to Compel Plaintiffs have until 4/14/2006 to comply with Rule 26(a)(1). Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 3/24/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 03/24/2006)

03/27/2006

216 ORDER granting Defendants' 212 Motion for extension of time to ﬁle a discovery response. Response to be ﬁled by 4/12/2006. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 3/27/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 03/27/2006)

04/03/2006

217 REPLY to Response to Motion re 203 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Under Erisa in 3-05-cv-541 Gregory ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 04/03/2006)

04/05/2006

218 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Kevin Woodruff, Darren Zabrocki. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

04/05/2006

219 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Dale Fluegel, Michael Grifﬁn, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/05/2006)

04/05/2006 220 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Dennis McHenry, Edward Slayman.

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

215/498

5/8/2020
04/06/2006 04/06/2006 04/06/2006
04/06/2006 04/06/2006
04/07/2006 04/07/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
221 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, Christopher Van Lenten, Donald Swazey, David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Kenneth M Ries, Craig Batley, Ralph Beaulieu. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
222 MEMORANDUM in Support of 221 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint ﬁled by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, Christopher Van Lenten, Donald Swazey, David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Kenneth M Ries, Craig Batley, Ralph Beaulieu. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
223 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 221 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint OF SUSAN ELLINGSTAD ﬁled by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, Christopher Van Lenten, Donald Swazey, David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Kenneth M Ries, Craig Batley, Ralph Beaulieu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint# 2 Exhibit B - Correspondence)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
224 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 221 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint OF ROBERT E. McDANIEL ﬁled by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, Christopher Van Lenten, Donald Swazey, David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Kenneth M Ries, Craig Batley, Ralph Beaulieu. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
225 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, Christopher Van Lenten, Donald Swazey, David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Kenneth M Ries, Craig Batley, Ralph Beaulieu re 224 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion,,, 221 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, 223 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion,,, 222 Memorandum in Support,, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
226 ORDER granting 218 Motion to serve and ﬁle a 2nd Amended Complaint within ten days after this Order. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/7/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
227 ORDER granting 219 Motion to serve and ﬁle a 2nd Amended Complaint within ten days after this Order. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/7/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

216/498

5/8/2020
04/07/2006 04/11/2006
04/11/2006 04/13/2006 04/13/2006 04/13/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006 04/17/2006 04/18/2006 04/18/2006
04/21/2006 04/21/2006
04/24/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
228 ORDER granting 220 Motion to serve and ﬁle a 2nd Amended Complaint within ten days after this Order. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/7/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
229 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND (Grifﬁn - IL) against FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Ground Package System Inc (3:05cv529), ﬁled by Dale Fluegel, Michael Grifﬁn, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly.(Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 4/12/2006 (smp). (Entered: 04/11/2006)
230 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc (3:05cv596), ﬁled by Dennis McHenry, Edward Slayman.(Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 4/12/2006 (smp, ). (Entered: 04/11/2006)
231 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Withdrawal of Appearance (Heck, Jeff) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
232 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Jerald R Cureton on behalf of James Lester; replacing Attorney Edith Thomas and John A. Smietanka (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Cureton, Jerald) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
233 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Jerald R Cureton on behalf of Bradley D Gregory; replacing Attorney Edith Thomas and Suanne Hardee Bryant (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Cureton, Jerald) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
234 NOTICE of Appearance by D Lucetta Pope on behalf of FedEx Ground (Pope, D) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
236 Copy of Letter from Attorney Joseph A Osefchen addressed to Anne Caridi w/copy of MDL Conditional Transfer order attached (sdf, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
235 MOTION to Amend/Correct by James Lester, James Kassuba, Ryan Tomaski. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
237 ORDER granting 235 Motion to ﬁle 2nd Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/18/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
238 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), ﬁled by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, James Lester, James Kassuba, Ryan Tomaski.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
239 RECEIPT of record from Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). Northern District of Indiana case number 3:06cv269. (Attachments: # 1 docket sheet from other court)(sdf, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
260 Case transferred in from Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Case Number 2:05cv6364. Original ﬁle with documents numbered 1 thru 9, certiﬁed copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. Northern District of Indiana case number 3:06cv269 (Attachments: # 1 Conditional Transfer Order# 2 Letter to Eastern District of Pennsylvania from MDL Panel# 3 Practice and Procedures Order)(sdf, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
240 RESPONSE in Opposition re 221 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint regarding 3:05cv00534 (NH) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Evelyn L. Becker in Support) (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 04/24/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

217/498

5/8/2020
05/01/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
241 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under ERISA in 3-05-cv-596 Slayman by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/01/2006

242 MEMORANDUM in Support of 241 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under ERISA in 3-05-cv-596 Slayman ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit K) (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/01/2006

243 ANSWER to Complaint and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in 3-05-cv-596 Slayman by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/01/2006

244 ANSWER to Complaint and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-529 Grifﬁn by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/01/2006

245 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737), ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Kevin Woodruff, Darren Zabrocki.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/01/2006

246 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert K Firsten, Darcie R Brault, Barry S Fagan on behalf of James Lester, James Kassuba, Ryan Tomaski (3:05cv532) (sdf, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

05/02/2006

247 REPLY to Response to Motion re 221 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint ﬁled by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, Christopher Van Lenten, Donald Swazey, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Kenneth M Ries, Craig Batley, Ralph Beaulieu. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

05/03/2006

248 ANSWER to Complaint Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in 3-05-cv-532 Lester by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/03/2006)

05/04/2006

249 MOTION Conditional Motion for Certiﬁcation of Washington State Law Issues to the Washington Supreme Court in 3-05-cv-598 Anﬁnson by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/04/2006)

05/11/2006

250 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 221 Motion to Amend the complaint (Robert Gennell Jr et al 3:05cv534) to be ﬁled by 5/19/2006.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 5/11/06. (sdf, ) (Entered: 05/12/2006)

05/12/2006

251 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 58 Scheduling Order,,,, 52 Scheduling Order,,, by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Jorge Isla, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Paul Infantino, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Dale Fluegel, Dennis McHenry, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Christopher Van Lenten, Percival Currithers, Donald Swazey, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Jessie Capers, Patrick Ngei, Bernard Mendoza, Tariq Baskerville, Gitonga Waiguchu, Elaine Muldrow, Jesse Padilla, Michael B Kilmartin, Curtis Johnson, Margaret Johnson, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Joey Rodriguez, Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck, John Humphreys, Allan Ross, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Niles Pinkham, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon, Bradley D Gregory, Randy Anﬁnson, James Geiger, Steven Hardie, Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter, Michael Grifﬁn, Dean Alexander, Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

218/498

5/8/2020
05/12/2006
05/12/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Patrick Carrigan, Diane Gordon, Edward Slayman, Derek D Willis, Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Clarence Kelly, Kevin Woodruff, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, Herbert Humphrey, Carlene M Craig, Debbie Lindsey, Janie L Foster, John Lindsey, Leo Rittenhouse, Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Jeff Bramlage, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Jeffrey Hart, Lawrence Liable, Suzanne Andrade, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, Tim Johnson, Darren Zabrocki, Jarrett Henderson, Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, Thomas Carraher, Jim Kost, David R Mosher, Charlie Bertram, John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588), James Lester, James Kassuba, Ryan Tomaski, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Roland Guillet, Eric J Moss, Fema Onayiga, Gerald Pelkey, David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Ely Ines, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy, Kenneth M Ries, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson, Peter Wiley, Craig Batley, William Gardner, Ralph Beaulieu. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
252 MEMORANDUM in Support of 251 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 58 Scheduling Order,,,, 52 Scheduling Order,,, ﬁled by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Jorge Isla, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Paul Infantino, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Dale Fluegel, Dennis McHenry, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Christopher Van Lenten, Percival Currithers, Donald Swazey, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Jessie Capers, Patrick Ngei, Bernard Mendoza, Tariq Baskerville, Gitonga Waiguchu, Elaine Muldrow, Jesse Padilla, Michael B Kilmartin, Curtis Johnson, Margaret Johnson, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Joey Rodriguez, Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck, John Humphreys, Allan Ross, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Niles Pinkham, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon, Bradley D Gregory, Randy Anﬁnson, James Geiger, Steven Hardie, Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter, Michael Grifﬁn, Dean Alexander, Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan, Diane Gordon, Edward Slayman, Derek D Willis, Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Clarence Kelly, Kevin Woodruff, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, Herbert Humphrey, Carlene M Craig, Debbie Lindsey, Janie L Foster, John Lindsey, Leo Rittenhouse, Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Jeff Bramlage, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Jeffrey Hart, Lawrence Liable, Suzanne Andrade, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, Tim Johnson, Darren Zabrocki, Jarrett Henderson, Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, Thomas Carraher, Jim Kost, David R Mosher, Charlie Bertram, John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588), James Lester, James Kassuba, Ryan Tomaski, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Roland Guillet, Eric J Moss, Fema Onayiga, Gerald Pelkey, David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Ely Ines, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy, Kenneth M Ries, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson, Peter Wiley, Craig Batley, William Gardner, Ralph Beaulieu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Pretrial Deadlines)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
253 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND (CLASS ACTION) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), FedEx Ground Package System

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

219/498

5/8/2020
05/12/2006
05/15/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/26/2006 05/30/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), ﬁled by Donald Swazey, Robert Gennell Jr, Gary Terrio.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
254 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Jorge Isla, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall Jr, Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Paul Infantino, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Dale Fluegel, Dennis McHenry, Mario Russo, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Percival Currithers, Donald Swazey, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Jessie Capers, Patrick Ngei, Bernard Mendoza, Tariq Baskerville, Elaine Muldrow, Jesse Padilla, Michael B Kilmartin, Curtis Johnson, Margaret Johnson, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Joey Rodriguez, Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, John Humphreys, Allan Ross, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Niles Pinkham, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon, Bradley D Gregory, Randy Anﬁnson, James Geiger, Steven Hardie, Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter, Michael Grifﬁn, Dean Alexander, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan, Diane Gordon, Edward Slayman, Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Clarence Kelly, Arthur Smith, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, Herbert Humphrey, Carlene M Craig, Debbie Lindsey, Janie L Foster, John Lindsey, Leo Rittenhouse, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Jeff Bramlage, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Jeffrey Hart, Lawrence Liable, Suzanne Andrade, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, Tim Johnson, Jarrett Henderson, Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Thomas Carraher, Jim Kost, David R Mosher, Charlie Bertram, John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588), James Lester, James Kassuba, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Roland Guillet, Eric J Moss, Fema Onayiga, Gerald Pelkey, David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Ely Ines, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy, Kenneth M Ries, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson, Craig Batley, William Gardner, Ralph Beaulieu re 251 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 58 Scheduling Order,,,, 52 Scheduling Order,,,, 252 Memorandum in Support,,,,,,,,,, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
255 ORDER denying Defendants' 249 Conditional Motion for Certiﬁcation as MOOT, granting Plaintiffs' 64 Motion to Remand to State Court . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 5/15/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
256 BRIEF in Opposition to 241 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under ERISA in 305-cv-596 Slayman ﬁled by Edward Slayman. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
257 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Edward Slayman re 256 Brief in Opposition to Defs' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs's Claims Under ERISA (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
258 ANSWER to Complaint Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv601 Larson by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
259 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 by FedEx Ground. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601RLM-CAN(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
261 ORDER granting in part 251 Parties Joint Motion for Amendment of Case Scheduling Orders (sdf, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
262 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINT by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

220/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, Herbert Humphrey, Debbie Lindsey, John Lindsey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006

263 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINT by Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Fema Onayiga, Gerald Pelkey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006

264 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINT by Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, Thomas Carraher, Jim Kost, David R Mosher. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006

265 REPLY to Response to Motion re 241 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under ERISA in 3-05-cv-596 Slayman ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006

266 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in Gennell by FedEx Ground. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006

267 MEMORANDUM in Support of 266 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in Gennell ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Part 1 - Employee

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

221/498

5/8/2020
05/30/2006 05/31/2006
05/31/2006
05/31/2006
06/02/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Pension Plan# 2 Exhibit A - Part 2# 3 Exhibit A - Part 3# 4 Exhibit B - Operating Agreement# 5 Exhibit C - Signature Page# 6 Exhibit D - Complaint)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
268 ANSWER to Complaint Second Amended Complaint in 3-05-534 Gennell by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
269 ORDER Approving 262 Motion to Amend Complaint Amended Complaint to be ﬁled by 6/10/2006.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 5/31/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM(sdf, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
270 ORDER Approving 263 Motion to Amend Complaint Amended Complaint to be ﬁled by 6/10/2006.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 5/31/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM(sdf, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
271 ORDER Approving 264 Motion to Amend Complaint Amended Complaint to be ﬁled by 6/10/2006.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 5/31/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM(sdf, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
272 RESPONSE in Opposition re 259 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

222/498

5/8/2020
06/02/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
273 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, Jim Kost, David R Mosher.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

06/02/2006

274 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

06/02/2006

275 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, Debbie Lindsey.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

06/02/2006

276 OPINION AND ORDER: The court GRANTS the defendants' motion to ﬁle a reply brief exceeding 15 pages 201 ; DENIES the original motions to dismiss in Larson, Gregory, and Slayman as moot 158 162 164 ; GRANTS the motions to dismiss the ERISA claims in Cooke, Tierney, Larson, Sheehan, Gregory, Slayman, Fleming 142 156 160 166 203 241 259 ; DENIES the motion to dismiss in Craig in the manner consistent with this opinion 168 . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 6/2/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM(sdf, ) (Entered: 06/05/2006)

06/06/2006

277 Letter, Certiﬁed copy of court's order 103 Remanding case to state court, copy of this court's docket sheet, copy of docket sheet from Western Pennsylvania sent to Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (sdf, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/13/2006 (sdf, ). (Entered: 06/06/2006)

06/06/2006

278 Letter, certiﬁed copy of court's order 255 remanding case to state court, copy of this court's docket sheet and docket sheet from Washington sent to King County Courthouse, Seattle Washington (sdf, ) (Entered: 06/06/2006)

06/09/2006

280 OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's motion for remand and remanding case to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia Counry, Pennsylvania. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 6/9/06. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 6/9/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 06/13/2006)

06/13/2006

279 Letter from Attorney Joseph A. Osefchen regarding the 5/30/06 conversation in which the fully briefed motion to remand had been obtained from Eastern District of Pennsylvania for member case #3:06cv269 (sdf, ) (Entered: 06/13/2006)

06/13/2006

281 RESPONSE in Opposition re 266 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in Gennell ﬁled by Robert Gennell Jr. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/13/2006)

06/13/2006

282 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Robert Gennell Jr re 281 Response in Opposition to Motion (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/13/2006)

06/14/2006 283 LETTER, certiﬁed copy of court's order 103 , copy of docket sheet from this court, copy

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

223/498

5/8/2020
06/16/2006 06/19/2006 06/19/2006
06/19/2006 06/19/2006 06/19/2006 06/19/2006 06/19/2006
06/21/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
of docket sheet from Eastern District of Pennsylvania sent to Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (sdf, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
284 Mail Returned as Undeliverable (no longer at this address). Mail sent to Attorney Alan M Purdie ( 255 Order). (ksc) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
285 REPLY to Response to Motion re 266 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Under Erisa in Gennell ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
286 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs Claims for Relief Under ERISA in 3-05-cv-600 Smith 305-cv-664 Carlson and 3-05-cv533 Lee by FedEx Ground. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
287 MEMORANDUM in Support of 286 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs Claims for Relief Under ERISA in 3-05-cv-600 Smith 3-05-cv-664 Carlson and 3-05-cv533 Lee ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
288 ANSWER to Complaint Third Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-600 Smith by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
289 ANSWER to Complaint Second Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-664 Carlson by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
290 ANSWER to Complaint Second Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-533 Lee by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
291 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Richard R. Roberts for Defendant FedEx Corporation(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326). Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM(sdf, ) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
292 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINT by Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

224/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337RLM(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/21/2006)

06/21/2006

293 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINT by Dominic R Lupo, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Ronald Perry, Alan Pacheco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Proposed Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/21/2006)

06/21/2006

294 NOTICE of Change of Address by Matthew T Tobin (Tobin, Matthew) (Entered: 06/21/2006)

06/22/2006

300 MOTION to Withdraw Richard R. Roberts as Attorney for FedEx Corporation(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 06/26/2006)

06/23/2006

295 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 293 Motion to Amend Complaint. Amended complaint to be ﬁled within 10 days after this Order.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/23/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

225/498

5/8/2020
06/23/2006
06/23/2006 06/23/2006 06/26/2006 06/26/2006 06/27/2006
06/30/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM(sdf, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
296 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 292 Motion to Amend Complaint. Amended Complaint to be ﬁled within 10 days after this Order. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/23/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM(sdf, ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Complaints to be ﬁled by 7/3/2006. (sdf, ) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
297 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Attorney Alan Purdie ( 269 Order). Resent to forwarding address. (ksc) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
298 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Nortern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142), ﬁled by L.C. BELL, JR, Rita King, Natasha Quimby, Kenneth Steed, Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
299 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197), ﬁled by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Dominic R Lupo, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Ronald Perry, Alan Pacheco. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
301 ORDER granting 291 , 300 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Richard R Roberts terminated,. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/27/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
302 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 286 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs Claims for Relief Under ERISA in 3-05-cv-600 Smith 3-05-cv-664 Carlson and 3-05-cv533 Lee

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

226/498

5/8/2020
07/03/2006
07/03/2006 07/05/2006 07/07/2006 07/10/2006
07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ﬁled by Arthur Smith, Donald E Carlson, Katrina Lee. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
303 USCA ORDER granting petitioner permission to appeal.. Before Circuit Judges Ilana Diamond Rovner, Diane P. Wood, Ann Claire Williams on 6/30/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/6/2006 (sdf, ). (Entered: 07/06/2006)
304 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 104 Order on Motion to Remand to State Court by Jeffrey Hart. Filing fee $ 455. Receipt #3331713 (sdf, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
309 RECEIPT from King County Courthouse, Seattle WA for case being remanded to state court. (sdf, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
305 Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 304 Notice of Appeal (sdf, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
306 MOTION to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Tax and Financial Records by FedEx Ground. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
307 MEMORANDUM in Support of 306 MOTION to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Tax and Financial Records ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
308 STATEMENT Local Rule 37.1 Certiﬁcation Statement in Support of 306 Rule 37 motion to Compel Production of Tax and Financial Records ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
310 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' ERISA-Preempted Claims for Relief in 3-05-cv-593 Fleming by FedEx Ground. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
311 MEMORANDUM in Support of 310 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' ERISA-Preempted

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

227/498

5/8/2020
07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/17/2006 07/17/2006 07/27/2006 07/28/2006 07/31/2006 08/04/2006 08/04/2006 08/04/2006
08/04/2006 08/07/2006 08/08/2006 08/08/2006 08/08/2006 08/08/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Claims for Relief in 3-05-cv-593 Fleming ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
312 ANSWER to Complaint And Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-593 Fleming by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
313 ANSWER to Complaint and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-530 Craig by FedEx Ground.(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
314 USCA Case Number 06-2903 for 304 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Jeffrey Hart,. (sdf, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
337 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST re 304 Notice of Appeal----NO HEARING HELD (sdf, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
315 NOTICE by Charles Malkin re 306 MOTION to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Tax and Financial Records with Letter Agreeing to Extend Time to File Opposition Motion and Brief thereto (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
316 RESPONSE in Opposition re 310 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' ERISA-Preempted Claims for Relief in 3-05-cv-593 Fleming ﬁled by Theodore Fleming Jr. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
317 RECEIPT of record from Middle District of Alabama. Northern District of Indiana case number 3:06cv428. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁed Copy of Docket Sheet)(ksc) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
318 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Lee Merzon on behalf of FedEx Ground (Merzon, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
319 NOTICE of Appearance by Raquel A Millman on behalf of FedEx Ground (Millman, Raquel) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
320 RESPONSE in Opposition re 306 MOTION to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Tax and Financial Records ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - to Plf's Opp to Def's Motion to Compel Tax Returns# 2 Exhibit B - to Plf's Opp to Def's Motion to Compel Tax Returns# 3 Exhibit C - to Plf's Opp to Def's Motion to Compel Tax Returns# 4 Exhibit D - to Plf's Opp to Def's Motion to Compel Tax Returns# 5 Exhibit E - to Plf's Opp to Def's Motion to Compel Tax Returns# 6 Exhibit F - to Plf's Opp to Def's Motion to Compel Tax Returns)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
321 NOTICE of Appearance by Theodore B Schroeder on behalf of FedEx Ground (Schroeder, Theodore) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
322 NOTICE of Appearance by David G Caperton on behalf of FedEx Ground (Caperton, David) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
323 NOTICE of Appearance by Aparna B Joshi on behalf of FedEx Ground (Joshi, Aparna) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
324 NOTICE of Appearance by Anh-Nguyet Tran LyJordan on behalf of FedEx Ground (LyJordan, Anh-Nguyet) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
325 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael W Kopp on behalf of FedEx Ground (Kopp, Michael) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
326 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael W Garrison, Jr on behalf of FedEx Ground (Garrison, Michael) (Entered: 08/08/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

228/498

5/8/2020
08/08/2006
08/08/2006 08/08/2006
08/09/2006 08/09/2006 08/09/2006 08/09/2006 08/10/2006 08/10/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
327 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production Nos. 22 and 63 ("Headcounts") and Survey/Focus Group Materials by Dean Alexander. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law# 2 Certiﬁcate of Good Faith# 3 Declaration of Beth Ross# 4 Afﬁdavit # 5 Afﬁdavit # 6 Afﬁdavit # 7 Afﬁdavit # 8(Form of order removed.)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLMCAN(Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 8/9/2006 to remove form of order (smp). (Entered: 08/08/2006)
328 CERTIFICATE PROOF OF SERVICE. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
334 ORDER denying 266 , 286 , 310 Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 8/8/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
329 NOTICE of Appearance by Lee K Fink on behalf of FedEx Ground (Fink, Lee) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
330 NOTICE of Appearance by Stacy J Hauf on behalf of FedEx Ground (Hauf, Stacy) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
335 MEMORANDUM (ﬁled under seal) in Support of 327 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production Nos. 22 and 63 ("Headcounts") and Survey/Focus Group Materials ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (sdf, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
336 CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH (ﬁled under seal) in support of 327 Plaintifff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Delcaratoin of Good Cause by Dean Alexander (sdf, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
331 NOTICE of Appearance by Dorothy Anne Jarrell on behalf of FedEx Ground (Jarrell, Dorothy) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
332 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael G McGuinness on behalf of FedEx Ground (McGuinness, Michael) (Entered: 08/10/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

229/498

5/8/2020
08/10/2006 08/14/2006 08/14/2006 08/15/2006 08/15/2006 08/17/2006 08/17/2006
08/18/2006
08/21/2006 08/21/2006 08/22/2006 08/23/2006 08/28/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
333 NOTICE of Appearance by Victor H Jih on behalf of FedEx Ground (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
338 NOTICE of Appearance by Guy Brenner on behalf of FedEx Ground (Brenner, Guy) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
339 NOTICE of Appearance by Laura C Bremer on behalf of FedEx Ground (Bremer, Laura) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
340 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth Lee Blalack, II on behalf of FedEx Ground (Blalack, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
341 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael C Camunez on behalf of FedEx Ground (Camunez, Michael) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
342 REPLY to Response to Motion re 306 MOTION to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Tax and Financial Records ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (LyJordan, Anh-Nguyet) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (certiﬁed copy) regarding Plaintiffs Walter Wallace, James Larry Price. Signed by Judge Unassigned on 8/17/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
343 AMENDED REPLY to Response to Motion re 306 MOTION to Compel Production of Plaintiffs' Tax and Financial Records -- Amended Reply in Support of Motion to Compel (to Replace Docket 342 ) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) Modiﬁed on 8/22/2006 to edit text and add link (smp). (Entered: 08/18/2006)
344 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter W Overs Jr on behalf of all plaintiffs (Overs Jr, Peter) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
345 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 344 Notice of Appearance (Overs Jr, Peter) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
346 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey A Trimarchi on behalf of FedEx Ground (Trimarchi, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
347 NOTICE of Appearance by Nora M Puckett on behalf of FedEx Ground (Puckett, Nora) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
348 RESPONSE in Opposition re 327 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production Nos. 22 and 63 ("Headcounts") and Survey/Focus Group Materials ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 McGuinness Declaration# 2 Exhibit 2 - Schwartz Declaration# 3 Exhibit 3 - Ostrov Declaration)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 08/28/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

230/498

5/8/2020
08/29/2006
08/29/2006 08/29/2006 08/29/2006 08/29/2006 09/06/2006
09/07/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
349 DOCUMENT WITHDRAWN PER COURT'S ORDER OF 10/4/06 378 MOTION to Compel Production of Defendant's Policies and Procedures as Required by the Initial Scheduling Order by Dean Alexander. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(Ellingstad, Susan) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/5/2006 (sdf, ). Modiﬁed on 10/5/2006 (sdf, ). (Entered: 08/29/2006)
350 MEMORANDUM in Support of 349 MOTION to Compel Production of Defendant's Policies and Procedures as Required by the Initial Scheduling Order ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
351 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 349 MOTION to Compel Production of Defendant's Policies and Procedures as Required by the Initial Scheduling Order ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 2 Exhibit A-D# 3 Exhibit E-J# 4 Exhibit K- part one of two# 5 Exhibit K - part two of two# 6 Exhibit L# 7 Exhibit M-P)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
352 CERTIFICATE of Plaintiffs' Local Rule 37.1 Certiﬁcation Statement Supporting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Defendant's Policies and Procedures as Required by the Initial Scheduling Order. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
353 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dean Alexander re 351 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion,, 352 CERTIFICATE, 349 MOTION to Compel Production of Defendant's Policies and Procedures as Required by the Initial Scheduling Order, 350 Memorandum in Support (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
356 OPINION AND ORDER denying 306 Motion to Compel . Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/6/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
354 BRIEF in Support of 327 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production Nos. 22 and 63 ("Headcounts") and Survey/Focus Group Materials REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

231/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL RE HEADCOUNT AND SURVEY-FOCUS GROUP DOCUMENTS ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Declaration of Beth Ross In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/07/2006)

09/08/2006

355 BRIEF in Support of 327 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production Nos. 22 and 63 ("Headcounts") and Survey/Focus Group Materials AMENDED REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL RE: HEADCOUNT AND SURVEY-FOCUS GROUP DOCUMENTS ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/08/2006)

09/08/2006

357 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION (ﬁled under seal) of Beth Ross in support of 327 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents . (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/11/2006)

09/11/2006

364 CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (certiﬁed copy) regarding plaintiffs Walter Wallace, James Larry Price. Signed by Jeffery N. Luthi, Clerk of the Panel on 8/17/06. (Attachments: # 1 MDL Panel Cover Letter)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)

09/12/2006

358 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINT (MT) by Rob Carlson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2006)

09/12/2006

359 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINT (SC) by Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

232/498

5/8/2020
09/12/2006 09/13/2006 09/13/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
360 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINT (NY) by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLMCAN(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
361 ORDER approving 360 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/13/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLMCAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
362 ORDER approving 359 Motion to Amend complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/13/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLMCAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/13/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

233/498

5/8/2020
09/13/2006
09/14/2006
09/15/2006
09/18/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
363 ORDER :Plaintiff Carlson (3:06cv393) may serve and ﬁle the 3rd Amended Complaint attached to the Motion to Amend Complaint within 10 days after this Order. Amended Complaint due by 9/23/2006.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/13/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
365 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply re Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production Nos. 22 and 63 ("Headcounts" and Attorney Research Materials) by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment - Sur-Reply)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLMCAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
366 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 349 MOTION to Compel Production of Defendant's Policies and Procedures as Required by the Initial Scheduling Order (Agreed Motion) by FedEx Ground. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
367 ORDER granting Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc's 366 Motion for Extension of Time. Response to Plaintiff's 349 Motion to Compel Production of Defendant's Policies and Procedures to be ﬁled by 9/26/2006. Signed by Judge

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

234/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/18/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/19/2006)

09/19/2006

368 ORDER denying as moot Defendant's 365 Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply with hearing to be held on 11/17/2006 at 11:00 AM at South Bend. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/19/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/20/2006)

09/20/2006

369 MOTION for Reconsideration re 356 Order on Motion to Compel,,, by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429RLM-CAN(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2006)

09/20/2006

370 MEMORANDUM in Support of 369 MOTION for Reconsideration re 356 Order on Motion to Compel,,, ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2006)

09/22/2006

371 AMENDED COMPLAINT (MT) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Rob Carlson.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/22/2006)

09/22/2006 372 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

235/498

5/8/2020
09/22/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006 10/03/2006
10/03/2006 10/04/2006
10/10/2006 10/10/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
by Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)).(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
373 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND (NY) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
374 NOTICE by Dean Alexander re 349 MOTION to Compel Production of Defendant's Policies and Procedures as Required by the Initial Scheduling Order withdrawing motion (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
375 MANDATE of USCA as to 304 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Jeffrey Hart, The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
376 MOTION to Withdraw 349 MOTION to Compel Production of Defendant's Policies and Procedures as Required by the Initial Scheduling Order by Dean Alexander. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
377 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew J Merrick on behalf of FedEx Ground (Merrick, Matthew) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
378 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 376 Motion to withdraw 349 Motion to Compel. Because the 8/8/06 motion is still pending, the 11/17/06 in-court hearing will not be vacated. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 10/4/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
379 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 369 MOTION for Reconsideration re 356 Order on Motion to Compel,,, ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (Regan, Anne) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
380 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 369 MOTION for Reconsideration re 356 Order on Motion to Compel,,, In Support of Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein's Ruling Regarding Plaintiffs' Tax Records ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

236/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I) (Regan, Anne) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

10/10/2006

381 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Amended Complaint (Class Action) in 3-06-cv-393 Carlson by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

10/10/2006

382 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Second Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-538 Louzau by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

10/10/2006

383 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Second Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-668 Cooke by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/10/2006)

10/13/2006

385 NOTICE of Opposition to Conditional Transfer Order by non party Richard Lucey (sdf, ) (Entered: 10/18/2006)

10/17/2006

384 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas P Jirgal on behalf of FedEx Ground (Jirgal, Thomas) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/23/2006

386 REPLY to Response to Motion re 369 MOTION for Reconsideration re 356 Order on Motion to Compel,,, ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

10/25/2006

387 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINTS by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, Tom Skundrich Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Dean Wiley, Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Dennis McHenry, Percival Currithers, Donald Swazey, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Bernard Mendoza, Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Jesse Padilla, Joey Rodriguez, John Humphreys, Allan Ross, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Niles Pinkham, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon, Dean Alexander, Edward Slayman, Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Kevin Woodruff, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, Carlene M Craig, Debbie Lindsey, Janie L Foster, Leo Rittenhouse, Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Jeff Bramlage, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Lawrence Liable, Suzanne Andrade, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Ronald Perry, Alan Pacheco, Tim Johnson, Darren Zabrocki, Jarrett Henderson, Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Troy Upman, David R Mosher, James Lester, James Kassuba, Ryan Tomaski, Roland Guillet, Eric J Moss, Robert Gennell Jr, Ely Ines, Gary Terrio, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Alexander Complaint# 2 Exhibit B - Proposed Carlson Complaint# 3 Exhibit C - Proposed Craig Complaint# 4 Exhibit D - Proposed Gennell Complaint# 5 Exhibit E - Proposed Gray Complaint# 6 Exhibit F - Proposed Humphreys Complaint# 7 Exhibit G - Proposed Johnson Complaint# 8 Exhibit H Proposed Larson Complaint# 9 Exhibit I - Proposed Lester Complaint# 10 Exhibit J Proposed Slayman Complaint# 11 Exhibit K - Proposed Smith Complaint# 12 Exhibit L - Proposed Tierney Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

237/498

5/8/2020
10/25/2006 10/26/2006
10/26/2006 10/27/2006 10/27/2006 10/31/2006
11/09/2006 11/10/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
388 NOTICE of Change of Address by Susan E Ellingstad AND FIRM NAME CHANGE TO TAYLOR DUNHAM AND BURGESS (TX) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
389 MOTION to Compel DOCUMENTS REDACTED ON GROUNDS OF EVIDENCE by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Ellingstad Afﬁdavit# 2 Exhibit Placeholder for Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit Exhibits B through M# 4 Exhibit Exhibits N-O# 5 Afﬁdavit Rule 37.1 Certiﬁcation)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLMCAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(Rudd, J) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
390 MEMORANDUM in Support of 389 MOTION to Compel DOCUMENTS REDACTED ON GROUNDS OF EVIDENCE ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Rudd, J) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
391 AFFIDAVIT in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents by all FedEx Plaintiffs (sdf, ) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
392 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibit A (ﬁled under seal pursuant to court's order of 1/13/06) by all FedEx Plaintiffs (sdf) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
393 ORDER: The hearing on on all pending discovery motions is set for 11/17/06 is now reset to 10:00AM (EST)in South Bend before Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 10/31/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
395 RECEIPT of Original documents and certiﬁed copy of docket sheet from USDC/Northern California. (sdf, ) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
394 MOTION to Compel Documents and Testimony Improperly Designated as Privileged by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

238/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Memorandum# 2 Afﬁdavit of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Exhibit A-T# 4 Certiﬁcate of Service)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/10/2006)

11/13/2006

396 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 389 MOTION to Compel DOCUMENTS REDACTED ON GROUNDS OF EVIDENCE IRREVELANCE ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael G. McGuinness# 2 Exhibit A to McGuinness Declaration# 3 Exhibit B through D to McGuiness Declaration# 4 Declaration of James Krappa)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/13/2006)

11/13/2006

397 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Jennifer Rygiel-Boyd for FedEx Ground Package System Inc, (sdf, ) (Entered: 11/14/2006)

11/13/2006

399 SEALED MEMORANDUM in Support of 394 MOTION to Compel Documents and Testimony Improperly Designated as Privileged by Plaintiffs (sdf) (Entered: 11/15/2006)

11/13/2006

400 SEALED AFFIDAVIT in Support of 394 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (sdf) (Entered: 11/15/2006)

11/13/2006

401 SEALED EXHIBITS A THRU T by Plaintiffs in support of 400 Afﬁdavit of Susan E. Ellingstad in support of 394 Motion to Compel(sdf, ) (Entered: 11/15/2006)

11/14/2006

398 ORDER : In-Court Hearing on all pending Discovery Motions is now reset for 12/20/2006 10:00 AM in South Bend before Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/14/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 11/14/2006)

11/15/2006

402 ORDER granting 397 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Jennifer Rygiel Boyd for FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Attorney Cheryl M Stanton terminated . Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/15/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

239/498

5/8/2020
11/21/2006
11/27/2006
11/27/2006 11/28/2006 11/28/2006 11/29/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
403 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents and Testimony Improperly Designated as Privileged by FedEx Ground. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
404 ORDER granting Defendant's 403 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff's motion to compel. Response to be ﬁled by 12/8/2006. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/27/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
407 Mail Returned as Undeliverable ("No forwarding Order on File"). Mail sent to Attorney Robert McDaniel - 393 Order. (ksc) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
405 REPLY to Response to Motion re 389 MOTION to Compel DOCUMENTS REDACTED ON GROUNDS OF EVIDENCE ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Anne T. Regan# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Errata F# 8 Exhibit G)(Rudd, J) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
406 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dean Alexander re 405 Reply to Response to Motion, (Rudd, J) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
408 ORDER : In reference to letter received by the Court from plaintiff's counsel the court

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

240/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
now orders counsel to submit a brief statement indicating the brieﬁng or scheduling issues that requires the Court's attention, the requested relief or modiﬁcation of the current schedule and the argument for or against the proposed scheduled modiﬁcations by 12/18/2006. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/29/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 11/30/2006)

11/29/2006

409 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 387 Motion to ﬁle and serve the amended complaints within 10 days after the date of this court's order . Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/29/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 11/30/2006)

11/29/2006

423 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibit A to the Afﬁdavit of Anne T. Regan in support of 427 Reply Memorandum Supporting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Redacted on the Grounds of Irrelevance (sdf, ) Modiﬁed on 12/4/2006 (sdf, ). (Entered: 12/04/2006)

11/29/2006

424 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibit B to the Afﬁdavit of Anne T. Regan in support of 427 Reply Memorandum Supporting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Redacted on the Grounds of Irrelevance (sdf, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)

11/29/2006

425 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibit C to the Afﬁdavit of Anne T. Regan in support of 427 Reply Memorandum Supporting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Redacted on the Grounds of Irrelevance (sdf, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)

11/29/2006

426 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibit D to the Afﬁdavit of Anne T. Regan in support of 427 Reply Memorandum Supporting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Redacted on the Grounds of Irrelevance (sdf, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)

11/29/2006

427 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Reply Memorandum Supporting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents Redacted on the Grounds of Irrelevance (sdf, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)

12/01/2006

410 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric M Fink on behalf of Dean Alexander (Fink, Eric) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

241/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

12/01/2006

411 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), ﬁled by Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

412 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, David R Mosher.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

413 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOURTH against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197), ﬁled by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Dominic R Lupo, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Ronald Perry, Alan Pacheco.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

414 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), ﬁled by Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker, Donald Swazey, Robert Gennell Jr, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

415 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

416 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOURTH against FedEx Ground Package System Inc( Western District of Texas 1:05cv155), ﬁled by John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

417 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Aaron Ver Steeg, Tim Johnson.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

418 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737), ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

419 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), ﬁled by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

420 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Oregon 3:05cv1127), ﬁled by Jeremy Brinker, Dennis McHenry, Edward Slayman. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

421 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOURTH against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, John Lindsey.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/01/2006

422 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Roland Guillet. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

12/04/2006

428 Mail Returned as Undeliverable ("Forwarding Order Expired"). Mail sent to Robert McDaniel - 398 Order and 402 Order. (ksc) (Entered: 12/05/2006)

12/06/2006

429 NOTICE of Appearance by Kirsten L Zerger on behalf of Dean Alexander (Zerger, Kirsten) (Entered: 12/06/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

242/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

12/07/2006

430 NOTICE of Appearance by Kirsten L Zerger on behalf of Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson (Zerger, Kirsten) (Entered: 12/07/2006)

12/07/2006

431 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew M Weiner on behalf of FedEx Ground (Weiner, Andrew) (Entered: 12/07/2006)

12/08/2006

432 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 394 MOTION to Compel Documents and Testimony Improperly Designated as Privileged by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit McGuinness# 2 Exhibit Ex. A to McGuinness Decl.# 3 Exhibit Ex. B to McGuinness Decl.# 4 Exhibit Ex. C to McGuinness Decl.# 5 Exhibit Ex. D to McGuinness Decl.# 6 Exhibit Ex. E to McGuinness Decl.# 7 Exhibit Ex. F to McGuinness Decl.# 8 Exhibit Ex. G to McGuinness Decl.# 9 Afﬁdavit Heitzenrater# 10 Afﬁdavit Spalvieri# 11 Afﬁdavit Murphy# 12 Afﬁdavit Krappa# 13 Afﬁdavit D'Alesandro)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/08/2006)

12/14/2006

433 MOTION to Compel Production of Discovery Related to International Brotherhood of Teamsters by FedEx Ground. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00801RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00802-RLM-CAN(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/14/2006)

12/14/2006

434 MEMORANDUM in Support of 433 MOTION to Compel Production of Discovery Related to International Brotherhood of Teamsters ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Request for Production No. 1# 2 Exhibit B - Interrogatory 12# 3 Exhibit C - Addendum Response# 4 Exhibit D - Objections to Second Requests for Production# 5 Exhibit E - Objections to Third Set of Interrogatories# 6 Exhibit F Addendum Response to Third Set of Interrogatories# 7 Declaration of Evelyn Becker Part 1# 8 Declaration of Evelyn Becker - Part 2# 9 Declaration of Evelyn Becker - Part 3)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/14/2006)

12/14/2006

435 STATEMENT Local Rule 37.1 Certiﬁcation Statement in Support of Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Related to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/14/2006)

12/14/2006

451 OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's objection to the Magistrate Judge's ruling 369 is SUSTAINED IN PART and the Defendants' motion to compel 306 is GRANTED IN PART.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 12/14/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

243/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00801-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00802-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 12/19/2006)

12/18/2006

436 STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS REGARDING SCHEDULING ISSUES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

437 REPLY to Response to Motion re 394 MOTION to Compel Documents and Testimony Improperly Designated as Privileged by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Exhibit U-X# 3 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

438 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-664 Carlson by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

439 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-540 Humphreys by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

440 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint in 3-05-cv-596 Slayman by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

441 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-599 Tierney by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

442 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-534 Gennell by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

443 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-528 Alexander by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

444 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-600 Smith by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

445 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-530 Craig by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

446 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-652 Johnson by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

447 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint in 3-05-cv-532 Currithers by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

12/18/2006

448 ANSWER to Complaint Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-337 Gray by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

244/498

5/8/2020
12/18/2006 12/18/2006 12/20/2006 12/21/2006
12/27/2006
12/27/2006 12/27/2006 12/28/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
449 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-601 Larson by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
450 STATEMENT by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Regarding Scheduling and Brieﬁng Issues. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
452 MOTION HEARING held on 12/20/2006 all pending motions; Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein. Pla appeared by atty S Ellingstad, R Harwood, J Cureton. Dft appeared by atty R Schwartz, A Fox, T Brunner. Order to be Entered.(Court Reporter Debra Bonk.) (slm, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
453 ORDER : By agreement of the parties the Discovery deadline for all current discovery is now 1/31/07. The initial deadline for Plaintiffs' class brieﬁng is extended to 2/12/07.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 12/21/06. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00801-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00802-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00826RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
454 MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order, or, In the Alternative, Preclude Def's Expert Reports by FedEx Plaintiffs. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00801RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00802-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00826-RLM-CAN(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
455 MEMORANDUM in Support of 454 MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order, or, In the Alternative, Preclude Def's Expert Reports ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
456 CERTIFICATE of Good Faith In Support Of 454 Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend Scheduling Order. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
458 RECEIPT of original documents and certiﬁed copy of docket sheet from USDC/Southern District of West Virginia.(ksc) (Entered: 12/29/2006)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

245/498

5/8/2020
12/29/2006

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
457 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF LYNN ROSSMAN FARIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS by Dean Alexander (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/29/2006)

12/29/2006

459 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 433 MOTION to Compel Production of Discovery Related to International Brotherhood of Teamsters PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY RELATED TO ALLEGED COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND EMPLOYEES OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix A# 2 Appendix# 3 Appendix# 4 Appendix# 5 Appendix# 6 Appendix# 7 Appendix# 8 Appednix)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/29/2006)

12/29/2006

460 SUPPLEMENT to 459 Memorandum in Opposition,, SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF LYNN ROSSMAN FARIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS ﬁled by Dean Alexander. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/29/2006)

12/29/2006

461 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dean Alexander re 457 Notice of Manual Filing, 459 Memorandum in Opposition,,, 460 Supplement, PROOF OF SERVICE (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/29/2006)

01/02/2007

462 CERTIFICATE of Good Faith in Support of 394 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents and Testimony Improperly Designated as Privileged by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Certiﬁcate of Service) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/02/2007)

01/03/2007

467 RECEIPT from Norhern District of Ohio as to Walter Wallace 3:06cv801. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

01/03/2007

468 RECEIPT from Eastern District of Texas James Larry Price 3:06cv802 Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

01/04/2007

463 NOTICE by Larry Louzau of Change of Firm Name from Wechsler Harwood LLP to Harwood Feffer LLP (Harwood, Robert) Signed document added on 1/8/2007 (jld). (Entered: 01/04/2007)

01/04/2007

464 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Larry Louzau re 463 Notice (Other) of Change of Firm Name (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 01/04/2007)

01/04/2007

465 OBJECTION by FedEx Ground to 462 Plaintiffs' Untimely Rule 37.1 Certiﬁcation in Support of Motion to Compel Privileged Documents and Testimony. (Brunner, Thomas) Modiﬁed on 1/10/2007 to add link(Paulson, Shirley). (Entered: 01/04/2007)

01/05/2007

466 ORDER granting in part and denying in partPlaintiff's 327 Motion to Compel, denying Plaintiff's 389 Motion to Compel without prejudice, denying Plaintiff's 394 Motion to Compel without prejudice . Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 1/5/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

246/498

5/8/2020
01/09/2007 01/11/2007 01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/16/2007
01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/16/2007
01/16/2007 01/17/2007 01/18/2007 01/19/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
00601-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00666-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv00720-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00269-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00337-RLM,3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00428RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00801-RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00802RLM-CAN,3:06-cv-00826-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
469 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Court's Order 453 Mail sent to Robert E. McDaniel Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
470 Letters from Attorney Swanston requesting to be withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Pedrazzi Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
471 MOTION to Quash (Plaintiffs' Motion To Quash Subpoenas of Absent Class Members) by Plaintiffs Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
472 MEMORANDUM in Support of 471 MOTION to Quash (Plaintiffs' Motion To Quash Subpoenas of Absent Class Members) ﬁled by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
473 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 471 MOTION to Quash (Plaintiffs' Motion To Quash Subpoenas of Absent Class Members) ﬁled by Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
474 CERTIFICATE Of Good Faith In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion To Quash Subpoenas of Absent Class Members. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
475 CERTIFICATE Of Service. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
476 REPLY to Response to Motion re (433 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Compel Production of Discovery Related to International Brotherhood of Teamsters ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
477 RESPONSE in Opposition re 454 MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order, or, In the Alternative, Preclude Def's Expert Reports ﬁled by Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795). (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Schwartz Decl.# 2 Afﬁdavit Brenner Decl.)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
478 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 261 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct dated May 26, 2006 by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
479 REPLY to Response to Motion re 454 MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order, or, In the Alternative, Preclude Def's Expert Reports ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration# 2 Exhibit 1-2# 3 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
481 ORDER granting (478) Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Movants expert reports or afﬁdavits to be delivered to the opponents by 6/5/2007. Opponents have until 7/9/2007 to depose such experts. Opponents expert reports or afﬁdavits to be delivered to the movants by 7/9/2007. Depositions of opponents' experts to take place by 8/6/2007. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 1/19/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 01/23/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

247/498

5/8/2020
01/22/2007
01/23/2007
01/25/2007
01/31/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007
01/31/2007 02/01/2007 02/01/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
480 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge re 466 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Regarding Defendant's Survey/Focus Group Materials by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Declaration of Patricia A. Bloodgood# 3 Exhibit A-D# 4 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/6/2007 (Fikes, Stephanie). (Entered: 01/22/2007)
482 ORDER granting in part (454) Motion to Amend class certiﬁcation brieﬁng schedule. First phase of class certiﬁcation briefs due 3/12/2007; Second phase briefs due 4/2/2007; Third phase briefs due 4/23/2007. Defendants to respond within 45 days; Plaintiffs to reply within 30 days. Plaintiff's request to strike Fedex's experts is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 1/23/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
483 MOTION TO REMOVE FROM PUBLIC DOCKET re 480 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge re 466 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Regarding Defendant's Survey/Focus Group Materials MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge re 466 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Regarding Defendant's Survey/Focus Group Materials by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
484 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; denying without prejudice Plaintiff's (483) Motion to remove items from the public docket in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 1/31/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
485 MOTION to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Michael Grifﬁn by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
486 MOTION to Compel Memo in Support of Motion to Compel Grifﬁn Deposition by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit A Blalack Decl.# 2 Afﬁdavit B Schroeder Decl.# 3 Afﬁdavit C Weiner Decl.# 4 Supplement D Interrogatory Responses)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
487 STATEMENT of Compliance with Local Rule 37.1 for Motion to Compel Grifﬁn Deposition ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197). (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
488 MOTION to Compel Memorandum Used to Refresh the Recollection by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
489 MEMORANDUM in Support of 488 MOTION to Compel Memorandum Used to Refresh the Recollection ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Deposition Testimony of Kelley# 2 Afﬁdavit Weiner Decl.# 3 Afﬁdavit Schroeder Decl.)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
490 STATEMENT of Compliance with Local Rule 37.1 in support of Motion to Compel Memorandum Used to Refresh the Recollection ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
491 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Third Amended Complaint to Dismiss Michael Grifﬁn as a Named Plaintiff in this Action by Plaintiff Michael Grifﬁn. (Attachments: # 1 Third Amended Complaint to Dismiss Michael Grifﬁn As A Named Plaintiff (Proposed))(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
492 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 491 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Third Amended Complaint to Dismiss Michael Grifﬁn as a Named Plaintiff in this

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

248/498

5/8/2020
02/01/2007 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 02/02/2007 02/05/2007
02/05/2007 02/05/2007 02/05/2007 02/06/2007 02/07/2007
02/08/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Action < by Plaintiff Michael Grifﬁn. (Overs, Peter) Modiﬁed text on 2/2/2007 (ksc). (Entered: 02/01/2007)
493 DECLARATION of Peter Overs, Jr. in support of 491 MOTION to Amend Complaint by Plaintiff Michael Grifﬁn. (Overs, Peter) Modiﬁed to remove repetitive text on 2/2/2007 (ksc). (Entered: 02/01/2007)
494 MEMORANDUM in Support of 491 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Third Amended Complaint to Dismiss Michael Grifﬁn as a Named Plaintiff in this Action ﬁled by Michael Grifﬁn. (Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
495 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael Grifﬁn re 491 MOTION to Amend File and Serve a Third Amended Complaint to Dismiss Michael Grifﬁn as a Named Plaintiff in this Action, 492 Memorandum in Support, 493 Declaration of Peter Overs, Jr., 494 Memorandum in Support (Overs, Peter) Modiﬁed to correct and remove repetitive text on 2/2/2007 (ksc). (Entered: 02/01/2007)
496 ORDER : Plaintiffs to ﬁle a response to both of Defendant's motion to compel and Defendant to ﬁle any response to Plaintiffs' motoin to amend by 2/12/07. Defendant's and Plaintiffs' replies to the motions to compel and the motions to amend are due by 2/16/07. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/2/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
497 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 471 MOTION to Quash (Plaintiffs' Motion To Quash Subpoenas of Absent Class Members) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Alexander Deposition# 2 Exhibit B - Henderson Deposition# 3 Exhibit C Allen Deposition# 4 Exhibit D - Fink Declaration# 5 Exhibit E - Brenner Declaration# 6 Exhibit F - Humphreys Response# 7 Exhibit G - Lester Response)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
498 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 471 MOTION to Quash (Plaintiffs' Motion To Quash Subpoenas of Absent Class Members) in Support of Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Subpoenas of Putative Class Members ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Blalack, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
499 MOTION To Remove From The Public Docket Documents Filed By Plaintiffs In Connection With Their Motion To Review by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
500 MEMORANDUM in Support of 499 MOTION To Remove From The Public Docket Documents Filed By Plaintiffs In Connection With Their Motion To Review ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
501 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; granting (499) Motion to withdraw documents #1,2,3 and 4 of document #480. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/6/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
502 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 480 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge re 466 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Regarding Defendant's Survey/Focus Group Materials MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge re 466 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Regarding Defendant's Survey/Focus Group Materials Unopposed Motion by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
503 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; granting (502) Motion for Extension of

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

249/498

5/8/2020
02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007
02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/13/2007
02/14/2007 02/14/2007
02/15/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Time to File Response to 480 Plaintiffs' Motionfor Review of the Magistrate Judge's Ruling Regarding Defendant's Survey/Focus Group Documents. Response to be ﬁled by 2/13/2007. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/8/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
504 BRIEF in Support of 471 MOTION to Quash (Plaintiffs' Motion To Quash Subpoenas of Absent Class Members) and In Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash (Document # 497) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
505 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 488 MOTION to Compel Memorandum Used to Refresh the Recollection ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 2 Declaration of Anthony L Marchetti# 3 Certiﬁcate of Service) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
506 REPLY to Response to Motion re 471 MOTION to Quash (Plaintiffs' Motion To Quash Subpoenas of Absent Class Members) Declaration of Robert I. Harwood In Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Brief In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash ( Document # 504 ) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Harwood Declaration# 2 Exhibit 2 to Harwood Declaration# 3 Exhibit 3 to Harwood Declaration ( Part A )# 4 Exhibit 3 to Harwood Declaration (Part B))(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
507 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs for Document Nos. 504 and 506 (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
508 BRIEF in Opposition to 485 MOTION to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Michael Grifﬁn ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
509 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 508 Brief in Opposition (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
510 RESPONSE in Opposition re 480 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge re 466 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Regarding Defendant's Survey/Focus Group Materials MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge re 466 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Regarding Defendant's Survey/Focus Group Materials ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Guy Brenner) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
511 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; granting (491) Motion to ﬁle a 3rd Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/14/07..(sdf) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
512 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibit 1 [Filed Under Seal] to Declaration of Guy Brenner Attached to Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Ruling Regarding Defendant's Survey-Focus Group Documents [Docket #510] by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
513 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint ( Proposed))(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
514 MEMORANDUM in Support of 513 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Complaint ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury. (Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
515 DECLARATION ; Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. In Support thereof 513 with Exhibit 1 attached by Plaintiff Lawrence Asbury. (Overs, Peter) text and link corrected and motion termed on 2/20/2007 (jld) (Entered: 02/15/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

250/498

5/8/2020
02/15/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
516 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Charlie Bertram. (Attachments: # 1 Second Amended Complaint (Proposed))(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/15/2007)

02/15/2007

517 MEMORANDUM in Support of 516 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Second Amended Complaint ﬁled by Charlie Bertram. (Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/15/2007)

02/15/2007

518 DECLARATION ; Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. In Support thereof 516 with Exhibit 1 attached by Plaintiff Charlie Bertram. (Overs, Peter) Text and link corrected and motion termed on 2/20/2007 (jld). (Entered: 02/15/2007)

02/15/2007

519 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Lawrence Asbury re 515 MOTION to Amend/Correct ; Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. In Support thereof ( Document # 513 ) with Exhibit 1 attached, 514 Memorandum in Support, 513 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Complaint (Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/15/2007)

02/15/2007

520 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Charlie Bertram re 518 MOTION to Amend/Correct ; Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. In Support thereof ( Document # 516) with Exhibit 1 attached, 516 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Second Amended Complaint, 517 Memorandum in Support (Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/15/2007)

02/16/2007

521 AMENDED COMPLAINT ( Proposed ) CORRECTED version of attachment, Exhibit 1, to Document # 513 - Motion to Amend Complaint against all defendants, ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury.(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/16/2007)

02/16/2007

522 MEMORANDUM in Support of 488 MOTION to Compel Memorandum Used to Refresh the Recollection of Plaintiff Prior to Deposition in 3-05-cv-529 Grifﬁn ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/16/2007)

02/16/2007

523 MEMORANDUM in Support of 485 MOTION to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Michael Grifﬁn in 3-05-cv-529 Grifﬁn ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/16/2007)

02/20/2007

524 ORDER granting Plaintiff's (516) Motion to ﬁle an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/20/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN, 3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 02/20/2007)

02/20/2007

525 ORDER granting Plaintiff's (513) Motion for leave to ﬁle an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/20/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00826-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 02/20/2007)

02/21/2007

526 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File & Serve Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Jessie Capers. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00535-RLMCAN(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/21/2007)

02/21/2007

527 MEMORANDUM in Support of (526 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 59 in 3:05-cv00535-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Amend/Correct , File & Serve Second Amended Complaint ﬁled by Jessie Capers. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05cv-00535-RLM-CAN(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/21/2007)

02/21/2007

528 STATEMENT Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. in Support of re (526 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN, 59 in 3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Amend/Correct , File & Serve Second Amended Complaint ﬁled by Jessie Capers. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/21/2007)

02/21/2007

529 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Plaintiff Walter Wallace. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint# 2 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint# 3

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

251/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Certiﬁcate of Good Faith in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00801-RLMCAN(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/21/2007)

02/23/2007

530 REPLY to Response to Motion re 480 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge re 466 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Regarding Defendant's Survey/Focus Group Materials MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge re 466 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Regarding Defendant's Survey/Focus Group Materials ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

02/23/2007

531 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

02/23/2007

532 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Roger Davis, Lawrence Asbury.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

02/23/2007

533 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

02/23/2007

534 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Plaintiff Rob Carlson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint# 2 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint# 3 Certiﬁcate of Good Faith in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

02/26/2007

535 ORDER STRICKEN:ORDER granting Plaintiff's (16) Motion to ﬁle and serve and Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/26/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00801-RLM-CAN (Entered: 02/26/2007)

02/27/2007

536 ORDER : The court's previous order 535 is STRICKEN. Plaintiff's motion to amend 526 is granted. Plaintiff may serve and ﬁle the 2nd amended complaint attached within 10 days. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/27/07. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) Modiﬁed on 2/28/2007 (smp). (Entered: 02/27/2007)

02/27/2007

537 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Fifth Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Arthur Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Good Faith In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint)(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/27/2007)

02/27/2007

538 MEMORANDUM in Support of 537 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Fifth Amended Complaint ﬁled by Arthur Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. In Support of Motion to Amend Complaint)(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/27/2007)

02/28/2007

539 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve an Amended Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Good Faith In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint)(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/28/2007)

02/28/2007

540 MEMORANDUM in Support of 539 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve an Amended Complaint ﬁled by David Harris. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint)(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 02/28/2007)

03/02/2007

541 PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Jessie Capers, Patrick Ngei, Tariq Baskerville, Gitonga Waiguchu. (Ellingstad, Susan) text Modiﬁed on 3/5/2007 (jld). (Entered: 03/02/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

252/498

5/8/2020
03/05/2007
03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007
03/12/2007
03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007
03/12/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
542 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; granting in part Plaintiffs' (433) Motion to Compel, granting (486) Motion to Compel, granting (488) Motion to Compel, and granting 471 Motion to quash. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 3/5/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) text Modiﬁed on 3/7/2007 to reﬂect that motions 486 , 488 & 471 were granted. (jld). (Entered: 03/06/2007)
543 ANSWER to Complaint and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-666 Coleman by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
544 ANSWER to Complaint and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in 305-cv-736 Asbury by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
545 ANSWER to Complaint and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-05-cv-529 Fluegel by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
546 MOTION to Certify Class of Maryland Plaintiff Thomas Westcott.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Maryland Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Index to Plaintiffs Appendix# 5 Plaintiffs Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
547 MOTION to Certify Class of California Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 California Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Index to Plaintiffs Appendix# 5 Plaintiffs Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
548 MOTION to Certify Class of New York Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 New York Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Index to Plaintiffs Appendix# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
549 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 529 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint in 306-cv-801 Wallace ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Docket Entry# 2 Exhibit B - Docket Report)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
550 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 529 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint Declaration of Alison G. Fox in Support of Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint in 3-06-cv-801 Wallace ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Notiﬁcation Message)(Fox, Alison) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
551 MOTION to Certify Class of Kansas Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Dominic R Lupo, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Ronald Perry, Alan Pacheco.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Kansas Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Index to Plaintiffs Appendix# 5 Plaintiffs Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
552 MOTION to Certify Class of New Jersey Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Michael B Kilmartin, Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 New Jersey Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

253/498

5/8/2020
03/12/2007
03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007
03/13/2007 03/13/2007 03/13/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Index to Plaintiffs Appendix# 5 Plaintiffs Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
553 MOTION to Certify Class of Massachusetts Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Motion# 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Motion# 4 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 5 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 6 Index to Plaintiffs Appendix# 7 Plaintiffs Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
554 MOTION to Certify Class of Iowa Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Aaron Ver Steeg, Tim Johnson.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Iowa Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Index to Plaintiffs Appendix# 5 Plaintiffs Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
555 MOTION to Certify Class of South Dakota Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 South Dakota Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Index to Plaintiffs Appendix# 5 Plaintiffs Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
556 MOTION to Certify Class of Indiana Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Indiana Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
557 MOTION to Certify Class of Oregon Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Dennis McHenry, Jeremy Brinker, Edward Slayman.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Oregon Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Index to Plaintiffs Appendix# 5 Plaintiffs Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
558 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 551 MOTION to Certify Class of Kansas Plaintiffs, 553 MOTION to Certify Class of Massachusetts Plaintiffs, 547 MOTION to Certify Class of California Plaintiffs, 555 MOTION to Certify Class of South Dakota Plaintiffs, 557 MOTION to Certify Class of Oregon Plaintiffs, 552 MOTION to Certify Class of New Jersey Plaintiffs, 554 MOTION to Certify Class of Iowa Plaintiffs, 556 MOTION to Certify Class of Indiana Plaintiffs, 548 MOTION to Certify Class of New York Plaintiffs, 546 MOTION to Certify Class of Maryland Plaintiff Thomas Westcott (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
559 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Omnibus Fact Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, and Plaintiffs' Appendix by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
560 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of California Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
561 MOTION to Certify Class of California Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] by Plaintiffs Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

254/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 California Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/13/2007)

03/13/2007

562 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of California Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation [CORRECTED VERSION] by Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/13/2007)

03/13/2007

563 MOTION to Certify Class of Massachusetts Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] by Plaintiffs Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner.Response to be ﬁled by 4/26/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/13/2007)

03/13/2007

564 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 559 Notice of Manual Filing, 560 Notice of Manual Filing, 562 Notice of Manual Filing, 561 MOTION to Certify Class of California Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] MOTION to Certify Class of California Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION], 563 MOTION to Certify Class of Massachusetts Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] MOTION to Certify Class of Massachusetts Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/13/2007)

03/13/2007

565 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 537 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Fifth Amended Complaint, 534 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, 539 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve an Amended Complaint in 3-06-cv-393 (Carlson), 306-cv-209 (Harris) and 3-05-cv-600 (Smith: ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/13/2007)

03/13/2007

566 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Fourth Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Edward Slayman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Motion -- Fourth Amended Complaint (Proposed)# 2 Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint# 3 Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. In Support of Motion to Amend Complaint# 4 Certiﬁcate of Good Faith In Support of Motion to Amend Complaint)(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 03/13/2007)

03/15/2007

567 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge by Plaintiff Dean Alexander. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Law# 2 Supplement Proposed Order# 3 Exhibit Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit Exhibit C# 6 Afﬁdavit Proof of Service)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(Fink, Eric) (Entered: 03/15/2007)

03/19/2007

568 MEMORANDUM in Support of 529 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint of Walter Wallace, and to convert the Ohio complaint from an individual to a class action ﬁled by Walter Wallace. (Overs, Peter) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

03/19/2007

569 ANSWER to Complaint -Second Amended Complaint in 3-05-cv-535 Capers by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

03/20/2007

570 MEMORANDUM in Support of 537 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve a Fifth Amended Complaint, 534 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint, 539 MOTION to Amend/Correct , File and Serve an Amended Complaint to include four additional proposed class representatives ﬁled by Rob Carlson, David Harris, Arthur Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter W. Overs, Jr. In Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motions to Amend Complaint)(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 03/20/2007)

03/23/2007

571 MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

255/498

5/8/2020
04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007
04/02/2007
04/02/2007
04/02/2007 04/02/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Scheduling Order# 2 Certiﬁcate of Good Faith In Support of Motion to Amend Scheduling Order)(Overs, Peter) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
572 OPINION AND ORDER denying motions to amend 529 , 534 , 537 , 539 , and 566 . Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/2/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) Modiﬁed on 4/3/2007 to correct link to termed motion (from 237 to 537 (jld). (Entered: 04/02/2007)
573 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 567 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
574 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certiﬁcation and Plaintiffs' Second Appendix by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
575 MOTION to Certify Class (Illinois) by Plaintiffs Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly.Response to be ﬁled by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Illinois Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 6 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 7 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 8 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
576 MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) by Plaintiffs Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey.Response to be ﬁled by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Minnesota Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 6 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 7 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 8 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
577 MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) by Plaintiffs Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker.Response to be ﬁled by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Missouri Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 6 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 7 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 8 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
578 MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) by Plaintiffs Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Gregory Cooke.Response to be ﬁled by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 South Carolina Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 6 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 7 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 8 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
579 MOTION to Certify Class (Pennsylvania) by Plaintiff Derek D Willis.Response to be ﬁled by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 6 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 7 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 8 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
580 MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) by Plaintiffs Donald Swazey, Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker, Robert Gennell Jr, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio.Response to be ﬁled by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law#

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

256/498

5/8/2020
04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/02/2007
04/05/2007 04/06/2007 04/10/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 6 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 7 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 8 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
581 MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan) by Plaintiffs Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake.Response to be ﬁled by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Michigan Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 6 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 7 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 8 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
582 MOTION to Certify Class (Wisconsin) by Plaintiffs Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki.Response to be ﬁled by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 6 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 7 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 8 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
583 MOTION to Certify Class (Alabama).Response to be ﬁled by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Alabama Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 6 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 7 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 8 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
584 MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) by Plaintiffs Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, David R Mosher.Response to be ﬁled by 5/17/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Florida Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 6 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 7 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 8 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
585 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 584 MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) MOTION to Certify Class (Florida), 581 MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan) MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan), 574 Notice of Manual Filing, 580 MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire), 579 MOTION to Certify Class (Pennsylvania) MOTION to Certify Class (Pennsylvania), 583 MOTION to Certify Class (Alabama) MOTION to Certify Class (Alabama), 577 MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri), 576 MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota), 578 MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina), 582 MOTION to Certify Class (Wisconsin) MOTION to Certify Class (Wisconsin), 575 MOTION to Certify Class (Illinois) MOTION to Certify Class (Illinois) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
586 DOCUMENT REMOVED Modiﬁed on 4/6/2007 (sdf). (Entered: 04/05/2007)
587 NOTICE of Appearance by David M Cialkowski on behalf of Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Fema Onayiga, Gerald Pelkey. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN(sdf) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/6/2007 (sdf) Modiﬁed on 4/9/2007 (smp). (Entered: 04/06/2007)
588 OPINION AND ORDER: The Plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's ruling 480 is OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 4/10/07. Associated Cases:

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

257/498

5/8/2020
04/16/2007
04/16/2007 04/18/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
589 BRIEF in Support of 567 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR REVIEW OF PORTIONS OF MAGISTRATE'S DECISION DATED MARCH 5, 2007 ﬁled by Donald Bumford, Dennis Burns, Tedd Blaisdell, Joseph Condi, Michael Detrimont, Jorge Isla, Mark Gagnon, Paul Gendron, Richard N Gioiosa, David Glidden, Robert Grunditz, James Hall, Jr, Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, William Hurley, Michelle Jones, Marie LaRoche, Gary Lucier, Paul Infantino, Kenneth Parnell, Keith Repack, Dale Fluegel, Dennis McHenry, Mario Russo, Jay Trachim, Christopher Van Lenten, Percival Currithers, Donald Swazey, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Jessie Capers, Patrick Ngei, Bernard Mendoza, Sergei Selenskikh, Tariq Baskerville, Gitonga Waiguchu, Elaine Muldrow, L C Bell Jr, Rita King, Natasha Quimby, Kenneth Steed, Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, FedEx Plaintiffs, Jesse Padilla, Michael B Kilmartin, Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Curtis Johnson, Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Margaret Johnson, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, Tom Skundrich Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Dean Wiley, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Joey Rodriguez, Thomas Frasca, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Kimberly A Bunger, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker, Darrell Engbrecht, Aaron Ver Steeg, Jeremy Brinker, John F Esculano, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck, John Humphreys, Allan Ross, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Niles Pinkham, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon, Lawrence Asbury, Bradley D Gregory, Roger Davis, Randy Anﬁnson, David Harris, James Geiger, Thomas Westcott, Steven Hardie, John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski, Walter Wallace, Tina Floyd, Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter, Michael Grifﬁn, Dean Alexander, Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, James Hough, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan, Diane Gordon, William J Lombo, Edward Slayman, Derek D Willis, Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Clarence Kelly, Kevin Woodruff, Kevin E Peterson, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, Herbert Humphrey, Carlene M Craig, Harold Mitchell, Debbie Lindsey, Janie L Foster, John Lindsey, Terry Rodgers, Leo Rittenhouse, Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Jeff Bramlage, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Jeffrey Hart, Lawrence Liable, Suzanne Andrade, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, Tim Johnson, Darren Zabrocki, Jarrett Henderson, Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, Thomas Carraher, Jim Kost, David R Mosher, Charlie Bertram, John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders, Clyde E Woomer, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588), James Lester, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)), James Kassuba, Ryan Tomaski, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Roland Guillet, Eric J Moss, Fema Onayiga, Gerald Pelkey, David Foss, Robert Gennell Jr, Glenn Poland, Ely Ines, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio, Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy, Kenneth M Ries, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson, Bernard Mondoza, Peter Wiley, Craig Batley, William Gardner, Ralph Beaulieu. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Lynn Rossman Faris# 2 Ex. A to Declaration# 3 Ex. B Part I to Declaration# 4 Ex. B Part II to Declaration# 5 Ex. C to Declaration)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
591 ORDER granting (571) Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/16/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
590 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (To Exceed Page Limitation) by Defendant

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

258/498

5/8/2020
04/20/2007 04/23/2007 04/23/2007 04/23/2007
04/23/2007
04/23/2007
04/23/2007
04/23/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
FedEx Ground. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
592 ORDER denying (590) Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/20/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
593 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Third Declaration of Susan E Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Moitons for Class Certiﬁcation Associated ). (Entered: 04/23/2007)
594 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Third Appendix Volume 67 PA19585PA19804 (Entered: 04/23/2007)
595 MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) by Plaintiffs Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis.Response to be ﬁled by 6/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 West Virginia Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Third Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 6 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 7 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 8 Plaintiffs' Third Appendix# 9 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 10 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 11 Index to Plaintiffs' Third Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
596 MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) by Plaintiffs Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Roland Guillet.Response to be ﬁled by 6/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Third Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 6 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 7 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 8 Plaintiffs' Third Appendix# 9 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 10 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 11 Index to Plaintiffs' Third Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
597 MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) by Plaintiffs Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory.Response to be ﬁled by 6/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Virginia Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Third Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 6 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 7 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 8 Plaintiffs' Third Appendix# 9 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 10 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 11 Index to Plaintiffs' Third Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
598 MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) by Plaintiffs L C Bell Jr, Rita King, Natasha Quimby, Kenneth Steed, Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter.Response to be ﬁled by 6/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Mississippi Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Third Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 6 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 7 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 8 Plaintiffs' Third Appendix# 9 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 10 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 11 Index to Plaintiffs' Third Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
599 MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) by Plaintiffs Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Robert Erbentraut.Response to be ﬁled by 6/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Tennessee Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Third Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 6 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 7 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 8 Plaintiffs' Third Appendix# 9 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 10 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 11 Index to Plaintiffs' Third Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

259/498

5/8/2020
04/23/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
600 MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) by Plaintiffs Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa.Response to be ﬁled by 6/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Montana Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 3 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 4 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 5 Third Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 6 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 7 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 8 Plaintiffs' Third Appendix# 9 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 10 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 11 Index to Plaintiffs' Third Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

04/23/2007

601 MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) by Plaintiffs John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon.Response to be ﬁled by 6/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Texas Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Texas Plaintiffs' Motion# 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Texas Plaintiffs' Motion# 4 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 5 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 6 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 7 Third Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 8 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 9 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 10 Plaintiffs' Third Appendix# 11 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 12 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 13 Index to Plaintiffs' Third Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

04/23/2007

602 MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) by Plaintiffs John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders.Response to be ﬁled by 6/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Kentucky Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Declaration of John "Rob" Coleman in Support of Kentucky Plaintiffs' Motion# 3 Declaration of William "Denny" Cress in Support of Kentucky Plaintiffs' Motion# 4 Declaration of Barry Hindman in Support of Kentucky Plaintiffs' Motion# 5 Declaration of George "Todd" Sanders in Support of Kentucky Plaintiffs' Motion# 6 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 7 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 8 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 9 Third Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 10 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 11 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 12 Plaintiffs' Third Appendix# 13 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 14 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 15 Index to Plaintiffs' Third Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

04/23/2007

603 MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) by Plaintiff David Harris.Response to be ﬁled by 6/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Arkansas Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law# 2 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Arkansas Plaintiff's Motion# 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Arkansas Plaintiff's Motion# 4 Omnibus Fact Memorandum# 5 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 6 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 7 Third Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 8 Plaintiffs' Appendix# 9 Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 10 Plaintiffs' Third Appendix# 11 Index to Plaintiffs' Appendix# 12 Index to Plaintiffs' Second Appendix# 13 Index to Plaintiffs' Third Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)

04/23/2007

604 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 598 MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi), 597 MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia), 602 MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky), 596 MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island), 600 MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) MOTION to Certify Class (Montana), 595 MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia), 599 MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee), 601 MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas), 603 MOTION to Certify Class

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

260/498

5/8/2020
04/27/2007 04/27/2007 04/27/2007
04/27/2007 04/27/2007 04/27/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
605 DECLARATION OF INABILITY to ﬁle Responses to Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation (Alexander CA, Bunger SD, Johnson IA, Berry KS, Westcott MD, Sheehan MA, Tofaute NJ, Louzau NY, Slayman OR, Riewe IN (and supporting materials) in a timely manner by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
606 (DOCUMENT STRICKEN) STATEMENT Response to Plaintiffs' "Omnibus Fact Memorandum" (ﬁled under seal 3/12/2007) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
607 RESPONSE in Opposition re 548 MOTION to Certify Class of New York Plaintiffs ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2# 2 Exhibit 6# 3 Exhibit 7# 4 Exhibit 8# 5 Exhibit 9# 6 Exhibit 10# 7 Exhibit 12# 8 Exhibit 15# 9 Exhibit 16# 10 Exhibit 19# 11 Exhibit 20# 12 Exhibit 21# 13 Exhibit 22# 14 Exhibit 23# 15 Exhibit 24# 16 Exhibit 26# 17 Exhibit 27# 18 Exhibit 28# 19 Exhibit 29# 20 Exhibit 30# 21 Exhibit 31# 22 Exhibit 32# 23 Exhibit 34# 24 Exhibit 35# 25 Exhibit 41# 26 Exhibit 42 - Part 1# 27 Exhibit 42 - Part 2# 28 Exhibit 43# 29 Exhibit 44# 30 Exhibit 45# 31 Exhibit 50# 32 Exhibit 51# 33 Exhibit 52# 34 Exhibit 53# 35 Exhibit 54# 36 Exhibit 55# 37 Exhibit 56# 38 Exhibit 57# 39 Exhibit 58 - Part 1# 40 Exhibit 58 - Part 2# 41 Exhibit 58 - Part 3# 42 Exhibit 58 - Part 4# 43 Exhibit 59# 44 Exhibit 60# 45 Exhibit 61# 46 Exhibit 63# 47 Exhibit 64# 48 Exhibit 65# 49 Exhibit 66# 50 Exhibit 67# 51 Exhibit 68# 52 Exhibit 69# 53 Exhibit 70)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
608 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Louzau (New York) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation (unredacted version) and Exhibits 1, 3, 45, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 25, 33, 36-40, 47-49, 62, 71, and 72 thereto by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
609 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Alexander (California) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation and Exhibits 1, 8, 44, 47, 51-61, 63, 84, 85, & 86 thereto by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
610 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 561 MOTION to Certify Class of California Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] MOTION to Certify Class of California Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # ((1)DOCUMENT STRICKEN Exhibit B#)(2) Exhibit B - Ex. 1# 3 Exhibit B - Ex. 2# 4 Exhibit B - Ex. 3# 5 Exhibit B - Ex. 4# 6 Exhibit B - Ex. 5# 7 Exhibit B - Ex. 6# 8 Exhibit B - Ex. 7# 9 Exhibit B - Ex. 8# 10 Exhibit B - Ex. 9# 11 Exhibit B - Ex. 10# 12 Exhibit B - Ex. 11# 13 Exhibit B - Ex. 12# 14 Exhibit B - Ex. 13# 15 Exhibit B - Ex. 14# 16 Exhibit B - Ex. 15# 17 Exhibit B - Ex. 16# 18 Exhibit B - Ex. 17# 19 Exhibit B - Ex. 18 - Part 1# 20 Exhibit B - Ex. 18 - Part 2# 21 Exhibit 1# 22 Exhibit 2# 23 Exhibit 3# 24 Exhibit 4# 25 Exhibit 5# 26 Exhibit 6# 27 Exhibit 7# 28 Exhibit 9# 29 Exhibit 10# 30 Exhibit 11# 31 Exhibit 12# 32 Exhibit 13# 33 Errata 14# 34 Exhibit 15# 35 Exhibit 16# 36 Exhibit 17# 37 Exhibit 18# 38 Exhibit 20# 39 Exhibit 21# 40 Exhibit 22# 41 Errata 23# 42 Exhibit 24# 43 Exhibit 25# 44 Exhibit 26# 45 Exhibit 27# 46 Exhibit 28# 47 Exhibit 29# 48 Errata 30# 49 Exhibit 31# 50 Exhibit 32# 51 Exhibit 33# 52 Exhibit 34# 53 Exhibit 35# 54 Exhibit 36# 55 Errata 37# 56 Exhibit 38# 57 Exhibit 39# 58 Exhibit 40 - Part 1# 59 Exhibit 40 - Part 2# 60 Exhibit 41# 61 Exhibit 42# 62 Exhibit 43# 63 Exhibit 45# 64 Exhibit 46# 65 Exhibit 48 - Part 1# 66 Exhibit 48 - Part 2# 67 Exhibit 48 - Part 3# 68 Exhibit 48 - Part 4# 69 Exhibit 49# 70 Exhibit 50# 71 Exhibit 62# 72 Exhibit 64# 73 Exhibit 65# 74 Exhibit 66# 75 Exhibit 67# 76 Exhibit 68# 77 Exhibit 69# 78 Exhibit

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

261/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
70# 79 Exhibit 71# 80 Exhibit 72# 81 Exhibit 73# 82 Exhibit 74# 83 Exhibit 75# 84 Exhibit 76# 85 Exhibit 77# 86 Exhibit 78# 87 Exhibit 79# 88 Exhibit 80# 89 Exhibit 81# 90 Exhibit 82 - Part 1# 91 Exhibit 82 - Part 2# 92 Exhibit 82 - Part 3# 93 Exhibit 82 - Part 4# 94 Exhibit 83# 95 Exhibit 87# 96 Exhibit 88)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

611 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 17, 18-20, 25, 45, 51-53, 59, 60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, and 74-76 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Tofaute (New Jersey) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation. by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

612 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 7, 12, 18-20, 22, 24, 27-29, 31, and 32 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Slayman (Oregon) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

613 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 7, 28, 32, 35, 36, 40-42, and 47-49 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Johnson (Iowa) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

614 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 19, 20, 30, 32, 33, 35, 37-39, 44-46, 48 and 50 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To the Maryland Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

615 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 21, 30, 33, 37-41, 47, 52, and 53 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Riewe (Indiana) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

616 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 7, 14, 15, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29-31, 35, 36, and 39 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Sheehan (Massachusetts) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

617 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits A, B, 6-9, 36, 43-45, 48-52, 55, 58, 62, & 63 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To the Kansas and ERISA Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

618 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 5, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 27, 28, 32, 37, and 38 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Bunger (South Dakota) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

619 RESPONSE in Opposition re 556 MOTION to Certify Class of Indiana Plaintiffs ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Errata 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7 - Part 1# 8 Exhibit 7 - Part 2# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Errata 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Exhibit 16# 18 Exhibit 17# 19 Exhibit 18# 20 Exhibit 19# 21 Exhibit 20# 22 Exhibit 22# 23 Exhibit 23# 24 Exhibit 24# 25 Exhibit 25# 26 Exhibit 26# 27 Exhibit 27# 28 Exhibit 28# 29 Exhibit 29# 30 Exhibit 31# 31 Exhibit 34# 32 Exhibit 35# 33 Exhibit 36# 34 Exhibit 42# 35 Exhibit 43# 36 Exhibit 44# 37 Exhibit 45# 38 Exhibit 46# 39 Exhibit 48# 40 Exhibit 49 - Part 1# 41 Exhibit 42 - Part 2# 42 Exhibit 50# 43 Exhibit 51)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007 620 RESPONSE in Opposition re 554 MOTION to Certify Class of Iowa Plaintiffs ﬁled by

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

262/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit 10# 10 Exhibit 11# 11 Exhibit 12# 12 Exhibit 13# 13 Exhibit 14# 14 Exhibit 15# 15 Exhibit 16# 16 Exhibit 17# 17 Exhibit 18# 18 Exhibit 19# 19 Exhibit 20# 20 Exhibit 21# 21 Exhibit 22# 22 Exhibit 23# 23 Exhibit 24# 24 Exhibit 25# 25 Exhibit 26# 26 Exhibit 27# 27 Exhibit 29# 28 Exhibit 30# 29 Exhibit 31# 30 Exhibit 33 - Part 1# 31 Exhibit 33 - Part 2# 32 Exhibit 33 - Part 3# 33 Exhibit 33 - Part 4# 34 Exhibit 34# 35 Exhibit 37# 36 Exhibit 38# 37 Exhibit 39# 38 Exhibit 43# 39 Exhibit 44# 40 Exhibit 45# 41 Exhibit 46) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

621 RESPONSE in Opposition re 551 MOTION to Certify Class of Kansas Plaintiffs ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2(DOCUMENT STRICKEN Exhibit A# 3) Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit 1# 5 Exhibit 2# 6 Exhibit 3# 7 Exhibit 4# 8 Exhibit 5# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 7 - Exhibits A and B# 11 Exhibit 7 - Exhibit C1# 12 Exhibit 7 Exhibit C2# 13 Exhibit 7 - Exhibit C3# 14 Exhibit 7 - Exhibit C4# 15 Exhibit 7 - Exhibit C5# 16 Exhibit 7 - Exhibit C6# 17 Exhibit 7 - Exhibit C7# 18 Exhibit 9 - Part 1# 19 Exhibit 9 - Part 2# 20 Exhibit 9 - Part 3# 21 Exhibit 9 - Part 4# 22 Exhibit 9 - Part 5# 23 Exhibit 9 - Part 6# 24 Exhibit 9 - Part 7# 25 Exhibit 9 - Part 8# 26 Exhibit 9 - Part 9# 27 Exhibit 9 - Part 10# 28 Exhibit 9 - Part 11# 29 Exhibit 9 - Part 12# 30 Exhibit 9 - Part 13# 31 Exhibit 9 - Part 14# 32 Exhibit 9 - Part 15# 33 Exhibit 9 - Part 16# 34 Exhibit 9 Part 17# 35 Exhibit 9 - Part 18# 36 Exhibit 9 - Part 19# 37 Exhibit 9 - Part 20# 38 Exhibit 9 - Part 21# 39 Exhibit 9 - Part 22# 40 Exhibit 10# 41 Exhibit 11# 42 Exhibit 12# 43 Exhibit 13# 44 Exhibit 14# 45 Exhibit 9 - Part 15# 46 Exhibit 16 - Part 1# 47 Exhibit 16 - Part 2# 48 Exhibit 17# 49 Exhibit 18# 50 Exhibit 19# 51 Exhibit 20# 52 Exhibit 21# 53 Exhibit 22# 54 Exhibit 23# 55 Exhibit 24# 56 Exhibit 25# 57 Exhibit 26# 58 Exhibit 27# 59 Exhibit 28# 60 Exhibit 29# 61 Exhibit 30# 62 Exhibit 31# 63 Errata 32# 64 Exhibit 33# 65 Exhibit 34# 66 Exhibit 35# 67 Exhibit 37# 68 Exhibit 38# 69 Exhibit 39# 70 Exhibit 40# 71 Exhibit 41# 72 Exhibit 42# 73 Exhibit 46# 74 Exhibit 47# 75 Exhibit 53# 76 Exhibit 54# 77 Exhibit 56# 78 Exhibit 57# 79 Exhibit 59# 80 Exhibit 60# 81 Exhibit 61)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

622 RESPONSE in Opposition re 546 MOTION to Certify Class of Maryland Plaintiff Thomas Westcott ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13 - Part 1# 14 Exhibit 13 Part 2# 15 Exhibit 13 - Part 3# 16 Exhibit 13 - Part 4# 17 Exhibit 14# 18 Exhibit 16# 19 Exhibit 17# 20 Exhibit 18# 21 Exhibit 21# 22 Exhibit 22 - Part 1# 23 Exhibit 22 - Part 2# 24 Exhibit 23# 25 Exhibit 24# 26 Exhibit 25# 27 Exhibit 26# 28 Exhibit 27# 29 Exhibit 28# 30 Exhibit 29# 31 Exhibit 31# 32 Exhibit 34# 33 Exhibit 36# 34 Exhibit 40# 35 Exhibit 41# 36 Exhibit 42# 37 Exhibit 43# 38 Exhibit 47# 39 Exhibit 49) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

623 RESPONSE in Opposition re 563 MOTION to Certify Class of Massachusetts Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] MOTION to Certify Class of Massachusetts Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit 10# 10 Exhibit 11# 11 Exhibit 12# 12 Exhibit 13# 13 Exhibit 16# 14 Exhibit 17# 15 Exhibit 18# 16 Exhibit 19# 17 Exhibit 20 - Part 1# 18 Exhibit 20 - Part 2# 19 Exhibit 23# 20 Exhibit 24# 21 Exhibit 25# 22 Exhibit 27 - Part 1# 23 Exhibit 27 - Part 2# 24 Exhibit 27 - Part 3# 25 Exhibit 27 - Part 4# 26 Exhibit 32# 27 Exhibit 33# 28 Exhibit 34# 29 Exhibit 38# 30 Exhibit 40# 31 Exhibit 41)(Brunner, Thomas) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/9/2007 (Fikes, Stephanie). (Entered: 04/27/2007)

04/27/2007

624 RESPONSE in Opposition re 552 MOTION to Certify Class of New Jersey Plaintiffs ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

263/498

5/8/2020
04/27/2007
04/27/2007
04/27/2007 04/30/2007 05/02/2007 05/03/2007 05/04/2007 05/09/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12 - Part 1# 13 Exhibit 12 - Part 2# 14 Exhibit 3# 15 Exhibit 13# 16 Exhibit 14# 17 Exhibit 15# 18 Exhibit 16# 19 Exhibit 21# 20 Exhibit 22# 21 Exhibit 23# 22 Exhibit 24# 23 Exhibit 26# 24 Exhibit 27# 25 Exhibit 28# 26 Exhibit 29# 27 Exhibit 30# 28 Exhibit 31# 29 Exhibit 32# 30 Exhibit 33# 31 Exhibit 34# 32 Exhibit 35# 33 Exhibit 36# 34 Exhibit 37# 35 Exhibit 38# 36 Exhibit 39# 37 Exhibit 40# 38 Exhibit 41# 39 Exhibit 42# 40 Exhibit 43# 41 Exhibit 44# 42 Exhibit 46# 43 Exhibit 47# 44 Exhibit 48# 45 Exhibit 49# 46 Exhibit 50 - Part 1# 47 Exhibit 50 - Part 2# 48 Exhibit 55# 49 Exhibit 54# 50 Exhibit 57# 51 Exhibit 58# 52 Exhibit 61# 53 Exhibit 63# 54 Exhibit 64# 55 Exhibit 67# 56 Exhibit 70# 57 Exhibit 73)(Brunner, Thomas) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/9/2007 (Fikes, Stephanie). (Entered: 04/27/2007)
625 RESPONSE in Opposition re 557 MOTION to Certify Class of Oregon Plaintiffs ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit 10# 10 Exhibit 11# 11 Exhibit 14# 12 Exhibit 15# 13 Exhibit 16# 14 Exhibit 17# 15 Exhibit 21# 16 Exhibit 23 - Part 1# 17 Exhibit 23 - Part 2# 18 Exhibit 23 - Part# 19 Exhibit 23 - Part 4# 20 Exhibit 25# 21 Exhibit 26# 22 Exhibit 30# 23 Exhibit 33# 24 Exhibit 34# 25 Exhibit 35) (Brunner, Thomas) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/9/2007 (Fikes, Stephanie). (Entered: 04/27/2007)
626 RESPONSE in Opposition re 555 MOTION to Certify Class of South Dakota Plaintiffs ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 6# 6 Exhibit 7# 7 Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit 10# 10 Exhibit 11# 11 Exhibit 12# 12 Exhibit 13# 13 Exhibit 14# 14 Exhibit 15# 15 Exhibit 18# 16 Exhibit 21# 17 Exhibit 22# 18 Exhibit 23 - Part 1# 19 Exhibit 23 - Part 2# 20 Exhibit 23 - Part 3# 21 Exhibit 23 - Part 4# 22 Exhibit 24# 23 Exhibit 25# 24 Exhibit 26# 25 Exhibit 29# 26 Exhibit 30 - Part 1# 27 Exhibit 30 - Part 2# 28 Exhibit 31# 29 Exhibit 33# 30 Exhibit 34# 31 Exhibit 35# 32 Exhibit 36)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
627 MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Alexander (CA), Bunger (SD), Johnson (IA), Berry (KS), Westcott (MD), Sheehan (MA), Tofaute (NJ), Louzau (NY), Slayman (OR), and Riewe (IN) Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
628 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Correction to Memoranda in Opposition to Louzau (New York) and Alexander (California) Motions for Class Certiﬁcation (Attachments: # 1 Louzau (New York) Exhibit List# 2 Alexander (California) Exhibit List)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
629 MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS WHICH VIOLATE THE COURT'S BRIEFING PAGE LIMITS by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
630 MOTION re 629 MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS WHICH VIOLATE THE COURT'S BRIEFING PAGE LIMITS [CORRECTED] by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law [CORRECTED]# 2 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
631 MOTION to Amend/Correct Memoranda in Opposition to Alexander (CA), Sheehan (MA), Tofaute (NJ) and Slayman (OR) Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Sheehan (MA) Exhibit 37# 2 Tofaute (NJ) Corrected Exhibit 55# 3 Slayman (OR) Exhibit 13# 4 Alexander (CA) Corrected Exhibit 87) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
632 RESPONSE to Motion re 627 MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Alexander

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

264/498

5/8/2020
05/09/2007 05/11/2007 05/11/2007
05/16/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(CA), Bunger (SD), Johnson (IA), Berry (KS), Westcott (MD), Sheehan (MA), Tofaute (NJ), Louzau (NY), Slayman (OR), and Riewe (IN) Motions for Class Certiﬁcation MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Alexander (CA), Bunger (SD), Johnson (IA), Berry (KS), Westcott (MD), Sheehan (MA), Tofaute (NJ), Louzau (NY), Slayman (OR), and Riewe (IN) Motions for Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by Larry Louzau, Kimberly A Bunger, Thomas Westcott, Dean Alexander, Michael Tofaute, Edward Slayman, Edward Sheehan, Roger Riewe. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
633 ORDER granting FedEx Ground's (631) Motion to Amend its ﬁlings in response to Plaintiff's Moiton for Class Certiﬁcation (ﬁled 4/27/07). Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 5/9/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00528RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00596RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
634 NOTICE by Thomas Westcott of Withdrawal of Appearance of Jeffrey A Bartos (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
635 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 630 MOTION re 629 MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS WHICH VIOLATE THE COURT'S BRIEFING PAGE LIMITS [CORRECTED] MOTION re 629 MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS WHICH VIOLATE THE COURT'S BRIEFING PAGE LIMITS [CORRECTED] ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Part 1# 2 Exhibit 1 - Part 2)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
636 REPLY to Response to Motion re 630 MOTION re 629 MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS WHICH VIOLATE THE COURT'S BRIEFING PAGE LIMITS [CORRECTED] MOTION re 629 MOTION TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS WHICH VIOLATE THE COURT'S BRIEFING PAGE LIMITS [CORRECTED] ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
637 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46 and 47 to Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The Alabama Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
638 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 3, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, 48 And 54 To Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The Florida Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
639 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 15, 17, 24, 25, 28, 30, 34 and 35 To Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The Illinois Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
640 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 14, 15, 16, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 43 To Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The Michigan Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
641 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 23, 29, 30, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 To Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The Minnesota Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
642 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 10, 19, 20, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 To Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

265/498

5/8/2020
05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007
05/17/2007
05/17/2007
05/17/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Of Law In Opposition To The Missouri Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
643 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 29, 30 and 31 To Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The New Hampshire Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
644 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 46 To Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The Pennsylvania Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
645 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 To Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The South Carolina Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
646 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 46 and 48 To Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To The Wisconsin Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
647 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 584 MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2# 2 Exhibit 4# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 9# 7 Exhibit 10# 8 Exhibit 11# 9 Exhibit 12# 10 Exhibit 13# 11 Exhibit 14# 12 Exhibit 15# 13 Exhibit 16# 14 Exhibit 17# 15 Exhibit 18# 16 Exhibit 23# 17 Exhibit 24# 18 Exhibit 25# 19 Exhibit 26# 20 Exhibit 27# 21 Exhibit 28# 22 Exhibit 29# 23 Exhibit 32# 24 Exhibit 34# 25 Exhibit 36# 26 Exhibit 39# 27 Exhibit 40# 28 Exhibit 41# 29 Exhibit 43# 30 Exhibit 44# 31 Exhibit 45# 32 Exhibit 46# 33 Exhibit 47# 34 Exhibit 49# 35 Exhibit 50# 36 Exhibit 51# 37 Exhibit 52# 38 Exhibit 53# 39 Exhibit 55# 40 Exhibit 56)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
648 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 576 MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) Lee ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 17# 16 Exhibit 18# 17 Exhibit 19# 18 Exhibit 20# 19 Exhibit 21# 20 Exhibit 22# 21 Exhibit 24# 22 Exhibit 25# 23 Exhibit 26# 24 Exhibit 27# 25 Exhibit 28# 26 Exhibit 31# 27 Exhibit 33# 28 Exhibit 34, Part 1# 29 Exhibit 34, Part 2# 30 Exhibit 34, Part 3# 31 Exhibit 34, Part 4# 32 Exhibit 35# 33 Exhibit 36# 34 Exhibit 42)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
649 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 577 MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) Gray ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 11# 9 Exhibit 12# 10 Exhibit 13# 11 Exhibit 14# 12 Exhibit 15# 13 Exhibit 16# 14 Exhibit 17# 15 Exhibit 18# 16 Exhibit 21# 17 Exhibit 22# 18 Exhibit 23# 19 Exhibit 24# 20 Exhibit 25# 21 Exhibit 26# 22 Exhibit 28# 23 Exhibit 30# 24 Exhibit 33# 25 Exhibit 35# 26 Exhibit 41# 27 Exhibit 42# 28 Exhibit 43)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
650 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 582 MOTION to Certify Class (Wisconsin) MOTION to Certify Class (Wisconsin) Larson ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 6# 4 Exhibit 7# 5 Exhibit 8, Part 1# 6 Exhibit 8,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

266/498

5/8/2020
05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007 05/17/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Part 2# 7 Exhibit 9, Part 1# 8 Exhibit 9, Part 2# 9 Exhibit 10, Part 1# 10 Exhibit 10, Part 2# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 17# 16 Exhibit 18# 17 Exhibit 19# 18 Exhibit 22# 19 Exhibit 23# 20 Exhibit 25# 21 Exhibit 28# 22 Exhibit 30# 23 Exhibit 31, Part 1# 24 Exhibit 31, Part 2# 25 Exhibit 31, Part 3# 26 Exhibit 31, Part 4# 27 Exhibit 36# 28 Exhibit 38# 29 Exhibit 39# 30 Exhibit 43# 31 Exhibit 44# 32 Exhibit 45# 33 Exhibit 47)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
651 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 579 MOTION to Certify Class (Pennsylvania) MOTION to Certify Class (Pennsylvania) Willis ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 4# 4 Exhibit 5# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 19, Part 1# 14 Exhibit 19, Part 2# 15 Exhibit 19, Part 3# 16 Exhibit 19, Part 4# 17 Exhibit 20# 18 Exhibit 21# 19 Exhibit 22# 20 Exhibit 24# 21 Exhibit 25# 22 Exhibit 26# 23 Exhibit 27# 24 Exhibit 29# 25 Exhibit 37# 26 Exhibit 39# 27 Exhibit 40# 28 Exhibit 41# 29 Exhibit 42# 30 Exhibit 43# 31 Exhibit 44# 32 Exhibit 45# 33 Exhibit 47# 34 Exhibit 48# 35 Exhibit 49)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
652 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 578 MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) Cooke ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit 17# 15 Exhibit 19# 16 Exhibit 22# 17 Exhibit 23# 18 Exhibit 30# 19 Exhibit 31# 20 Exhibit 32# 21 Exhibit 39# 22 Exhibit 40# 23 Exhibit 41)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
653 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 583 MOTION to Certify Class (Alabama) MOTION to Certify Class (Alabama) Floyd ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 21, Part 1# 16 Exhibit 21, Part 2# 17 Exhibit 21, Part 3# 18 Exhibit 21, Part 4# 19 Exhibit 22# 20 Exhibit 23# 21 Exhibit 24# 22 Exhibit 25# 23 Exhibit 26# 24 Exhibit 27# 25 Exhibit 29# 26 Exhibit 30# 27 Exhibit 31# 28 Exhibit 32# 29 Exhibit 33# 30 Exhibit 34# 31 Exhibit 35# 32 Exhibit 42# 33 Exhibit 43# 34 Exhibit 44# 35 Exhibit 48# 36 Exhibit 49)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
654 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 575 MOTION to Certify Class (Illinois) MOTION to Certify Class (Illinois) Fluegel ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 16, Part 1# 14 Exhibit 16, Part 2# 15 Exhibit 16, Part 3# 16 Exhibit 16, Part 4# 17 Exhibit 18# 18 Exhibit 19# 19 Exhibit 20# 20 Exhibit 21# 21 Exhibit 22# 22 Exhibit 23# 23 Exhibit 26# 24 Exhibit 27# 25 Exhibit 29# 26 Exhibit 31# 27 Exhibit 32# 28 Exhibit 33# 29 Exhibit 36# 30 Exhibit 37)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
655 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 580 MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) Gennell ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 17# 16 Exhibit 22, Part 1# 17 Exhibit 22, Part 2# 18 Exhibit 22, Part 3# 19 Exhibit 22, Part 4# 20 Exhibit 23# 21 Exhibit 25# 22 Exhibit 27# 23 Exhibit 28# 24 Exhibit 32# 25 Exhibit 33)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
656 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 581 MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan) MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan) Currithers ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

267/498

5/8/2020
05/17/2007
05/23/2007 05/23/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 17# 13 Exhibit 18# 14 Exhibit 19# 15 Exhibit 20# 16 Exhibit 22# 17 Exhibit 23# 18 Exhibit 24# 19 Exhibit 26# 20 Exhibit 32# 21 Exhibit 33# 22 Exhibit 36# 23 Exhibit 39# 24 Exhibit 42, Part 1# 25 Exhibit 42, Part 2# 26 Exhibit 42, Part 3# 27 Exhibit 42, Part 4# 28 Exhibit 44# 29 Exhibit 45# 30 Exhibit 46# 31 Exhibit 47# 32 Exhibit 48# 33 Exhibit 49# 34 Exhibit 50# 35 Exhibit 51)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
657 MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation in Floyd, 3:06-cv-428-RLM-CAN (AL), Carlson et al., 3:05-cv-664-RLM-CAN (FL), Fluegel et al., 3:05-cv-529-RLM-CAN (IL), Currithers et al., 3:05-cv-532-RLM-CAN (MI), Lee et al., 3:05-cv-533-RLM-CAN (MN), Gray et al., 3:06-cv-337-RLM-CAN (MO), Gennell, Jr. et al., 3:05-cv-534-RLM-CAN (NH), Willis et al., 3:05-cv-597-RLMCAN (PA), Cooke et al., 3:05-cv-668-RLM-CAN (SC), and Larson et al., 3:05-cv-601RLM-CAN (WI) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
658 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey A Bartos on behalf of Terrance E Ellison Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00190-RLM(sdf) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
659 NOTICE of Appearance by Soye Kim on behalf of Terrance E Ellison Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00190-RLM(sdf) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
660 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of California Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
661 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Iowa Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Aaron Ver Steeg, Tim Johnson (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
662 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Indiana Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
663 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Kansas Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Dominic R Lupo, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Ronald Perry, Alan Pacheco (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
664 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Maryland Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Thomas Westcott (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
665 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
666 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of New Jersey Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Michael B Kilmartin, Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
667 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of New York Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

268/498

5/8/2020
05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007
05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007
05/29/2007 05/29/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
668 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Oregon Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Dennis McHenry, Jeremy Brinker, Edward Slayman (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
669 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of South Dakota Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
670 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
671 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
672 REPLY to Response to Motion re 561 MOTION to Certify Class of California Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] MOTION to Certify Class of California Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] ﬁled by Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
673 REPLY to Response to Motion re 554 MOTION to Certify Class of Iowa Plaintiffs ﬁled by Aaron Ver Steeg, Tim Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
674 REPLY to Response to Motion re 556 MOTION to Certify Class of Indiana Plaintiffs ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
675 REPLY to Response to Motion re 551 MOTION to Certify Class of Kansas Plaintiffs ﬁled by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Dominic R Lupo, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Ronald Perry, Alan Pacheco. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
676 REPLY to Response to Motion re 546 MOTION to Certify Class of Maryland Plaintiff Thomas Westcott ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
677 REPLY to Response to Motion re 563 MOTION to Certify Class of Massachusetts Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] MOTION to Certify Class of Massachusetts Plaintiffs [CORRECTED VERSION] ﬁled by Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

269/498

5/8/2020
05/29/2007
05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007
05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
678 REPLY to Response to Motion re 552 MOTION to Certify Class of New Jersey Plaintiffs ﬁled by Michael B Kilmartin(District of New Jersey 3:05cv2028), Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 2 Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix# 4 Index to Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
679 REPLY to Response to Motion re 548 MOTION to Certify Class of New York Plaintiffs ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
680 REPLY to Response to Motion re 557 MOTION to Certify Class of Oregon Plaintiffs ﬁled by Dennis McHenry, Jeremy Brinker, Edward Slayman. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
681 REPLY to Response to Motion re 555 MOTION to Certify Class of South Dakota Plaintiffs ﬁled by Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Fourth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
682 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 665 Notice of Manual Filing, 660 Notice of Manual Filing, 675 Reply to Response to Motion, 676 Reply to Response to Motion, 674 Reply to Response to Motion, 672 Reply to Response to Motion,, 668 Notice of Manual Filing, 663 Notice of Manual Filing, 673 Reply to Response to Motion, 671 Notice of Manual Filing, 677 Reply to Response to Motion, 662 Notice of Manual Filing, 680 Reply to Response to Motion, 678 Reply to Response to Motion, 661 Notice of Manual Filing, 669 Notice of Manual Filing, 679 Reply to Response to Motion, 681 Reply to Response to Motion, 667 Notice of Manual Filing, 666 Notice of Manual Filing, 670 Notice of Manual Filing, 664 Notice of Manual Filing (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
683 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR DAVID LEWIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE REPORTS OF JAY, CRANDALL & JEANNERET by FedEx Plaintiffs (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
684 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Report of Dr. Richard P. Jeanneret Offered in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation; Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof; Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support Thereof by FedEx Plaintiffs (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
685 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
686 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Report of Robert Crandall Offered in Oppos. to Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation; Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Report of Robert W. Cradall; Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Robert Crandall; Declaration of Paul Regan in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Defendant's Expert Report of Robert Crandall Offered in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

270/498

5/8/2020
05/29/2007
05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007 05/29/2007
05/30/2007 05/30/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/05/2007
06/07/2007 06/07/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Bernard Mondoza (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
687 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF PATRICIA A. BLOODGOOD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law# 2 Declaration of Patricia A. Bloodgood)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
689 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 687 Notice of Manual Filing, 685 Notice of Manual Filing, 688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
690 MOTION Exclude Expert Report of E. Deborah Jay by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Rudd, J) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
691 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of E. Deborah Jay by FedEx Plaintiffs (Rudd, J) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
692 AFFIDAVIT re 691 Notice of Manual Filing of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of E. Deborah Jay by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-E# 2 Exhibit F# 3 Exhibit G)(Rudd, J) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
693 NOTICE by Gregory Cooke(on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated) of Withdrawal of Appearance of Robert G. Rikard Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN(Rikard, Robert) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
694 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 690 MOTION Exclude Expert Report of E. Deborah Jay, 692 Afﬁdavit, 691 Notice of Manual Filing (Rudd, J) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
695 NOTICE by Terrance E Ellison of Withdrawal of Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN, 3:07-cv-00190-RLM(Kim, Soye) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
696 NOTICE by Terrance E Ellison of Plaintiff's List of Afﬁliated Companies and Counsel Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00190-RLM(Kim, Soye) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
697 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Plaintiff Terrance E Ellison. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00190-RLM(Kim, Soye) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
698 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; granting in part Plaintiffs' (630) Motion to strike certain documents. Response to Plaintiffs' "Omnibus Fact Memorandum" 606 and summary appendixes to the California and Kansas responses [610-2], [621-3] are STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/5/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
699 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 4, 6, 24, 26, 29, 33, 34, 37 and 43 to Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Harris (Arkansas) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
700 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Coleman

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

271/498

5/8/2020
06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007
06/07/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Kentucky) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation and Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 18, 32, 43, 45, 46, 53, 58, 59 and 61 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To the Coleman (Kentucky) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certiﬁcation Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
701 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 3, 5, 23, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46 and 49 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Fleming (Mississippi) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
702 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34 and 36 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Carlson (Montana) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
703 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 22, 24, 26, 33, 43, 45, 47 and 48 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Tierney (Rhode Island) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
704 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 29, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 50 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Smith (Tennessee) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
705 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 34, 41, 53, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 63 and 64 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Humphreys (Texas) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
706 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 51 and 57 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Gregory (Virginia) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
707 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 12, 16, 22, 25, 30, 31, 32 and 37 to its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Asbury (West Virginia) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
708 RESPONSE in Opposition re 603 MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) Harris ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 5# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 17# 16 Exhibit 18# 17 Exhibit 19# 18 Exhibit 20# 19 Exhibit 21# 20 Exhibit 22# 21 Exhibit 23# 22 Exhibit 25# 23 Exhibit 27# 24 Exhibit 28# 25 Exhibit 30# 26 Exhibit 31# 27 Exhibit 32# 28 Exhibit 35# 29 Exhibit 36# 30 Exhibit 38# 31 Exhibit 39# 32 Exhibit 40# 33 Exhibit 41# 34 Exhibit 42# 35 Exhibit 44# 36 Exhibit 45# 37 Exhibit 46# 38 Exhibit 47# 39 Exhibit 48# 40 Exhibit 49)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
709 RESPONSE in Opposition re 602 MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) Coleman ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 4# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 17# 16 Exhibit 19# 17 Exhibit 20# 18 Exhibit 21# 19 Exhibit 22# 20 Exhibit 23# 21 Exhibit 24# 22 Exhibit 25# 23 Exhibit 26# 24 Exhibit 27# 25 Exhibit 28# 26 Exhibit 29# 27 Exhibit

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

272/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
30# 28 Exhibit 31# 29 Exhibit 33# 30 Exhibit 34# 31 Exhibit 35# 32 Exhibit 36# 33 Exhibit 37# 34 Exhibit 38# 35 Exhibit 39# 36 Exhibit 40# 37 Exhibit 41# 38 Exhibit 42# 39 Exhibit 44# 40 Exhibit 47# 41 Exhibit 48# 42 Exhibit 49# 43 Exhibit 50# 44 Exhibit 51# 45 Exhibit 52# 46 Exhibit 54# 47 Exhibit 55# 48 Exhibit 56# 49 Exhibit 57# 50 Exhibit 60)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/07/2007

710 RESPONSE in Opposition re 598 MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) Fleming ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 4# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 17# 16 Exhibit 18# 17 Exhibit 19# 18 Exhibit 20# 19 Exhibit 21# 20 Exhibit 22# 21 Exhibit 24# 22 Exhibit 25# 23 Exhibit 26# 24 Exhibit 27# 25 Exhibit 28# 26 Exhibit 29# 27 Exhibit 30# 28 Exhibit 31# 29 Exhibit 32# 30 Exhibit 33# 31 Exhibit 35# 32 Exhibit 38# 33 Exhibit 40# 34 Exhibit 41# 35 Exhibit 45# 36 Exhibit 47# 37 Exhibit 48)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/07/2007

711 RESPONSE in Opposition re 600 MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) Carlson ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 5# 3 Exhibit 6# 4 Exhibit 7# 5 Exhibit 8# 6 Exhibit 9# 7 Exhibit 10# 8 Exhibit 11# 9 Exhibit 12# 10 Exhibit 13# 11 Exhibit 15# 12 Exhibit 16# 13 Exhibit 17# 14 Exhibit 18# 15 Exhibit 19# 16 Exhibit 20# 17 Exhibit 21# 18 Exhibit 22# 19 Exhibit 24# 20 Exhibit 27# 21 Exhibit 29# 22 Exhibit 31# 23 Exhibit 35)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/07/2007

712 RESPONSE in Opposition re 596 MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) Tierney ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 17# 16 Exhibit 18# 17 Exhibit 19# 18 Exhibit 20# 19 Exhibit 21# 20 Exhibit 23# 21 Exhibit 25# 22 Exhibit 27# 23 Exhibit 28# 24 Exhibit 29# 25 Exhibit 30# 26 Exhibit 31# 27 Exhibit 32# 28 Exhibit 34# 29 Exhibit 35# 30 Exhibit 36# 31 Exhibit 37# 32 Exhibit 38# 33 Exhibit 39# 34 Exhibit 40# 35 Exhibit 41# 36 Exhibit 42# 37 Exhibit 44# 38 Exhibit 46# 39 Exhibit 49# 40 Exhibit 50# 41 Exhibit 51# 42 Exhibit 52# 43 Exhibit 53) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/07/2007

713 RESPONSE in Opposition re 599 MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) Smith ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 8# 4 Exhibit 9# 5 Exhibit 10 - Part 1# 6 Exhibit 10 - Part 2# 7 Exhibit 10 - Part 3# 8 Exhibit 10 - Part 4# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 18# 16 Exhibit 19# 17 Exhibit 20# 18 Exhibit 21# 19 Exhibit 22# 20 Exhibit 23# 21 Exhibit 24# 22 Exhibit 25# 23 Exhibit 26# 24 Exhibit 27# 25 Exhibit 28# 26 Exhibit 30# 27 Exhibit 31# 28 Exhibit 32# 29 Exhibit 33# 30 Exhibit 34# 31 Exhibit 35# 32 Exhibit 36# 33 Exhibit 38# 34 Exhibit 41# 35 Exhibit 43# 36 Exhibit 44# 37 Exhibit 45# 38 Exhibit 46# 39 Exhibit 47# 40 Exhibit 48# 41 Exhibit 49)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/07/2007

714 RESPONSE in Opposition re 601 MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) Humphreys ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 6# 4 Exhibit 7# 5 Exhibit 8# 6 Exhibit 9# 7 Exhibit 10# 8 Exhibit 11# 9 Exhibit 12# 10 Exhibit 13# 11 Exhibit 14# 12 Exhibit 15# 13 Exhibit 16# 14 Exhibit 17# 15 Exhibit 18# 16 Exhibit 24 - Part 1# 17 Exhibit 24 - Part 2# 18 Exhibit 24 - Part 3# 19 Exhibit 24 - Part 4# 20 Exhibit 25# 21 Exhibit 26# 22 Exhibit 27# 23 Exhibit 29#

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

273/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
24 Exhibit 30# 25 Exhibit 31# 26 Exhibit 32# 27 Exhibit 33# 28 Exhibit 35# 29 Exhibit 36# 30 Exhibit 37# 31 Exhibit 38# 32 Exhibit 39# 33 Exhibit 40# 34 Exhibit 42# 35 Exhibit 43# 36 Exhibit 44# 37 Exhibit 45# 38 Exhibit 46# 39 Exhibit 47# 40 Exhibit 48# 41 Exhibit 49# 42 Exhibit 50# 43 Exhibit 51# 44 Exhibit 52# 45 Exhibit 54# 46 Exhibit 57# 47 Exhibit 58# 48 Exhibit 62# 49 Exhibit 65)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/07/2007

715 RESPONSE in Opposition re 597 MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) Gregory ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit 7# 4 Exhibit 8# 5 Exhibit 9# 6 Exhibit 10# 7 Exhibit 11# 8 Exhibit 12# 9 Exhibit 13# 10 Exhibit 14# 11 Exhibit 18 - Part 1# 12 Exhibit 18 - Part 2# 13 Exhibit 18 - Part 3# 14 Exhibit 18 - Part 4# 15 Exhibit 19# 16 Exhibit 20# 17 Exhibit 24# 18 Exhibit 25# 19 Exhibit 26# 20 Exhibit 27# 21 Exhibit 28# 22 Exhibit 29# 23 Exhibit 30# 24 Exhibit 33# 25 Exhibit 34# 26 Exhibit 35# 27 Exhibit 36# 28 Exhibit 37# 29 Exhibit 38# 30 Exhibit 39# 31 Exhibit 43# 32 Exhibit 44# 33 Exhibit 45# 34 Exhibit 48# 35 Exhibit 49# 36 Exhibit 50# 37 Exhibit 52# 38 Exhibit 53# 39 Exhibit 54# 40 Exhibit 55# 41 Exhibit 56# 42 Exhibit 58# 43 Exhibit 59)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/07/2007

716 RESPONSE in Opposition re 595 MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) Asbury ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 5# 4 Exhibit 6# 5 Exhibit 7# 6 Exhibit 8# 7 Exhibit 9# 8 Exhibit 10# 9 Exhibit 11# 10 Exhibit 13# 11 Exhibit 14# 12 Exhibit 15# 13 Exhibit 17# 14 Exhibit 18# 15 Exhibit 19# 16 Exhibit 20# 17 Exhibit 21# 18 Exhibit 23# 19 Exhibit 24# 20 Exhibit 26# 21 Exhibit 27# 22 Exhibit 28# 23 Exhibit 29# 24 Exhibit 33# 25 Exhibit 34# 26 Exhibit 35# 27 Exhibit 36# 28 Exhibit 38# 29 Exhibit 39 - Part 1# 30 Exhibit 39 - Part 2# 31 Exhibit 39 - Part 3# 32 Exhibit 39 - Part 4)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/07/2007

717 MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs Motions For Class Certiﬁcation in Harris et al., 3:06-cv-209(AK); Smith et al., 3:05-cv-600 (TN); Coleman et al., 3:05-cv666(KY); Humphreys et al., 3:05-cv-540 (TX); Fleming et al., 3:05-cv-593 (MS); Gregory et al., 3:05-cv-541 (VA); Carlson et al., 3:06-cv-393 (MT); Tierney et al., 3:05cv-599 (RI); and Asbury et al., 3:06-cv-826 (WV) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/07/2007)

06/08/2007

718 REPLY to Response to Motion re (657 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation in Floyd, 3:06cv-428-RLM-CAN (AL), Carlson et al., 3:05-cv-664-RLM-CAN (FL), Fluegel et al., 3:05-cv-529-RLM-CAN (IL), Currithers et al., 3:05-cv-532-RLM-CAN (MI) MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation in Floyd, 3:06cv-428-RLM-CAN (AL), Carlson et al., 3:05-cv-664-RLM-CAN (FL), Fluegel et al., 3:05-cv-529-RLM-CAN (IL), Currithers et al., 3:05-cv-532-RLM-CAN (MI) MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation in Floyd, 3:06cv-428-RLM-CAN (AL), Carlson et al., 3:05-cv-664-RLM-CAN (FL), Fluegel et al., 3:05-cv-529-RLM-CAN (IL), Currithers et al., 3:05-cv-532-RLM-CAN (MI), (717 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs Motions For Class Certiﬁcation in Harris et al., 3:06-cv-209(AK); Smith et al., 3:05-cv-600 (TN); Coleman et al., 3:05-cv-666(KY); Humphreys et al., 3:05-cv-540 (TX); Fleming et al., 3:05-cv-593 (MS); Gr MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs Motions For Class Certiﬁcation in Harris et al., 3:06-cv-209(AK); Smith et al., 3:05-cv-600 (TN); Coleman et al., 3:05-cv-666(KY); Humphreys et al., 3:05-cv-540 (TX); Fleming et al., 3:05-cv-593 (MS); Gr (Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motions For Class Certiﬁcation) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/08/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

274/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

06/08/2007

719 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Amend the Case Schedule and Memorandum in Support of the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend the Case Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/08/2007)

06/08/2007

720 MEMORANDUM in Support of 719 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Amend the Case Schedule and Memorandum in Support of the Parties' Joint Motion to Amend the Case Scheduling Order FEDEX Ground's Supplemental Position Statement in Support of Amending the Case Scheduling Order and Vacating Current Expert Discovery Deadlines ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/08/2007)

06/08/2007

721 STATEMENT Plaintiffs' Supplemental Position Statement in Support of Resetting Current Expert Discovery Deadlines as Jointly Agreed and In Opposition to FEDEX's Position that they Should be Indeﬁnitely Vacated. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/08/2007)

06/08/2007

722 Proposed Pretrial Order Proposed Order Amending the Case Schedule by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/08/2007)

06/08/2007

723 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/08/2007)

06/08/2007

724 STATEMENT FEDEX Ground's Supplemental Position Statement in Support of Amending the Case Scheduling Order and Vacating Current Expert Discovery Deadlines. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/08/2007)

06/11/2007

725 MOTION to Amend/Correct (REVISED) JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

06/11/2007

726 MEMORANDUM in Support of 725 MOTION to Amend/Correct (REVISED) JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE MOTION to Amend/Correct (REVISED) JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE (REVISED) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULING ORDER ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Attachments: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERV ICE)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

06/11/2007

727 STATEMENT (REVISED) FEDEX GROUND'S SUPPLEMENTAL POSITION STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMENDING THE CASE SCHEDULING ORDER AND VACATING CURRENT EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINES ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

275/498

5/8/2020
06/12/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
728 STATEMENT FedEx Ground's Supplemental Position Statement in Support of Amending the Case Scheduling Order and Vacating Current Expert Discovery Deadlines. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
729 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Alabama Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Tina Floyd (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
730 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Florida Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by David R Mosher, Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
731 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Illinois Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
732 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Michigan Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
733 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Minnesota Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
734 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Missouri Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
735 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Donald Swazey, Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker, Robert Gennell Jr, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
736 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Pennsylvania Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Derek D Willis (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
737 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of South Carolina Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
738 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Darren Zabrocki, Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
739 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
740 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

276/498

5/8/2020
06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007
06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007
06/18/2007 06/18/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
741 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton in Support of Michigan Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
742 REPLY to Response to Motion re 583 MOTION to Certify Class (Alabama) MOTION to Certify Class (Alabama) ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Attachments: # 1 Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
743 REPLY to Response to Motion re 584 MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) ﬁled by Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, David R Mosher(Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1751). (Attachments: # 1 Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
744 REPLY to Response to Motion re 575 MOTION to Certify Class (Illinois) MOTION to Certify Class (Illinois) ﬁled by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly. (Attachments: # 1 Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
745 REPLY to Response to Motion re 581 MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan) MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan) ﬁled by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake. (Attachments: # 1 Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix# 4 Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
746 REPLY to Response to Motion re 576 MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) ﬁled by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey. (Attachments: # 1 Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
747 REPLY to Response to Motion re 577 MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) ﬁled by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker. (Attachments: # 1 Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
748 REPLY to Response to Motion re 580 MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) ﬁled by Donald Swazey, Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker, Robert Gennell Jr, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio. (Attachments: # 1 Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
749 REPLY to Response to Motion re 579 MOTION to Certify Class (Pennsylvania) MOTION to Certify Class (Pennsylvania) ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Attachments: # 1 Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
750 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Filing Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Dr. Richard Jeanneret [Docket #684]; Declaration of Linda Kwak in Support of Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Dr. Richard Jeanneret [Docket #684]; and Declaration of P. Richard Jeanneret, Ph.D. in Support of Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs'

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

277/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Dr. Richard Jeanneret [Docket #684] Under Seal (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

751 REPLY to Response to Motion re 578 MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588). (Attachments: # 1 Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

752 REPLY to Response to Motion re 582 MOTION to Certify Class (Wisconsin) MOTION to Certify Class (Wisconsin) ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki(Western District of Wisconsin). (Attachments: # 1 Fifth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Fifth Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

753 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibit A to the Declaration of Nora M. Puckett Submitted in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Robert Crandall [Docket #686]; and Exhibit B to the Declaration of Nora M. Puckett Submitted in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Robert Crandall [Docket #686] Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

754 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibit A to the Declaration of Chris Hollinger in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Report of E. Deborah Jay [Docket # 690] Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

755 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 743 Reply to Response to Motion, 737 Notice of Manual Filing, 752 Reply to Response to Motion, 734 Notice of Manual Filing, 746 Reply to Response to Motion, 731 Notice of Manual Filing, 742 Reply to Response to Motion, 736 Notice of Manual Filing, 739 Notice of Manual Filing, 751 Reply to Response to Motion, 748 Reply to Response to Motion, 733 Notice of Manual Filing, 745 Reply to Response to Motion, 740 Notice of Manual Filing, 729 Notice of Manual Filing, 747 Reply to Response to Motion, 738 Notice of Manual Filing, 730 Notice of Manual Filing, 741 Notice of Manual Filing, 749 Reply to Response to Motion, 735 Notice of Manual Filing, 732 Notice of Manual Filing, 744 Reply to Response to Motion, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

756 MOTION re 688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS Second Wave by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Patricia A. Bloodgood# 2 Exhibit 1)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

757 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 756 MOTION re 688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS Second Wave (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

758 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Robert Crandall in Support of Defendant FedEx Ground Package, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Robert Crandall [Docket #686] Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

759 RESPONSE by FedEx Ground to 686 Notice of Manual Filing,, Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude The Expert Report of Robert Crandall. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nora M. Puckett)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

760 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 690 MOTION Exclude Expert Report of E. Deborah Jay ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 2

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

278/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Supplemental Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 3 Exhibit A to Supplemental Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 4 Exhibit B to Supplemental Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 5 Exhibit C to Supplemental Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 6 Exhibit D to Supplemental Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 7 Exhibit E to Supplemental Declaration of Chris Hollinger)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

761 RESPONSE by FedEx Ground to 685 Notice of Manual Filing in Opposition of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Contractor Declarations. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Tim Edmonds# 2 Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 8 Exhibit G to Declaration of Chris Hollinger# 9 Exhibit H to Declaration of Chris Hollinger)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/19/2007

762 NOTICE of Change of Address by James R Mulroy, II and Withdrawal of Lewis Fisher Henderson & Claxton, LLP from Representation (Mulroy, James) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

06/21/2007

763 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Motion to Substitute Crandall Declaration Under Seal by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 06/21/2007)

06/21/2007

764 ORDER granting (697),(7) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/21/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00190-RLM(sdf) (Entered: 06/21/2007)

06/21/2007

765 AMENDED COMPLAINT, ﬁled by Terrance E Ellison, TEE One Enterprises LLC.(sdf) (Entered: 06/21/2007)

06/29/2007

766 ORDER : Motion 719 is denied as moot, Motion 725 is granted in part. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/29/07. (sdf) (Entered: 06/29/2007)

06/29/2007

767 RECEIPT of cover letter. (Attachments: # 1 AZ docket sheet)Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00272-RLM(sdf) (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/02/2007

768 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of MEMORANDUM in Support of 690 MOTION Exclude Expert Report of E. Deborah Jay Reply Memorandum ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Rudd, J) Text Modiﬁed on 7/3/2007 (jld). (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/02/2007

770 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Strike or Exclude Declarations Submitted by Defendant by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/02/2007

771 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Third Declaration of Patricia A. Bloodgood and Exhibits 1 through 6 In Support of Plaintiffs' Motions to Strike or Exclude Declarations of Purported "Contractors" Submitted by Defendant by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/02/2007

772 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of REPLY to Response to Motion re 688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Third Declaration of Patricia A. Bloodgood# 2 Exhibits 1 through 6)(Ellingstad, Susan) text Modiﬁed on 7/3/2007 (jld). (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/02/2007

773 MOTION re 688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS Third Wave by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Third Declaration of Patricia A. Bloodgood# 2 Exhibits 1 through 6)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/02/2007 774 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 773 MOTION re 688 MOTION

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

279/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS Third Wave, 771 Notice of Manual Filing, 770 Notice of Manual Filing, 772 Reply to Response to Motion (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/02/2007

775 REPLY to Response to Motion re 688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Dr Richard Jeanneret ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Doug Norman) (Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 7/3/2007 to correct the Expert Report title). (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/02/2007

776 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 775 Reply to Response to Motion, (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/02/2007

777 REPLY to Response to Motion re 688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Robert Crandall ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/02/2007)

07/03/2007

778 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 768 Memorandum in Support, 769 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion, (Rudd, J) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/03/2007

779 RESPONSE in Opposition re 688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS Opposition to FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Motion to Substitute Crandall Declaration ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/03/2007

780 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Supplement Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Dr. Richard Jeanneret by FedEx Plaintiffs (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/03/2007

781 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Supplement Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Robert Crandall by FedEx Plaintiffs (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/06/2007

783 RESPONSE in Opposition re 756 MOTION re 688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS Second Wave ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Hollinger Declaration)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

07/09/2007

784 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Arkansas Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by David Harris (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

07/09/2007

785 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Kentucky Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

07/09/2007

786 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Mississippi Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by L C Bell Jr, Rita King, Natasha Quimby, Kenneth Steed, Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

07/09/2007

787 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Montana Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

07/09/2007

788 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

280/498

5/8/2020
07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007
07/09/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Roland Guillet (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
789 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Tennessee Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Robert Erbentraut (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
790 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Texas Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
791 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Virginia Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
792 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of West Virginia Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
793 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Omnibus Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
794 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Sixth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
795 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
796 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
797 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
798 NOTICE of Motion Hearing on the following documents, #684, 686 and 690; Motions Hearing set for 7/24/2007 02:00 PM in South Bend before Chief Judge Robert L Miller Jr. (arl) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
799 ANSWER to 765 Amended Complaint in Ellison 3-07-cv-190 (MD) by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
800 REPLY to Response to Motion re 603 MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) ﬁled by David Harris. (Attachments: # 1 Omnibus Reply Memorandum# 2 Sixth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 4 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 5 Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix# 6 Index to Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
801 REPLY to Response to Motion re 602 MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) ﬁled by John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders. (Attachments: # 1 Omnibus Reply Memorandum# 2 Sixth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Declaration of Lynn

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

281/498

5/8/2020
07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007
07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/09/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Rossman Faris# 4 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 5 Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix# 6 Index to Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
802 REPLY to Response to Motion re 598 MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) ﬁled by L C Bell Jr, Rita King, Natasha Quimby, Kenneth Steed, Theodore Fleming Jr, Jeffrey Carter. (Attachments: # 1 Omnibus Reply Memorandum# 2 Sixth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 4 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 5 Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix# 6 Index to Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
803 REPLY to Response to Motion re 600 MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) ﬁled by Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa. (Attachments: # 1 Omnibus Reply Memorandum# 2 Sixth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 4 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 5 Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix# 6 Index to Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
804 REPLY to Response to Motion re 596 MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) ﬁled by Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Roland Guillet. (Attachments: # 1 Omnibus Reply Memorandum# 2 Sixth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 4 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 5 Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix# 6 Index to Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
805 REPLY to Response to Motion re 599 MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) ﬁled by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Robert Erbentraut. (Attachments: # 1 Omnibus Reply Memorandum# 2 Sixth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 4 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 5 Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix# 6 Index to Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
806 REPLY to Response to Motion re 601 MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) ﬁled by John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon. (Attachments: # 1 Omnibus Reply Memorandum# 2 Sixth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 4 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 5 Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix# 6 Index to Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
807 REPLY to Response to Motion re 597 MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) ﬁled by Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory. (Attachments: # 1 Omnibus Reply Memorandum# 2 Sixth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 4 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 5 Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix# 6 Index to Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
808 REPLY to Response to Motion re 595 MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Omnibus Reply Memorandum# 2 Sixth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 4 Declaration of Jerald R. Cureton# 5 Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix# 6 Index to Plaintiffs' Sixth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
809 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 806 Reply to Response to Motion,,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

282/498

5/8/2020
07/09/2007 07/11/2007 07/13/2007 07/13/2007 07/16/2007 07/17/2007 07/19/2007 07/20/2007 07/23/2007 07/26/2007 07/27/2007 08/01/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
786 Notice of Manual Filing, 785 Notice of Manual Filing, 792 Notice of Manual Filing, 791 Notice of Manual Filing, 793 Notice of Manual Filing, 784 Notice of Manual Filing, 796 Notice of Manual Filing, 803 Reply to Response to Motion, 797 Notice of Manual Filing, 788 Notice of Manual Filing, 789 Notice of Manual Filing, 795 Notice of Manual Filing, 794 Notice of Manual Filing, 801 Reply to Response to Motion,, 804 Reply to Response to Motion,, 802 Reply to Response to Motion,, 787 Notice of Manual Filing, 790 Notice of Manual Filing, 808 Reply to Response to Motion, 807 Reply to Response to Motion, 805 Reply to Response to Motion, 800 Reply to Response to Motion, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
810 AFFIDAVIT Plaintiffs' Offer of Proof in Rebuttal to Fedex's Driver Declarations by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Part 1# 2 Exhibit A Part 2# 3 Exhibit A Part 3# 4 Exhibit A Part 4# 5 Exhibit B)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
811 RECEIPT of record from USDC Northern District of Alabama. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00191-RLM(ksc) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
812 MOTION to Continue Request to Re-Schedule Hearing set on 7/24/07 by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
813 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 812 MOTION to Continue Request to Re-Schedule Hearing set on 7/24/07 (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
814 ORDER granting FedEx's 763 Motion to substitute the Declaration of Robert Crandall 759 . Clerk is to replace the declaration of Robert Crandall with the declaration attached to FedEx Gound's motion ti substitute. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 7/16/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
815 ORDER granting 812 Motion to Continue Hearing. Motion Hearing reset for 8/20/2007 01:30 PM in South Bend before Judge Robert L Miller Jr.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 7/17/07. (sdf) Modiﬁed on 7/20/2007 to add link to motion (jld). (Entered: 07/19/2007)
816 Mail Returned from Attorney Robert E. McDaniel as Undeliverable - ( 72 in 3:05-cv00534-RLM-CAN, 766 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) Order on Motion to Amend Case Schedule. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLMCAN(ksc) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
817 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 773 MOTION re 688 MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE DECLARATIONS OF PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS Third Wave ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 (Hollinger Decl. III))(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
818 OPINION AND ORDER granting 688 Plaintiff's motion to strike FedEx's declarations ﬁled with its responses in opposition to class certiﬁcation. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 7/23/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
819 RECEIPT of copy of COMPLAINT from USDC/OR (Portland). Associated Cases: 3:07-cv-00328-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
820 OBJECTION by FedEx Ground EVIDENTIARY OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT B OF PLAINTIFFS JULY 9, 2007 OFFER OF PROOF (ATTORNEY AFFIDAVITS OF ALANNA COOPERSMITH, VICTORIA KIES GAROUKIAN, PHYLLIS NORMAN, AND JENNIFER TATUM). (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
821 MOTION to Amend/Correct Unopposed Motion to Amend the Case Schedule by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

283/498

5/8/2020
08/01/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/10/2007 08/16/2007 08/17/2007 08/17/2007 08/20/2007
08/20/2007
08/20/2007 08/20/2007
08/20/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
822 MEMORANDUM in Support of 821 MOTION to Amend/Correct Unopposed Motion to Amend the Case Schedule ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
823 MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Declarations of Putative Class Members by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
824 MEMORANDUM in Support of 823 MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Declarations of Putative Class Members ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
825 MOTION to toll statute of limitations by Plaintiff Troy Givens. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00324-RLM-CAN(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
826 BRIEF Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice of the Court of Appeal's Published Decision in Estrada v. Fedex Ground, Case No. B189031. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
827 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINT (NV) by Plaintiff Michael Decesare. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proposed Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
828 APPLICATION for Attorney Andrew J Kahn to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs ; Receipt #3337193. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv00120-RLM(sdf) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
829 NOTICE by Clarence Dalcour, Troy Givens of the Filing of Consent Forms of Wesley C. Martin, Devon Nugent, Melissa Rohman, and Ralph Carl Veal (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Notice of Consent of Wesley C. Martin# 2 Exhibit B - Notice of Consent of Devon Nugent# 3 Exhibit C - Notice of Consent of Melissa Rohman# 4 Exhibit D - Notice of Consent of Ralph Carl Veal)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv00324-RLM-CAN(DeRose, Robert) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
830 MOTION HEARING held on 8/20/2007 in re document numbers 684, 686 and 690 before Chief Judge Robert L Miller Jr.: counsel present; Plaintiffs appeared by attys Lynn Faris, Gordon Rudd, Robert Harwood, Susan Ellingstad and John Hamilton; Dfts appeared by atty John Beisner, Robert Schwartz, Thomas Brunner, Jr. and Alison Fox; court hears arguments from counsel; motions taken under advisement. (Court Reporter D. Bonk.) Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(arl) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
832 ORDER granting (827) Motion to ﬁle an Amended Complaint.Amended Complaint to be ﬁled by 8/30/2007.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 8/20/07. Associated Cases: 3:07-cv-00120-RLM(sdf) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
833 ORDER : FedEx Motion 821 is granted in part. Movants to serve expert reports or afﬁdavits by 11/30/07; Opponents shall haved to 1/18/08 to depose such experts; Opponents shall have to 1/31/08 to serve expert reports or afﬁdavits they wish to reply upon. Depositions of experts must take part by 2/15/08. Motions for Summary Judgment to be ﬁled by 3/14/08; Responses by 4/30/08; Replies by 5/30/08. In-court hearing set 10/9/08 at 10:00 AM (Eastern time). Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 8/20/07. Associated Cases: 3:05cv390(sdf) Modiﬁed on 8/22/2007 to add hearing date (jld). (Entered: 08/21/2007)
Set Hearings: with in court hearing to be held on 10/9/2008 at 10:00 AM at South Bend before Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

284/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
RLM-CAN et al.(jld) (Entered: 08/22/2007)

08/21/2007

831 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Plaintiff Genaro Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Class Action Complaint)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00325-RLM-CAN(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 08/21/2007)

08/21/2007

834 AMENDED COMPLAINT (NV) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Michael Decesare, Michael Meno.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/21/2007)

08/22/2007

835 ORDER granting (18) Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Andrew J Kahn PHV for Michael Decesare and Michael Meno in case 3:07-cv-00120-RLM. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 8/22/07. (sdf) (Entered: 08/22/2007)

08/22/2007

836 AMENDED ORDER:Movants expert report or afﬁdavits re summary judgment to be served by 11/30/07, Opponents to depose such experts by 1/18/08, expert reports or afﬁdavits they wish to rely upon to be ﬁled by 1/31/08, Depositions of opponents' experts must take place by 2/15/08. Summary Judgment motions to be ﬁled by 3/14/08, responses to be ﬁled by 4/30/08, replies to be ﬁled by 5/30/08. In-court hearing is set for 10/9/07 at 10:00am before Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 8/22/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

08/24/2007

837 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 8/20/07 before Judge Robert L Miller Jr. Court Reporter: Debra J Bonk. (sdf) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

08/24/2007

838 NOTICE by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson Plaintiffs' Request for Clariﬁcation of the Court's Order of August 23, 2007 Regarding Merits' Experts Discovery (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 08/24/2007)

08/27/2007

839 ANSWER to Complaint in Farrell 3-07-CV-327 (NJ) by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 08/27/2007)

08/27/2007

840 RESPONSE in Opposition re 823 MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Declarations of Putative Class Members ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/27/2007)

08/27/2007

841 ORDER denying 831 Motion to Amend/Correct in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN; denying (7) Motion to Amend/Correct in case 3:07-cv-00325-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 8/27/07. (sdf) Modiﬁed on 8/29/2007 to correct link (jld). (Entered: 08/28/2007)

08/28/2007

842 MOTION to Amend/Correct (1 in 3:07-cv-00325-RLM-CAN) Case Transferred In District Transfer, by Plaintiff Genaro Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00325-RLM-CAN(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 08/28/2007)

08/28/2007

843 RESPONSE in Opposition re 825 MOTION to toll statute of limitations ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Chris A. Hollinger)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 08/28/2007)

08/29/2007

844 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 838 Motion for Clariﬁcation or Modiﬁcation of Court's Order. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 8/29/07. (sdf) (Entered: 08/29/2007)

08/29/2007 845 ORDER granting Plaintiff Vargas'(842) Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

285/498

5/8/2020
08/30/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007
09/10/2007
09/12/2007
09/14/2007
09/17/2007 09/18/2007 09/19/2007 09/19/2007 09/19/2007 09/19/2007 09/21/2007
09/21/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Christopher A Nuechterlein on 8/29/07. Associated Cases: 3:07-cv-00325-RLMCAN(sdf) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
846 AMENDED COMPLAINT (MA) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Andy Parker, Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Ya Vang, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, Ernest Neal, III, Genaro Vargas.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
847 ANSWER to Complaint DeCesare (3-07-cv-120) (Nevada) Amended Class Action Complaint by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
848 REPLY to Response to Motion re 823 MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Declarations of Putative Class Members ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Chris A. Hollinger in Support of Reply) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
849 MOTION for Hearing Request for Oral Argument on FedEx Ground's Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declarations of Putative Class Members by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
850 REPLY to Response to Motion re (6 in 3:07-cv-00324-RLM-CAN, 825 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Toll Statute of Limitations ﬁled by Troy Givens. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00324-RLM-CAN(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
851 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 849 MOTION for Hearing Request for Oral Argument on FedEx Ground's Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declarations of Putative Class Members ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
852 ANSWER to 846 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
853 ANSWER to Complaint of Juan Dominguez by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
854 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint (VT). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
855 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint (GA). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
856 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 854 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint (VT), 855 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint (GA) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
857 MOTION To Strike Late-Filed Givens Plaintiffs Reply Brief In Support Of Motion To Equitably Toll The Statutory Requirements Of 29 U.S.C. § 255(A) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
858 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 857 MOTION To Strike Late-Filed Givens Plaintiffs Reply Brief In Support Of Motion To Equitably Toll The Statutory Requirements Of 29 U.S.C. § 255(A) ﬁled by Troy Givens, Clarence Dalcour. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Exhibit A - Notice of Electronic Filing)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
859 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Troy Givens, Clarence Dalcour re 858 Memorandum in Opposition, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/21/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

286/498

5/8/2020
09/24/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
860 ORDER granting 854 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/24/07. Associated Cases: 3:07-cv-00412-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 09/24/2007)

09/24/2007

861 ORDER granting 855 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/24/07. Associated Cases: 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 09/24/2007)

09/25/2007

862 AMENDED COMPLAINT (GA) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Daniel Emrick, Hadi Tresna, Ernest White.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/25/2007)

09/25/2007

863 AMENDED COMPLAINT (VT) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Kevin Draper, Jeremy MacDonald, Frank Gruhn, Kristi Gruhn.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/25/2007)

09/25/2007

864 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 862 Amended Complaint, 863 Amended Complaint (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/25/2007)

10/01/2007

865 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

10/01/2007

866 MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona).Response to be ﬁled by 10/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Arizona Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Seventh Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Index of Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 4 Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

10/01/2007

867 MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut).Response to be ﬁled by 10/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Connecticut Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Seventh Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 4 Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

10/01/2007

868 MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) by Plaintiffs Ernest White, Daniel Emrick.Response to be ﬁled by 10/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Georgia Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Seventh Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 4 Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 5 Declaration of Plaintiff Ernest White)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

10/01/2007

869 MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina).Response to be ﬁled by 10/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 North Carolina Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Seventh Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 4 Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 5 Declaration of Plaintiff Darrell L. Jenkins# 6 Declaration of Plaintiff Louis Wallace# 7 Declaration of Plaintiff Lawrence Aubrey Wilson)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

10/01/2007

870 MOTION to Certify Class (Nevada) by Plaintiffs Michael Decesare, Michael Meno.Response to be ﬁled by 10/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Nevada Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Seventh Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 4 Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

10/01/2007

871 MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon).Response to be ﬁled by 10/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Leighter Oregon Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Seventh Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Index of Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 4 Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 5 Declaration of Plaintiff Jon Leighter# 6 Declaration of Plaintiff David Spicer) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

10/01/2007

872 MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont) by Plaintiffs Frank Gruhn, Kevin Draper, Jeremy MacDonald.Response to be ﬁled by 10/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Vermont Plaintiffs'

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

287/498

5/8/2020
10/01/2007 10/01/2007
10/01/2007
10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Memorandum of Law# 2 Seventh Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 4 Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 5 Declaration of Plaintiff Kevin Draper# 6 Declaration of Plaintiff Jeremy MacDonald)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
873 MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) by Plaintiffs Troy Givens, Clarence Dalcour.Response to be ﬁled by 10/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Seventh Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 4 Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 5 Declaration of Wesley Martin# 6 Declaration of Carl Veal)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
874 MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) by Plaintiffs Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Ya Vang, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, Ernest Neal, III, Genaro Vargas.Response to be ﬁled by 10/19/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Vargas Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law# 2 Seventh Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 4 Plaintiffs' Seventh Appendix# 5 Declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan# 6 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan# 7 Declaration of Plaintiff Tim Ketterhagen# 8 Declaration of Plaintiff Ernest Neal III# 9 Declaration of Plaintiff Jeff Smith# 10 Declaration of Plaintiff Ya Vang# 11 Declaration of Plaintiff Michael Vosbein# 12 Declaration of Plaintiff Michael Wise)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
875 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 870 MOTION to Certify Class (Nevada) MOTION to Certify Class (Nevada), 872 MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont) MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont), 869 MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina), 867 MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut) MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut), 874 MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas), 871 MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon) MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon), 866 MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona) MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona), 873 MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA), 868 MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
876 MOTION to Supplement Evidentiary Record by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
877 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 876 MOTION to Supplement Evidentiary Record (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
878 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
879 MEMORANDUM in Support of 878 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
880 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 878 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) Declaration of Lynn

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

288/498

5/8/2020
10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007
10/01/2007 10/03/2007 10/03/2007 10/03/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Rossman Faris in Support ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
881 MOTION for Leave to File 3rd Amended and Supplemental Complaint by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
882 MOTION for Discovery ExParte Application for Leave to Re-Open on Limited Basis and Memo of Law by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
883 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 882 MOTION for Discovery ExParte Application for Leave to Re-Open on Limited Basis and Memo of Law, 881 MOTION for Leave to File 3rd Amended and Supplemental Complaint, 878 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) Drivers Declarations in Support ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
884 MOTION for Leave to File (Part 2) 3rd Amended and Supplemental Complaint by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
885 MOTION for Discovery Ex Parte Application for Leave to Re-Open on Limited Basis and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
886 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion in re (878 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 10/9/2007 01:30 PM in South Bend before Chief Judge Robert L Miller Jr. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN et al.(arl) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
887 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 882 MOTION for Discovery ExParte Application for Leave to Re-Open on Limited Basis and Memo of Law, 881 MOTION for Leave to File 3rd Amended and Supplemental Complaint, 878 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) Additional Drivers' Declarations in Support ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

289/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/03/2007)

10/03/2007

888 DELCARATION of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Applications for Temporary Restraining Order and OSC Re Preliminary Injunction, Leave to File 3rd Amended and Supplemental Complaint, and Leave to Reopen Discovery (Attachments: (1) Exhibit B# 2 Exhibit C# 3 Exhibit D# 4 Exhibit E# 5 Exhibit F'# 6 Exhibit G# 7 Exhibit H# 8 Exhiit I# 9 Exhibit J)Exhibit A is on Disk(sdf) (Entered: 10/04/2007)

10/05/2007

889 RESPONSE in Opposition re 878 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Mannion Declaration - Part 1# 2 Mannion Declaration - Part 2# 3 Schwartz Declaration)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/05/2007)

10/05/2007

890 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 882 MOTION for Discovery ExParte Application for Leave to Re-Open on Limited Basis and Memo of Law ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Schwartz Declaration)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/05/2007)

10/05/2007

891 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 882 MOTION for Discovery ExParte Application for Leave to Re-Open on Limited Basis and Memo of Law, 881 MOTION for Leave to File 3rd Amended and Supplemental Complaint, 878 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) ADDITIONAL DRIVERS' DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND OSC, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 3RD AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Attachments: # 1 POS)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/05/2007)

10/05/2007

892 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson re: Additional Drivers' Declarations in Support ﬁled 10.3.07 (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/05/2007)

10/05/2007

893 AFFIDAVIT in Support ADDITIONAL DRIVER'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND OSC, EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/05/2007)

10/08/2007

894 REPLY to Response to Motion re 878 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B - Part One# 4 Exhibit B - Part Two# 5 Exhibit B - Part Three# 6 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/08/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

290/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

10/09/2007

895 HEARING held on 10/9/2007 before Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein. Pla appeared by atty L Faris, J Hamilton, S Ellingstad, R Harwood. Dft appeared by atty R Schwartz, V H Jih, A Fox, T Brunner Jr. (Court Reporter Joanne Hoffman.) (slm) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007

896 First Amended ANSWER to Complaint Amended Class Action Complaint in Vargas (MA) by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/09/2007)

10/09/2007

897 MOTION HEARING held on 10/9/2007 in re (878 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order & Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction (ExParte) ﬁled by Dean Alexander, Agostino Scalercio, Gupertino Magana, Bernard Mendoza, Dean Wiley, Peter Allen, Suzanne Andrade, Jorge Isla, Allan Ross, Albert Anaya, Anthony Ybarra, Paul Infantino, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Joey Rodriguez, Eric Jepson, Dale Rose, Jesse Padilla before Chief Judge Robert L Miller Jr.; counsel present; Pltfs appeared by attys Beth Ross, Lynn R. Faris, Susan Ellingstad, Robert Harwood and John Hamilton; Dfts appeared by attys Robert Schwartz, Victor Jih, Thomas Brunner, Jr. and Alison Fox.; arguments heard; motion taken under advisement; (Court Reporter D. Bonk.) Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(arl) (Entered: 10/10/2007)

10/09/2007

898 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; granting Plaintiffs' 881 , 884 Motions to amend. Dispositive motions to be ﬁled by 3/14/2008, Response to be ﬁled by 4/30/2008, Reply in support of to be ﬁled by 5/30/08. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 10/9/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 10/10/2007)

10/11/2007

899 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/11/2007)

10/12/2007

900 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Initial Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint in White (GA) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/12/2007)

10/12/2007

901 OPINION AND ORDER denying 878 Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 10/12/07. (ksc) (Lee, Tony). Modiﬁed on 10/29/2007 (Lee, Tony) (substituting document with the correct document). (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/15/2007

902 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 32, 35. 37, 39, 40, 41, 46, 48, 56, 61, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 75, 76, 77, 78 Under Seal to its Motion to Correct Record by FedEx Ground (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/15/2007

903 MOTION to Correct Record by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit 18# 19 Exhibit 19# 20 Exhibit 20# 21 Exhibit 21# 22 Exhibit 22# 23 Exhibit 23# 24 Exhibit 24# 25 Exhibit 25# 26 Exhibit 26# 27 Exhibit 27# 28 Exhibit 28# 29 Exhibit 29# 30 Exhibit 30# 31 Exhibit 31# 32 Exhibit 33# 33 Exhibit 34# 34 Exhibit 36# 35 Exhibit 38# 36 Exhibit 42# 37 Exhibit 43# 38 Exhibit 44# 39 Exhibit 45# 40 Exhibit 47# 41 Exhibit 49# 42 Exhibit 50# 43 Exhibit 51# 44 Exhibit 52# 45 Exhibit 53# 46 Exhibit 54# 47 Exhibit 55# 48 Exhibit 57# 49 Exhibit 58# 50 Exhibit 59# 51 Exhibit 60# 52 Exhibit 62# 53

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

291/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Exhibit 63# 54 Exhibit 64# 55 Exhibit 66# 56 Exhibit 67# 57 Exhibit 68# 58 Exhibit 79# 59 Exhibit 80# 60 Exhibit 81)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/15/2007

904 MEMORANDUM in Support of 903 MOTION to Correct Record ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/15/2007

905 ANSWER to Complaint Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-07-cv-411 Gruhn (VT) by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/15/2007

906 OPINION AND ORDER in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN denying plaintiffs' (684), (686), 690 Motions to Strike; granting 551 Motion to Certify Class; denying 627 Motion for Oral Argument. Parties to submit an agreed proposed notice to class members by no later than 10/31/2007. All parties that have ﬁled briefs on class certiﬁcation to ﬁle a supplemental statement as directed by 11/14/2007. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 10/15/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

10/16/2007

907 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/9/2007 before Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein. Court Reporter: Joanne Hoffman. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 10/16/2007)

10/19/2007

908 ANSWER to Complaint Answer and Additional Defenses to Amended Class Action Complaint in 3-07-411 White (Georgia) by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/19/2007)

10/19/2007

909 RESPONSE to Motion re 876 MOTION to Supplement Evidentiary Record ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/19/2007)

10/24/2007

910 ORDER granting (885) Motion for Discovery in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Plaintiffs have leave to conduct limited discovery related to their new claims of retaliation and wrongful discharge as a result of Fedex's action September 2007. All discovery to be completed by 12/1/2007. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 10/24/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 10/24/2007)

10/24/2007

911 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney MOTION TO WITHDRAW by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 10/24/2007)

10/26/2007

912 MOTION to Stay (1) Stay Class Notice and Additional Class Certiﬁcation Brieﬁng or Rulings Pending Resolution of Rule 23(F) Appeal; and (2) For an Expedited Brieﬁng Schedule on This Motion by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/26/2007)

10/26/2007

913 MEMORANDUM in Support of 912 MOTION to Stay (1) Stay Class Notice and Additional Class Certiﬁcation Brieﬁng or Rulings Pending Resolution of Rule 23(F) Appeal; and (2) For an Expedited Brieﬁng Schedule on This Motion ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/26/2007)

10/29/2007

914 ANSWER to 899 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

10/30/2007

915 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 903 MOTION to Correct Record ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 10/30/2007)

10/30/2007

916 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 915 Memorandum in Opposition (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 10/30/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

292/498

5/8/2020
10/31/2007
10/31/2007 10/31/2007
11/02/2007 11/02/2007 11/09/2007 11/12/2007
11/13/2007
11/13/2007
11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/14/2007 11/14/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
917 MOTION for Approval of Class Notices by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In Support of Their Motion for Approval of Class Notices# 2 Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Memo of Law# 3 Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' Memo of Law)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
918 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 917 MOTION for Approval of Class Notices (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
919 OBJECTION by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) TO PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED FORM OF CLASS NOTICE AND NOTICE PLAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index# 2 Exhibit A# 3 B# 4 C# 5 D# 6 E# 7 F# 8 G# 9 H# 10 I# 11 J# 12 K# 13 L# 14 M)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
920 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Filing Rule 23(f) Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Rule 23(f) Appeal)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
921 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/9/07 before Chief Judge Robert L Miller Jr. Court Reporter: Debra J Bonk. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 11/05/2007)
922 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; denying WITHOUT PREJUDICE(911) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/9/07. (sdf) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
923 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Schedule in Gibson, 3:07-cv-272-RLM-CAN (AZ); Magno, 3:07-cv-322-RLM-CAN (CT); White, 3:07-cv-411-RLM-CAN (GA); Givens, 3:07-cv-324-RLM-CAN (LA); Vargas, 3:07-CV-325-RLM-CAN (MA); Decesare, 3:07-CV-120-RLM-CAN (NV); Whiteside, 3:07-cv-326-RLM-CAN (NC); Leighter, 3:07cv-328-RLM-CAN (OR); and Gruhn, 3:07-cv-412-RLM-CAN (VT) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/12/2007)
924 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Order)(Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 11/14/2007 to remove proposed order (jld). (Entered: 11/13/2007)
925 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 912 MOTION to Stay (1) Stay Class Notice and Additional Class Certiﬁcation Brieﬁng or Rulings Pending Resolution of Rule 23(F) Appeal; and (2) For an Expedited Brieﬁng Schedule on This Motion ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
926 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 925 Memorandum in Opposition, (Harwood, Robert) Modiﬁed on 11/14/2007: The attached document is a duplicate of 925 (jld). (Entered: 11/13/2007)
927 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs of Filing Answer to FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Petition for Permission to Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs/Respondents' Answer to Petition for Permission to Appeal)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
928 REPLY to Response to Motion re 903 MOTION to Correct Record ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
929 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 925 Memorandum in Opposition, (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
930 ORDER granting (924) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Eric M Fink and Kirsten L Zerger terminated in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

293/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/14/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-cv-00528-RLMCAN(sdf) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

931 ORDER Amending the Case Schedule. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/14/07. Associated Cases: 3:07cv120, 3:07cv272, 3:07cv322, 3:07cv324, 3:07cv325, 3:07cv326, 3:07cv328, 3:07cv411, 3:07cv412 (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

932 STATEMENT Florida Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 584 MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) ﬁled by Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, Sherre Harting, David R Mosher, Charles House, Donald E Carlson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

933 STATEMENT Indiana Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 556 MOTION to Certify Class of Indiana Plaintiffs ﬁled by Rodney Owens, Harold Bennett, David Stacy, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

934 STATEMENT South Dakota Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 555 MOTION to Certify Class of South Dakota Plaintiffs ﬁled by Chad Viereck, Steve Persing, Darrell Engbrecht, Kimberly A Bunger, Jay Heintz. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

935 STATEMENT New York Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 548 MOTION to Certify Class of New York Plaintiffs ﬁled by Charles Malkin, Larry Louzau, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Nicholas Conte, Daniel Santa. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

936 STATEMENT Illinois Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 575 MOTION to Certify Class (Illinois) MOTION to Certify Class (Illinois) ﬁled by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

937 STATEMENT Minnesota Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 576 MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) MOTION to Certify Class (Minnesota) ﬁled by Sergei Selenskikh, Gerald Pelkey, Gary Miyazaki, Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

938 STATEMENT Iowa Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 554 MOTION to Certify Class of Iowa Plaintiffs ﬁled by Aaron Ver Steeg, Tim Johnson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

939 STATEMENT Tennessee Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 599 MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) ﬁled by Arthur Smith, Robert Erbentraut, Rachella Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

940 STATEMENT Oregon Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 557 MOTION to Certify Class of Oregon Plaintiffs ﬁled by Edward Slayman, Dennis McHenry, Jeremy Brinker. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

941 STATEMENT Michigan Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 581 MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan) MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan) ﬁled by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

942 STATEMENT New Jersey Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 552 MOTION to Certify Class of New Jersey Plaintiffs ﬁled by Michael B Kilmartin, Frank Cucinotti, David McMahon, Michael Tofaute, Patrick Carrigan, Thomas Mikulski, Francis Dennis Lynch. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

943 STATEMENT Pennsylvania Plaintiff's Supplemental Statement regarding 579 MOTION to Certify Class (Pennsylvania) MOTION to Certify Class (Pennsylvania) ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

294/498

5/8/2020
11/14/2007 11/14/2007 11/14/2007 11/14/2007 11/14/2007
11/14/2007 11/14/2007
11/14/2007 11/14/2007 11/14/2007 11/14/2007 11/14/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
944 STATEMENT Virginia Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 597 MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) ﬁled by Bradley D Gregory, Robert Lee Taylor. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
945 STATEMENT Montana Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 600 MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) MOTION to Certify Class (Montana) ﬁled by Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Rob Carlson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
946 STATEMENT Maryland Plaintiff's Supplemental Statement regarding 546 MOTION to Certify Class of Maryland Plaintiff Thomas Westcott ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
947 STATEMENT West Virginia Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 595 MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (West Virginia) ﬁled by Roger Davis, Lawrence Asbury. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
948 STATEMENT New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 580 MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) MOTION to Certify Class (New Hampshire) ﬁled by Shane Tucker, Kimball Rice, Lance Tucker, Robert Gennell Jr, Donald Swazey, Gary Terrio. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
949 STATEMENT South Carolina Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 578 MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (South Carolina) ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Gregory Cooke. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
950 STATEMENT Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 596 MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) ﬁled by Wayne F Mills Jr, Paul Luongo, Ricardo Bacani, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Stephen H McGuinness, Raymond Tierney, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
951 STATEMENT Mississippi Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 598 MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) MOTION to Certify Class (Mississippi) ﬁled by Theodore Fleming Jr, Kenneth Steed, Rita King, Natasha Quimby, L C Bell Jr, Jeffrey Carter. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
952 STATEMENT Arkansas Plaintiff's Supplemental Statement regarding 603 MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) MOTION to Certify Class (Arkansas) ﬁled by David Harris. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
953 STATEMENT Missouri Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 577 MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) MOTION to Certify Class (Missouri) ﬁled by Jammie Hill, Carl Tucker, Roy Patton Jr, Reginald Gray, James Tichenor, Marcus Holmes. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
954 STATEMENT Alabama Plaintiff's Supplemental Statement regarding 583 MOTION to Certify Class (Alabama) MOTION to Certify Class (Alabama) ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
955 STATEMENT Kentucky Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 602 MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class (Kentucky) MOTION to Certify Class

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

295/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Kentucky) ﬁled by Barry Hindman, George Sanders, William Cress, John Coleman. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

956 STATEMENT Texas Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 601 MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) MOTION to Certify Class (Texas) ﬁled by Jeffrey Quebe, Tim Mershon, Charles Campbell, David Meredith, John Humphreys. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

957 STATEMENT California Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 547 MOTION to Certify Class of California Plaintiffs ﬁled by Allan Ross, Suzanne Andrade, Albert Anaya, Anthony Ybarra, Dean Alexander, Agostino Scalercio, Jarrett Henderson, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Joey Rodriguez, Eric Jepson, Peter Allen, Dean Wiley. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

958 STATEMENT Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 582 MOTION to Certify Class (Wisconsin) MOTION to Certify Class (Wisconsin) ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

959 STATEMENT Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement regarding 553 MOTION to Certify Class of Massachusetts Plaintiffs ﬁled by Randy Azzato, Ronald Perry, William Gardner, Alan Pacheco, Edward Sheehan. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

960 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 957 Statement, 950 Statement, 942 Statement, 949 Statement, 948 Statement, 945 Statement, 943 Statement, 944 Statement, 954 Statement, 932 Statement, 952 Statement, 956 Statement, 936 Statement, 955 Statement, 935 Statement, 953 Statement, 937 Statement, 959 Statement, 958 Statement, 946 Statement, 940 Statement, 939 Statement, 951 Statement, 947 Statement, 938 Statement, 941 Statement, 933 Statement, 934 Statement, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

961 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Riewe (Indiana) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

962 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Tofaute (New Jersey) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

963 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Louzau (New York) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

964 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Gray (Missouri) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

965 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Carlson (Montana) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

966 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Lee (Minnesota) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

967 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Gennell (New Hampshire) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

968 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Willis (Pennsylvania) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

296/498

5/8/2020
11/14/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
969 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Slayman (Oregon) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

970 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Bunger (South Dakota) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

971 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Gregory (Virginia) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

972 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Fleming (Mississippi) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

973 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Carlson (Florida) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

974 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Smith (Tennessee) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

975 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Asbury (West Virginia) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

976 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Larson (Wisconsin) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

977 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Humphreys (Texas) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

978 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Floyd (Alabama) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

979 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Coleman (Kentucky) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

980 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Cooke (South Carolina) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

981 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Tierney (Rhode Island) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

982 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Harris (Arkansas) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

983 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Alexander (California) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

984 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Johnson (Iowa) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

985 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Fluegel (Illinois) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007 986 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Sheehan (Massachusetts)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

297/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

987 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Westcott (Maryland) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/14/2007

988 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Currithers (Michigan) Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/14/2007)

11/15/2007

989 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Ground Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Class Certiﬁcation (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 11/15/2007)

11/16/2007

990 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Filing Documents Under Seal - Exhibits 15 and 18 to Gibson (AZ) Memorandum (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007

991 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Filing Documents Under Seal - Exhibits 17 and 22 to Magno (CT) Memorandum (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007

992 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Filing Documents Under Seal - Exhibits 12 and 13 to Givens (LA) Memorandum (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007

993 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Filing Documents Under Seal - Exhibits 6 and 9 to Decesare (NV) Memorandum (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007

994 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Filing Documents Under Seal - Exhibit 13 to Whiteside (NC) Memorandum (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007

995 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Filing Documents Under Seal - Exhibits 10 and 13 to Leighter (OR) Memorandum (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007

996 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Filing Documents Under Seal - Exhibits 5 and 6 to Gruhn (VT) Memorandum (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007

997 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Filing Documents Under Seal - Exhibits 10 and 11 to Memorandum in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Omnibus Fact Memorandum Motion (Fourth Wave) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007

998 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 871 MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon) MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon) Leighter ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 14 - Part 1# 14 Exhibit 14 - Part 2# 15 Exhibit 15 - Part 1# 16 Exhibit 15 - Part 2# 17 Exhibit 16) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007

999 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 866 MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona) MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona) Gibson ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10 - Part 1# 12 Exhibit 10 - Part 2# 13 Exhibit 11# 14 Exhibit 12# 15 Exhibit 13# 16 Exhibit 14# 17 Exhibit 16# 18 Exhibit 17# 19 Exhibit 19# 20 Exhibit 20)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007

1000

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 867 MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut) MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut) Magno ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Exhibit 16# 18 Exhibit 18# 19 Exhibit 19# 20 Exhibit 20 - Part 1# 21 Exhibit 20 - Part 2# 22 Exhibit 21 - Part 1# 23 Exhibit 21 - Part 2# 24 Exhibit 23)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

11/16/2007 1001 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 870 MOTION to Certify Class (Nevada) MOTION

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

298/498

5/8/2020
11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007
11/17/2007 11/17/2007 11/19/2007

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
to Certify Class (Nevada) DeCesare ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3 - Part 1# 5 Exhibit 3 - Part 2# 6 Exhibit 4 Part 1# 7 Exhibit 4 - Part 2# 8 Exhibit 5# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

1002

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 869 MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina) Whiteside ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit 18# 19 Exhibit 19# 20 Exhibit 20# 21 Exhibit 21# 22 Exhibit 22# 23 Exhibit 23# 24 Exhibit 24# 25 Exhibit 25)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

1003

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 868 MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) White ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15 - Part 1# 17 Exhibit 15 - Part 2# 18 Exhibit 16# 19 Exhibit 17# 20 Exhibit 18)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

1004

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 872 MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont) MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont) Gruhn ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 7# 7 Exhibit 8# 8 Exhibit 9# 9 Exhibit 10# 10 Exhibit 11# 11 Exhibit 12# 12 Exhibit 13# 13 Exhibit 14# 14 Exhibit 15# 15 Exhibit 16)(Brunner, Thomas) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/27/2009 pursuant to 1750 Order: # 16 Exhibit 4) (ksc). (Entered: 11/16/2007)

1005

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 873 MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) Givens ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2 - Part 1# 4 Exhibit 2 - Part 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit 10# 13 Exhibit 11) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2007)

1006

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 874 MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) to Plaintiffs' Phase IV Class Certiﬁcation Motions ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit 1 - Part 1# 3 Exhibit 1 - Part 2# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 12# 11 Exhibit 13# 12 Exhibit 14# 13 Exhibit 15# 14 Exhibit 16# 15 Exhibit 17# 16 Exhibit 18# 17 Exhibit 19)(Brunner, Thomas) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/27/2009 pursuant to 1750 Order: # 17 Exhibit 19) (ksc). (Entered: 11/16/2007)

1007

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 874 MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) Vargas ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit A State Law Variations Appendix# 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 5)(Brunner, Thomas) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2008: # 8 Supplement) (sdf). (Additional attachment added on 12/22/2008: # 9 State Law Variations Appendix) (jld). (Entered: 11/17/2007)

1008 MOTION Request for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation (Fourth Wave) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/17/2007)

1009

STATEMENT Florida Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement [CORRECTED] regarding 584 MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) MOTION to Certify Class (Florida) ﬁled by Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, Sherre Harting, David R Mosher, Charles House, Donald E Carlson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

299/498

5/8/2020
11/19/2007 11/19/2007
11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/20/2007 11/29/2007
11/29/2007
11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007

1010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
STATEMENT Michigan Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement [CORRECTED] regarding 581 MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan) MOTION to Certify Class (Michigan) ﬁled by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

1011 STATEMENT Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement [CORRECTED] regarding 596 MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) MOTION to Certify Class (Rhode Island) ﬁled by Wayne F Mills Jr, Paul Luongo, Ricardo Bacani, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Stephen H McGuinness, Raymond Tierney, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

1012

STATEMENT Tennessee Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement [CORRECTED] regarding 599 MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) MOTION to Certify Class (Tennessee) ﬁled by Arthur Smith, Robert Erbentraut, Rachella Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

1013

STATEMENT Virginia Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement [CORRECTED] regarding 597 MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) MOTION to Certify Class (Virginia) ﬁled by Bradley D Gregory, Robert Lee Taylor. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

1014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1009 Statement, 1013 Statement, 1012 Statement, 1011 Statement, 1010 Statement, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

1015 ORDER denying 823 Motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 11/19/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 11/20/2007)

1016

REPLY to Response to Motion re 912 MOTION to Stay (1) Stay Class Notice and Additional Class Certiﬁcation Brieﬁng or Rulings Pending Resolution of Rule 23(F) Appeal; and (2) For an Expedited Brieﬁng Schedule on This Motion ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 11/20/2007)

1017

MOTION to Amend/Correct ( 917 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION for Approval of Class Notices (Plaintiffs' Corrected "Exhibit A" Filed In Support of Their Motion For Approval of Class Notices) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(Harwood, Robert) Modiﬁed on 11/30/2007 to add link to document 917 (jld). (Entered: 11/29/2007)

1018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1017 MOTION to Amend/Correct ( 917 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION for Approval of Class Notices (Plaintiffs' Corrected "Exhibit A" Filed In Support of Their Motion For Approval of Class Notices) MOTION to Amend/Correct (917 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION for Approval of Class Notices (Plaintiffs' Corrected "Exhibit A" Filed In Support of Their Motion For Approval of Class Notices) (Harwood, Robert) Modiﬁed on 11/30/2007 to add link to document 917 (jld). (Entered: 11/29/2007)

1019 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; denying (912) Motion to Stay in case. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/29/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

1020

ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; granting (876) Motion to Supplement; denying (882) Motion for Discovery. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/29/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

1021 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; granting (903) Motion to correct the record.

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

300/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 11/29/07. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

11/30/2007

1022 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery by Plaintiffs Troy Givens, Clarence Dalcour. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

11/30/2007

1023

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1022 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery ﬁled by Troy Givens. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcation Pursuant to Local Rule 37.1# 2 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 11/30/2007)

12/03/2007

1024

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT to 1023 Memorandum in Support Corrected Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery by Plaintiff Troy Givens. (Faris, Lynn) text Modiﬁed on 12/3/2007 to correct title of document (jld). (Entered: 12/03/2007)

12/04/2007 1025 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/04/2007)

12/05/2007 1026 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint (GA) by Plaintiff Ernest White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/05/2007)

12/06/2007

1027 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Liaison Counsel in Behalf of Plaintiffs by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(Hamilton, John) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

12/06/2007 1028 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN et al.(Hamilton, John) (Entered: 12/06/2007)

12/06/2007

1029 ORDER granting 1026 Motion to Amend Complaint.. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 12/6/07. Associated Cases: 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-CAN(sdf) Modiﬁed on 12/26/2007 to correct link (sdf) (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/07/2007

1030 ORDER granting (103) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney John C Hamilton terminated in all assocated cases. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 12/7/07. (sdf) (Entered: 12/10/2007)

12/11/2007

1031 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs Notice of Association of Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/11/2007)

12/12/2007 1032 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter J Agostino on behalf of all plaintiffs Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(Agostino, Peter) (Entered: 12/12/2007)

12/12/2007 1033 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al. (Agostino, Peter) (Entered: 12/12/2007)

12/13/2007

1034

MOTION to Appoint Counsel as additional Class Counsel and to Revise Proposed Class Notices by Plaintiffs Neal Bergkamp, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Leo Rittenhouse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(Barton, George) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

12/14/2007 1035 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Ernest White.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/14/2007 1036 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint (Vargas MA) by Plaintiffs Andy Parker, Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, Ernest Neal, III, Genaro Vargas.

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

301/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

12/17/2007

1037 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Arizona Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1038 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Connecticut Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Neville Edwards, Thomas Magno (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1039 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Georgia Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Ernest White (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1040

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Givens Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion For Conditional Certiﬁcation of an Opt-in Class Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) by Wesley Martin, Devon Nugent, Melissa Rohman, Ralph Carl Veal, Troy Givens, Clarence Dalcour (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1041

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Vargas Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, Ernest Neal, III, Genaro Vargas (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1042 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Nevada Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Michael Decesare, Michael Meno (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1043

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of North Carolina Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1044 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Leighter Oregon Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Jon Leighter, David Spicer (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1045 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Vermont Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Frank Gruhn, Kevin Draper (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1046 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Omnibus Reply Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs' Phase IV Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1047 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Eighth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1048 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1049

REPLY to Response to Motion re 866 MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona) MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona) ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Attachments: # 1 Eighth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

302/498

5/8/2020
12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007
12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007
12/17/2007

1050

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
REPLY to Response to Motion re 867 MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut) MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut) ﬁled by Neville Edwards, Thomas Magno. (Attachments: # 1 Eighth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

1051

REPLY to Response to Motion re 868 MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) ﬁled by Ernest White. (Attachments: # 1 Eighth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

1052

REPLY to Response to Motion re 870 MOTION to Certify Class (Nevada) MOTION to Certify Class (Nevada) ﬁled by Michael Decesare, Michael Meno. (Attachments: # 1 Eighth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

1053

REPLY to Response to Motion re 869 MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina) ﬁled by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Eighth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

1054

REPLY to Response to Motion re 871 MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon) MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon) ﬁled by Jon Leighter, David Spicer. (Attachments: # 1 Eighth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

1055

REPLY to Response to Motion re 872 MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont) MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont) ﬁled by Frank Gruhn, Kevin Draper. (Attachments: # 1 Eighth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

1056

REPLY to Response to Motion re 873 MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) ﬁled by Troy Givens, Clarence Dalcour, Wesley Martin, Devon Nugent, Melissa Rohman, Ralph Carl Veal. (Attachments: # 1 Eighth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

1057

REPLY to Response to Motion re 874 MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) ﬁled by Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, Ernest Neal, III, Genaro Vargas. (Attachments: # 1 Eighth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad# 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix# 3 Plaintiffs' Eighth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

1058

REPLY to Response to Motion re 870 MOTION to Certify Class (Nevada) MOTION to Certify Class (Nevada), 872 MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont) MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont), 869 MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina), 867 MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut) MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut), 874 MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas), 871 MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon) MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon), 866 MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona) MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona), 873 MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA), 868 MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) PHASE IV OMNIBUS

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

303/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
REPLY MEMORANDUM ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1059

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1054 Reply to Response to Motion, 1041 Notice of Manual Filing, 1037 Notice of Manual Filing, 1052 Reply to Response to Motion, 1048 Notice of Manual Filing, 1040 Notice of Manual Filing, 1046 Notice of Manual Filing, 1050 Reply to Response to Motion, 1039 Notice of Manual Filing, 1045 Notice of Manual Filing, 1056 Reply to Response to Motion, 1042 Notice of Manual Filing, 1043 Notice of Manual Filing, 1051 Reply to Response to Motion, 1049 Reply to Response to Motion, 1038 Notice of Manual Filing, 1055 Reply to Response to Motion, 1053 Reply to Response to Motion, 1058 Reply to Response to Motion,,,, 1057 Reply to Response to Motion, 1044 Notice of Manual Filing, 1047 Notice of Manual Filing (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1060

MOTION for Order Striking Defendant's "State Law Variations Appendix" to its Memorandum of Law and Supplemental Statement in Opposition to Vargas Motion for Class Certiﬁcation by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1061

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 1019 THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR STAY OF CLASS NOTICE AND ADDITIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION RULINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF RULE 23(F) APPEAL by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Brunner, Thomas) Modiﬁed on 12/18/2007 to add link to order (jld). (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

1062

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1061 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR STAY OF CLASS NOTICE AND ADDITIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION RULINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF RULE 23(F) APPEAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR STAY OF CLASS NOTICE AND ADDITIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION RULINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF RULE 23(F) APPEAL ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/17/2007)

12/18/2007 1063 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey S Nestler on behalf of FedEx Ground (Nestler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/18/2007

1064

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1022 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Blalack Declaration) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

12/27/2007

1065 Notice of Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to File Their Response To Kansas Plaintiff's Motion To Appoint The Law Ofﬁces of George A. Barton Class Counsel by Plaintiff Carlene M Craig. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/27/2007)

12/28/2007

1066

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1022 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery ﬁled by Troy Givens. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris# 2 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/28/2007)

01/02/2008

1067 ANSWER to Complaint and Additional Defenses to White Plaintiff's (GA) Second Amended Class Action Complaint by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/02/2008)

01/02/2008 1068 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice of EdEx's Most Recent 10Q Report to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Regarding the

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

304/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Internal Revenue Service's Determination that FedEx's Pickup and Delivery Drivers are Misclassiﬁed and the Citation of FedEx Ground by the Massachusetts Attorney General for Misclassiﬁcation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit A Part 2 of 2# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 01/02/2008)

01/03/2008 1069 SUPPLEMENT to 1068 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Exhibit B to Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 01/03/2008)

01/03/2008 1070 NOTICE of Change of Address by Alison G Fox (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 01/03/2008)

01/03/2008

1071

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1060 MOTION for Order Striking Defendant's "State Law Variations Appendix" to its Memorandum of Law and Supplemental Statement in Opposition to Vargas Motion for Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/03/2008)

01/07/2008

1072

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1061 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR STAY OF CLASS NOTICE AND ADDITIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION RULINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF RULE 23(F) APPEAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR STAY OF CLASS NOTICE AND ADDITIONAL CLASS CERTIFICATION RULINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF RULE 23(F) APPEAL ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 01/07/2008)

01/07/2008

1073 ORDER granting (1036) Motion to ﬁle a 2nd amended complaint. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 1/7/08. Associated Cases: 3:07-cv-00325-RLMCAN(sdf) (Entered: 01/08/2008)

01/08/2008 1074 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 1068 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/08/2008)

01/09/2008 1075 STIPULATION re Givens (LA) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Blalack, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/09/2008)

01/09/2008

1082

CERTIFIED copy of ORDER of USCA 07-8034: Clerk shall ﬁle instanter the tendered copies of Volume II of the Appendix and maintain the copies under seal. Rule 23(f) Petition for Permission to Appeal from order granting Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled 10/29/07 is DENIED.(sdf) (Entered: 01/24/2008)

01/10/2008

1076 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Andy Parker, Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, Ernest Neal, III, Genaro Vargas.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/10/2008)

01/10/2008

1077 ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; terminating (1022) Motion to Compel; granting (1075) Stipulation in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 1/10/08. (sdf) (Entered: 01/10/2008)

01/11/2008

1078 ORDER granting request 1025 for this Court to take judicial notice. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 1/11/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

01/11/2008

1079

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1034 MOTION to Appoint Counsel as additional Class Counsel and to Revise Proposed Class Notices ﬁled by Carlene M Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lynn Faris In Opposition to Kansas Plaintiffs' Motion w/ Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit s B and C to Faris Declaration# 3 Exhibit s D and E to Faris Declaration# 4 Declaration of Matthew M. Houston In Opposition to Appointment of George Barton as Class Counsel in the Craig Action)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

01/14/2008 1080 REPLY by FedEx Plaintiffs to 1074 Memorandum of Law (Other) Plaintiffs' Reply to

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

305/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
FedEx's Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 01/14/2008)

01/17/2008

1081

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1060 MOTION for Order Striking Defendant's "State Law Variations Appendix" to its Memorandum of Law and Supplemental Statement in Opposition to Vargas Motion for Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/17/2008)

01/25/2008

1083

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1034 MOTION to Appoint Counsel as additional Class Counsel and to Revise Proposed Class Notices ﬁled by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 - Barton Supplemental Aff# 2 Exhibit Ex. 2 - Norman Aff.# 3 Exhibit Ex. 3 - Rittenhouse Aff# 4 Exhibit Ex. 4 - Bergkamp Aff.# 5 Exhibit Ex. 5 - Law Aff.# 6 Exhibit Ex. 6 - Bramlage Aff.# 7 Exhibit Ex. 7 - Cook Aff.)(Barton, George) (Entered: 01/25/2008)

01/28/2008 1084 ANSWER to Complaint Vargas (MA) Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint [Docket #1076] by FedEx Ground.(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

01/28/2008

1085 MOTION to Strike Reports of Previously Undisclosed Experts by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Declaration of Patricia A. Bloodgood)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

01/28/2008

1086 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Patricia A. Bloodgood in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Reports of Previously Undisclosed Experts by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

01/28/2008

1087 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1085 MOTION to Strike Reports of Previously Undisclosed Experts, 1086 Notice of Manual Filing (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/28/2008)

02/05/2008 1088 MOTION to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution - Gonzales (3:07-CV-281) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/05/2008)

02/05/2008

1089

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1088 MOTION to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution Gonzales (3:07-CV-281) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/05/2008)

02/14/2008

1090

MOTION FOR HEARING Plaintiffs' Request for a Status Conference Regarding the Parties' Dispute Over Summary Judgment/Adjudication Filings Due on March 14. (Faris, Lynn) Text Modiﬁed on 2/15/2008 to reﬂect that this is a Motion for Hearing not a Response (jld). (Entered: 02/14/2008)

02/15/2008

1091

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Paul McNamara in Support of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion To Strike Reports of Professors Lafontaine and Smith and Exhibits A - G thereto by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

02/15/2008

1092 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1085 MOTION to Strike Reports of Previously Undisclosed Experts ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

02/19/2008 1093 RESPONSE in Opposition re 1090 MOTION for Hearing ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/19/2008)

02/20/2008 1094 ORDER granting motion to strike 1060 . Appendix [1007-3] is STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/20/08. (sdf) (Entered: 02/20/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

306/498

5/8/2020
02/21/2008 02/21/2008 02/22/2008 02/25/2008 02/27/2008
03/03/2008 03/03/2008 03/03/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008
03/10/2008
03/10/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/14/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1095 STIPULATION to Dismiss without Prejudice in Dominguez 3-07-cv-410 (Fl) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

1096 STIPULATION to Dismiss without Prejudice in Gonzalez 3-07-cv-281 (Fl) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

1097 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Carlos Quintin Gonzalez, Juan Dominguez granting Stipulations 1095 amd 1096 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Associated Cases: 3:07-cv00281-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00410-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 02/22/2008)

1098 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1090 MOTION for Hearing and Request for Status Conference ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/25/2008)

1099

ORDER granting (1090) Motion for Hearing. Status Conference set for 3/19/2008 11:00 AM (EDT) in South Bend before Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein. Furthermore the summary judgment deadline of 3/14/08 is SUSPENDED. The Court will address the deadline in the status conference along with any other scheduling issues. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 2/27/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-cv-390-RLM-CAN.(sdf) (Entered: 02/27/2008)

1100 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1085 MOTION to Strike Reports of Previously Undisclosed Experts ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Second Declaration of Patricia A. Bloodgood)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

1101 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Second Declaration of Patricia A. Bloodgood in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Reports of Previously Undisclosed Experts and Exhibits 1-3 by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

1102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1100 Reply to Response to Motion, 1101 Notice of Manual Filing (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

1103 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1094 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the State Law Variations Appendix in Vargas 3-05cv-325 (MA) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

1104 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1103 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1094 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the State Law Variations Appendix in Vargas 3-05-cv-325 (MA) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John H. Beisner, # 2 Exhibit A - Part 1, # 3 Exhibit A - Part 2, # 4 Exhibit A - Part 3, # 5 Exhibit B - Part 1, # 6 Exhibit B - Part 2, # 7 Exhibit B - Part 3, # 8 Exhibit B - Part 4, # 9 Exhibit C - Part 1, # 10 Exhibit C - Part 2)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

1105 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1103 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1094 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the State Law Variations Appendix in Vargas 3-05-cv-325 (MA) Correction of 1104 as to Reference to Exhibits ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

1106 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Sur-Reply Memorandum, # 2 Declaration of Robert Schwartz)(Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

1107 Joint MOTION to Amend The Case Scheduling Order by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

1108 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1107 Joint MOTION to Amend The Case Scheduling Order ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

1109 RESPONSE in Opposition re 1106 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply ﬁled by FedEx

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

307/498

5/8/2020
03/17/2008 03/18/2008 03/18/2008
03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/19/2008 03/20/2008
03/20/2008 03/20/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
1110 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Amended Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
1111 STATEMENT FedEx Ground's Status Conference Statement. (Brunner, Thomas) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
1112 ORDER notifying counsel that they shall be prepared to address all pending matters at the 3/19/08 hearing, including but not limited to: MOTION to Strike Reports of Previously Undisclosed Experts (1085 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply (1106 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); Joint MOTION to Amend The Case Scheduling Order (1107 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) and MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint (1110 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN). Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 3/18/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
1113 STATUS CONFERENCE held on 3/19/2008 before Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein. Pla appeared by atty Lynn Faris; Peter Agostino; George Barton; Robert Harwood. Dft appeared by atty Allison Fox; Robert Schwartz; Thomas Brunner. (Court Reporter Joann Hoffman.) (slm) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
1114 ORDER granting 1106 Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply in case 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN. The Sur-reply attached to the Motion shall be deemed ﬁled as of this date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 3/19/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
1115 SUR-REPLY MEMORANDUM in Opposition re ( 1085 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Strike Reports of Previously Undisclosed Experts ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert M. Schwartz)Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
1116 ORDER: MOTION to Strike Reports of Previously Undisclosed Experts ( 1085 in 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN) is taken under ADVISEMENT. Plaintiff's to notify this Court by 3/27/2008 whether deposing the experts will cure the prejudice plaintiffs have suffered and whether they desire to depose the experts. Plaintiffs further ordered to submit a proposed form of order re: the summary judgment brieﬁng deadlines for all waves 1 through 4 of class certiﬁcation and all other cases not part of wave 5 by 3/27/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 3/20/08. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
1117 ORDER granting 1110 Motion to Amend Complaint in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Plaintiffs to ﬁle Amended Complaint by 3/31/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 3/20/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
1118 ORDER granting 1107 Joint Motion to Amend Case Scheduling Order: Parties shall perform limited discovery on ﬁfth wave cases by 5/30/2008. Plaintiff's motions/memoranda for certiﬁcation of classes to be ﬁled by 6/20/2008. FedEx Ground to ﬁle its oppositions to certiﬁcation by 8/1/2008. Plaintiffs to ﬁle reply memoranda in support of certiﬁcation by 8/29/2008. Movants for summary adjudication to serve expert reports by 6/16/2008. Opponents of summary adjudication to depose movants' experts by 7/16/2008. Opponents of summary adjudication to serve expert reports by 7/16/2008. Depositions of opponents' summary adjudication experts to take place by 8/16/2008. Summary judgment motions related to independent contractor/employment status to be ﬁled by 10/1/2008 in cases in which there is no pending motion for class certiﬁcation. Opposition to summary judgment to be ﬁled by 11/14/2008. Replies in support of

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

308/498

5/8/2020
03/25/2008 03/26/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/28/2008
03/28/2008 03/28/2008 03/28/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 03/31/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
summary judgment to be ﬁled by 12/15/2008. In cases in which any party seeks class certiﬁcation, the parties to ﬁle any summary judgment motions within 30 days of a ruling on the pending class certiﬁcation motion. Responses in opposition to be ﬁled 30 days from when the motions are ﬁled, and movants to ﬁle their reply within 15 days of the ﬁling of the response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 5/20/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
1119 ORDER granting in part Motions for Class Certiﬁcation 599 , 598 , 603 , 602 , 601 , 582 , 583 , 548 , 547 , 561 , 552 , 546 , 576 , 579 , 580 , 578 , 557 , 556 , 595 , 584 , 596 ; denying Motions for Class Certiﬁcation 600 , 553 , 581 , 577 , 555 , 554 , 597 , 575 . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 3/25/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
1121 ORDER: All parties that have ﬁled briefs for the fourth wave of class certiﬁcation shall ﬁle a supplemental statement stating how their position on class certiﬁcaton differs from the positions addressed in the Kansas order and Waves 1-3 order (dated 3/25/08) by 4/26/08. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 3/26/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
1120 ORDER denying as moot (567) Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 3/27/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
1122 PLAINTIFFS' NOTIFICATION IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER (DOC. NO. 1116) REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE FEDEX GROUND'S UNDISCLOSED EXPERTS by FedEx Plaintiffs to 1116 Order,,, Set Deadlines,,. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
1123 ORDER :Parties shall have to/including 4/25/08 to ﬁle any dispositive motions for all cases in which there has been a ruling on class certiﬁcaiton. In any cases in which there are no pending motions for class certiﬁcation parties shall have to/including 6/1/08 to ﬁle any dispositive motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 3/28/08. Plaintiffs' 1085 Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOTorder signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein.(sdf) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
1124 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Theodore Holloway, Jr.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
1125 Order 1119 which rules on Motion 598 DENIES that motion. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
1126 RESPONSE in Opposition re 1103 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1094 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the State Law Variations Appendix in Vargas 3-05-cv-325 (MA) ﬁled by Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, Ernest Neal, III, Genaro Vargas. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
1127 NOTICE by Roger Davis, Lawrence Asbury OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE OF DEBRA BREWER HAYES Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00826-RLM-CAN(Hayes, Debra) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
1128 NOTICE by Roger Davis, Lawrence Asbury OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE OF DENNIS REICH Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00826-RLMCAN(Hayes, Debra) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
1129 NOTICE by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE OF RODNEY CASTILLE Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00826RLM-CAN(Hayes, Debra) (Entered: 03/31/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

309/498

5/8/2020
04/01/2008

1130

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MOTION for Clariﬁcation re 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/01/2008)

04/04/2008

1131 OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' motion 917 for approval of class notices is GRANTED IN PARTY and DENIED IN PART. The Court affords Plaintiffs to/including 4/18/08 to submit an amended proposed notice that is consistant with this order. Plaintiffs' motion 1097 to amend the proposed notice to include Baront is GRANTED. Barton's motion 1034 to appoint additional class counsel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIEDIN PART. Barton's name and contact info shall be included on the proposed absent class notice, but Barton's requeste for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/4/08. (sdf) (Entered: 04/04/2008)

04/04/2008

1132 APPLICATION for Attorney Joni M Thome to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs ; Receipt #3339416. Modiﬁed on 4/4/2008 (sdf). (Entered: 04/04/2008)

04/04/2008

1133 Joint MOTION to Amend-Clarify the Case Schedule by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/04/2008)

04/07/2008

1134 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on 3/19/08 before Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein. Court Reporter: Joanne Hoffman. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

04/08/2008

1135 APPLICATION for Attorney Clayton D Halunen to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs ; Receipt #5339416. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 04/08/2008)

04/08/2008

1136 ORDER granting Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Clayton D Halunen PHV for Theodore Holloway, Jr in case 3:08-cv-00087-RLM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/8/08. (sdf) (Entered: 04/08/2008)

04/09/2008

1137 RESPONSE to Motion re 1130 MOTION for Clariﬁcation re 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Objection and Opposition ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/09/2008)

04/09/2008

1138 ORDER granting 1132 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Joni M Thome for Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/9/08. (sdf) (Entered: 04/10/2008)

04/10/2008

1139 ORDER granting 1033 Parties' Joint Motion to Clarify/Amend the Case Schedule. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/10/08. (sdf) (Entered: 04/10/2008)

04/11/2008

Reset Deadlines: Dispositive motions to be ﬁled by 6/2/2008 (from 6/1/08) Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(jld) (Entered: 04/11/2008)

04/11/2008

1140 BRIEF Plaintiffs' Statement of Intent to Provide the Court with Common Proof of Employment Status. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/11/2008)

04/11/2008

1141 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1103 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1094 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the State Law Variations Appendix in Vargas 3-05-cv-325 (MA) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/11/2008)

04/14/2008

1142 ANSWER to 1124 Amended Complaint by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/14/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

310/498

5/8/2020
04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/17/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008
04/18/2008
04/18/2008

1143

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MOTION to Suspend April 25, 2008 Summary Judgment Deadline in Light of Plaintiffs' Response to Court's March 25, 2008 Opinion and Order on Class Certiﬁcation by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/15/2008)

1144 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits A and B to Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.'s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim For Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies attached to FedEx Ground's Motion for Leave to File Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs Erisa Claim For Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies in Craig (KS and ERISA) (3-05-cv-530) by FedEx Ground (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/15/2008)

1145 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Motion, # 2 Memorandum in Support)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/15/2008)

1146 RESPONSE in Opposition re 1143 MOTION to Suspend April 25, 2008 Summary Judgment Deadline in Light of Plaintiffs' Response to Court's March 25, 2008 Opinion and Order on Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/17/2008)

1147 Amended ANSWER to Complaint and Additional Defenses in Holloway (MD) 3-08-cv87 by FedEx Ground.(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

1148 MOTION for Reconsideration re (117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel,, by Plaintiffs Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Leo Rittenhouse. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN(Barton, George) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

1149 MEMORANDUM in Support of (1148 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 124 in 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN) MOTION for Reconsideration re (117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Rel MOTION for Reconsideration re (117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Rel MOTION for Reconsideration re (117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Rel ﬁled by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Leo Rittenhouse. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN(Barton, George) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

1150 Parties' Joint Submission In Response to Court Order Requesting Revised Class Notices by FedEx Plaintiffs, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) to 1131 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel,,. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

311/498

5/8/2020
04/22/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1152 ORDER denying 1143 Motion. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 4/22/08. (sdf) Modiﬁed on 4/24/2008 to add link to motion. (jld). (Entered: 04/23/2008)

04/23/2008

1151 MOTION for Reconsideration of Certiﬁcation of Tennessee Class (3-05-cv-600 Smith) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Pope, D) (Entered: 04/23/2008)

04/25/2008

1153 MOTION for Summary Judgment California Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1154 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of California Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 main) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1155 MOTION for Summary Judgment Alabama Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiff Tina Floyd. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1156 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Alabama Plaintiffs' memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Tina Floyd (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Alabama) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1157 MOTION for Summary Judgment Arkansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiff David Harris. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1158 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Arkansas Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by David Harris (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Arkansas) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1159 MOTION for Summary Judgment Florida Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, David R Mosher. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1160 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Florida Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman, David R Mosher(Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1751) (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Florida) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1161 MOTION for Summary Judgment Indiana Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1162 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Indiana Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Indiana) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1163 MOTION for Summary Judgment ERISA and Kansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

312/498

5/8/2020
04/25/2008
04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008
04/25/2008 04/25/2008
04/25/2008 04/25/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1164 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of ERISA and Kansas Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1165 MOTION for Summary Judgment Kentucky Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1166 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Kentucky Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Kentucky) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1167 MOTION for Summary Judgment Maryland Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiff Thomas Westcott. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1168 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Maryland Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Thomas Westcott (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Maryland) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1169 MOTION for Summary Judgment Minnesota Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1170 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Minnesota Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Minnesota) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1171 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Donald Swazey, Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker, Robert Gennell Jr, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1172 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Donald Swazey, Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker, Robert Gennell Jr, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 New Hampshire) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1173 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Jersey Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Michael B Kilmartin, Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1174 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of New Jersey Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Michael B Kilmartin(District of New Jersey 3:05cv2028), Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan (Faris, Lynn)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

313/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 New Jersey) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1175 MOTION for Summary Judgment New York Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1176 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of New York Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudiation of Employment Status by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 New York) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1177 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oregon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Dennis McHenry, Jeremy Brinker, Edward Slayman. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1178 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Oregon Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motio nfor Summary Adjudiation of Employment Status by Dennis McHenry, Jeremy Brinker, Edward Slayman (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Oregon) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1179 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiff Derek D Willis. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1180 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudiation of Employment Status by Derek D Willis (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Pennsylvania) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1181 MOTION for Summary Judgment Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Roland Guillet. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1182 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Roland Guillet (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Rhode Island) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1183 MOTION for Summary Judgment South Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Gregory Cooke. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1184 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of South Carolina Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Ricardo Bacani, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588) (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 South Carolina) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Tennessee Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, John Lindsey. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1186 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Tennessee Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Arthur Smith,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

314/498

5/8/2020
04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008
04/25/2008 04/25/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, John Lindsey (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Tennessee) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1187 MOTION for Summary Judgment Texas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1188 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Texas Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudiation of Employment Status by John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Texas) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1189 MOTION for Summary Judgment West Virginia Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiff Lawrence Asbury. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1190 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of West Virginia Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Lawrence Asbury (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 West Virginia) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1191 MOTION for Summary Judgment Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1192 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudiation of Employment Status by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki(Western District of Wisconsin) (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Wisconsin) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1193 ORDER approving 1150 Notice.Plaintiffs' counsel shall post and mail the respective notices as soon as practicable and in accordance with this Court's previous orders. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 4/25/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1194 BRIEF in Support of 1179 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1167 MOTION for Summary Judgment Maryland Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1163 MOTION for Summary Judgment ERISA and Kansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Tennessee Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1183 MOTION for Summary Judgment South Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1159 MOTION for Summary Judgment Florida Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1177 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oregon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1169 MOTION for Summary Judgment Minnesota Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1175 MOTION for Summary Judgment New York Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1191 MOTION for Summary Judgment Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1173 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Jersey Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1153 MOTION for Summary Judgment California Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1187 MOTION for Summary Judgment Texas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1171 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

315/498

5/8/2020
04/25/2008
04/25/2008 04/25/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1157 MOTION for Summary Judgment Arkansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1161 MOTION for Summary Judgment Indiana Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1189 MOTION for Summary Judgment West Virginia Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1165 MOTION for Summary Judgment Kentucky Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1181 MOTION for Summary Judgment Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1155 MOTION for Summary Judgment Alabama Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status Plaintiffs' Omnibus Memorandum of Law Re: Collateral Estoppel in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1195 Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status & Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof re 1179 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1167 MOTION for Summary Judgment Maryland Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1163 MOTION for Summary Judgment ERISA and Kansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Tennessee Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1183 MOTION for Summary Judgment South Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1194 Brief in Support,,,,,,,,,, 1159 MOTION for Summary Judgment Florida Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1177 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oregon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1169 MOTION for Summary Judgment Minnesota Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1175 MOTION for Summary Judgment New York Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1191 MOTION for Summary Judgment Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1173 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Jersey Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1153 MOTION for Summary Judgment California Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1187 MOTION for Summary Judgment Texas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1171 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1157 MOTION for Summary Judgment Arkansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1161 MOTION for Summary Judgment Indiana Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1189 MOTION for Summary Judgment West Virginia Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1165 MOTION for Summary Judgment Kentucky Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1181 MOTION for Summary Judgment Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1155 MOTION for Summary Judgment Alabama Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. (Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 4/28/2008 to correct text to reﬂect actual title of document. (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1196 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by FedEx Plaintiffs (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/6/2012: # 1 Declaration) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)
1197 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Appendix A: Plaintiffs' Omnibus Statement of Material Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Adjudication to Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support of Motions for Summary Adjudication of

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

316/498

5/8/2020
04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Employment Status and Exhibits 1 through 12 thereto by FedEx Plaintiffs (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2012: # 1 DE 1197, # 2 Exhibit 2 Vol 1, # 3 Exhibit 2 Vol 2, # 4 Exhibit 2 Vol 3, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4 Vol 1, # 7 Exhibit 4 Vol 3, # 8 Exhibit 4 Vol 4, # 9 Exhibit 5 Vol 5, # 10 Exhibit 5 Vol 2, # 11 Exhibit 5 Vol 3, # 12 Exhibit 6, # 13 Exhibit 8 Vol 1, # 14 Exhibit 8 Vol 2 Part 1, # 15 Exhibit 8 Vol 2 Part 2, # 16 Exhibit 8 Vol 4) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1198 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Tim McLynch in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by FedEx Plaintiffs (Faris, Lynn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/6/2012: # 1 Declaration) (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1199 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support of Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status and Exhibits A through M Thereto by FedEx Plaintiffs (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1200

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1154 Notice of Manual Filing, 1192 Notice of Manual Filing, 1168 Notice of Manual Filing, 1179 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1198 Notice of Manual Filing, 1176 Notice of Manual Filing, 1167 MOTION for Summary Judgment Maryland Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1186 Notice of Manual Filing, 1163 MOTION for Summary Judgment ERISA and Kansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1174 Notice of Manual Filing, 1162 Notice of Manual Filing, 1170 Notice of Manual Filing, 1185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Tennessee Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1183 MOTION for Summary Judgment South Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1156 Notice of Manual Filing, 1197 Notice of Manual Filing, 1194 Brief in Support,,,,,,,,,, 1159 MOTION for Summary Judgment Florida Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1177 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oregon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1169 MOTION for Summary Judgment Minnesota Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1180 Notice of Manual Filing, 1164 Notice of Manual Filing, 1190 Notice of Manual Filing, 1175 MOTION for Summary Judgment New York Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1184 Notice of Manual Filing, 1160 Notice of Manual Filing, 1182 Notice of Manual Filing, 1191 MOTION for Summary Judgment Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1188 Notice of Manual Filing, 1173 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Jersey Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1153 MOTION for Summary Judgment California Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1199 Notice of Manual Filing, 1187 MOTION for Summary Judgment Texas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1172 Notice of Manual Filing, 1195 Brief (Other), Brief (Other), Brief (Other), Brief (Other), Brief (Other), Brief (Other), Brief (Other), Brief (Other), Brief (Other), Brief (Other), Brief (Other), 1171 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1157 MOTION for Summary Judgment Arkansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1158 Notice of Manual Filing, 1166 Notice of Manual Filing, 1161 MOTION for Summary Judgment Indiana Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1196 Notice of Manual Filing, 1189 MOTION for Summary Judgment West Virginia Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1165 MOTION for Summary Judgment Kentucky Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1178 Notice of Manual Filing, 1181 MOTION for Summary Judgment Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Motion

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

317/498

5/8/2020
04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008
04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008
04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1155 MOTION for Summary Judgment Alabama Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status Proof of Service (CORRECTED) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1201 STATEMENT Arizona Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement regarding 866 MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona) MOTION to Certify Class (Arizona) ﬁled by Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp, Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1202 STATEMENT Connecticut Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement regarding 867 MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut) MOTION to Certify Class (Connecticut) ﬁled by Neville Edwards, Thomas Magno. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1203 STATEMENT Georgia Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement regarding 868 MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) MOTION to Certify Class (Georgia) ﬁled by Daniel Emrick. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1204

STATEMENT North Carolina Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement regarding 869 MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina) MOTION to Certify Class (North Carolina) ﬁled by Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson, James D Coates, John Brown, Sharon B Whiteside. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1205 STATEMENT Nevada Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement regarding 870 MOTION to Certify Class (Nevada) MOTION to Certify Class (Nevada) ﬁled by Michael Meno, Michael Decesare. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1206 STATEMENT Oregon Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement regarding 871 MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon) MOTION to Certify Class (Oregon) ﬁled by David Spicer, Jon Leighter. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1207 STATEMENT Vermont Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement regarding 872 MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont) MOTION to Certify Class (Vermont) ﬁled by Jeremy MacDonald, Kevin Draper, Frank Gruhn. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1208 STATEMENT Givens Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement regarding 873 MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) ﬁled by Troy Givens, Clarence Dalcour. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1209

STATEMENT Vargas Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement regarding 874 MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) ﬁled by Ya Vang, Tim Ketterhagen, Michael Vosbein, Ernest Neal, III, Michael Wise, Genaro Vargas, Jeff Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1210 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1208 Statement, 1203 Statement, 1202 Statement, 1201 Statement, 1209 Statement, 1204 Statement, 1206 Statement, 1207 Statement, 1205 Statement (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1211 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Lee (Minnesota) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) Modiﬁed on 4/28/2008 to reﬂect that this motion is for Minnesota, not California (jld). (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1212 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1211 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Alexander (California) Minnesota (Lee) (incorrectly named as Alexander (California) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1213 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Maryland (Westcott) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1214 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1213 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Maryland

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

318/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Westcott) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1215 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Craig (Kansas) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1216 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1215 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Craig (Kansas) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1217 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Smith (Tennessee) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1218 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1217 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Smith (Tennessee) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1219 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Louzau (New York) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1220 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1219 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Louzau (New York) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1221 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Larson (Wisconsin) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1222 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1221 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Larson (Wisconsin) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1223 MOTION for Summary Judgment Humphreys (Texas) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1224 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1223 MOTION for Summary Judgment Humphreys (Texas) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1225 MOTION for Summary Judgment Alexander (California) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008

1226 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1225 MOTION for Summary Judgment Alexander (California) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1227 MOTION for Summary Judgment Tofaute (New Jersey) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1228 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1227 MOTION for Summary Judgment Tofaute (New Jersey) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1229 MOTION for Summary Judgment Riewe (Indiana) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1230 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1229 MOTION for Summary Judgment Riewe (Indiana) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1231 MOTION for Summary Judgment Coleman (Kentucky) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1232 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1231 MOTION for Summary Judgment Coleman (Kentucky) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1233 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Tierney (Rhode Island) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

04/25/2008 1234 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1233 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Tierney (Rhode Island) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

319/498

5/8/2020
04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008 04/28/2008 04/29/2008
04/29/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

1235 MOTION for Summary Judgment Carlson (Florida) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1236 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1235 MOTION for Summary Judgment Carlson (Florida) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1237 STATEMENT of Material Facts as to all Status Summary Judgment Motions 1 through 13. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A - Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A - Part 3, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1238 STATEMENT Supplemental Statement Of Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. On Class Certiﬁcation In Gibson (Arizona). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1239 STATEMENT Supplemental Statement Of Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. On Class Certiﬁcation In White (Georgia). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1240 STATEMENT Supplemental Statement Of Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. On Class Certiﬁcation In Whiteside (North Carolina). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1241 STATEMENT Supplemental Statement Of Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. On Class Certiﬁcation In Magno (Connecticut). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1242 STATEMENT Supplemental Statement Of Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. On Class Certiﬁcation In Leighter (Oregon). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1243 STATEMENT Supplemental Statement Of Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. On Class Certiﬁcation In Gruhn (Vermont). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1244 STATEMENT Supplemental Statement Of Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. On Class Certiﬁcation In Vargas. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1245 STATEMENT Supplemental Statement Of Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. On Class Certiﬁcation In Givens (Louisiana). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1246 STATEMENT Supplemental Statement Of Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. On Class Certiﬁcation In Decesare (Nevada). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

1247 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Forms of Notice for Class Actions Certiﬁed on March 25, 2008 by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Blalack, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/28/2008)

1248

MOTION for Summary Judgment (CORRECTED) Kansas and ERISA Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

1249

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of (Corrected) Notice of Manual Filing Re California Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

320/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1250 NOTICE by Tina Floyd re 1156 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Alabama Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1251 NOTICE by David Harris re 1158 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Arkansas Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1252

NOTICE by Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman re 1160 Notice of Manual Filing, (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Florida Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1253

NOTICE by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry re 1164 Notice of Manual Filing, (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of ERISA and Kansas Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1254

NOTICE by John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders re 1166 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Kentucky Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1255

NOTICE by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy re 1162 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Indiana Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1256 NOTICE by Thomas Westcott re 1168 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Maryland Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1257

NOTICE by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey re 1170 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Minnesota Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1258

NOTICE by Donald Swazey, Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker, Robert Gennell Jr, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio re 1172 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1259

NOTICE by Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan re 1174 Notice of Manual Filing, (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of New Jersey Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1260

NOTICE by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin re 1176 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of New York Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008 1261 NOTICE by Dennis McHenry, Jeremy Brinker, Edward Slayman re 1178 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Oregon Plaintiffs'

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

321/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1262 NOTICE by Derek D Willis re 1180 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1263

NOTICE by Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Roland Guillet re 1182 Notice of Manual Filing, (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1264

NOTICE by Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Ricardo Bacani, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588) re 1184 Notice of Manual Filing, (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of South Carolina Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1265

NOTICE by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, John Lindsey re 1186 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Tennessee Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1266

NOTICE by John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon re 1188 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Texas Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1267 NOTICE by Lawrence Asbury re 1190 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of West Virginia Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1268

NOTICE by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo re 1192 Notice of Manual Filing (CORRECTED) Notice of Manual Filing of Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/29/2008

1269

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1251 Notice (Other), 1258 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1260 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1250 Notice (Other), 1263 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1255 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1265 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1266 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1264 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1259 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1252 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1268 Notice (Other), 1261 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1262 Notice (Other), 1249 Notice of Manual Filing, 1248 MOTION for Summary Judgment (CORRECTED) Kansas and ERISA Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status MOTION for Summary Judgment (CORRECTED) Kansas and ERISA Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1267 Notice (Other), 1253 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1256 Notice (Other), 1257 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1254 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/29/2008)

04/30/2008

1270 BRIEF in Opposition to 1145 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies ﬁled by Carlene M Craig. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 04/30/2008)

04/30/2008

1271 Parties' Joint Submission in Response to Court Order (1131) by FedEx Plaintiffs, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) to 1131 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,,, Order on

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

322/498

5/8/2020
05/01/2008 05/02/2008 05/05/2008
05/06/2008 05/06/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/09/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Motion to Appoint Counsel,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit s A through B to the Joint Submission, # 2 Exhibit s C through D, # 3 Exhibit s E thru F, # 4 Exhibit s G thru H, # 5 Exhibit s I thru J, # 6 Exhibit K, # 7 Exhibit s L thru M, # 8 Exhibit s N thru O, # 9 Exhibit s P thru Q, # 10 Exhibit s R thru T)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 04/30/2008)

1273

ORDER granting parties 1247 Joint Motion for Enlargment of Time to/including 4/30/08 to submit proposed class notices. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 5/1/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 05/02/2008)

1272 MOTION Strike Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Briefs by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 05/02/2008)

1274

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1148 MOTION for Reconsideration re (117 in 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Rel MOTION for Reconsideration re (117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Rel MOTION for Reconsideration re (117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Rel ﬁled by Carlene M Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Response In Opp to Reconsider, # 2 (Part 2) Exhibit A to Resp In Opp to Motion to Reconsider, # 3 Exhibit B to Response in Opp to Motion to Reconsider) (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2008)

1275

BRIEF in Opposition to 1272 MOTION Strike Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Briefs Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant FedEx Ground's Motion to Strike Summary Judgment Briefs ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Beth A. Ross, # 2 Proof of Service)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 05/06/2008)

1276

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1145 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/06/2008)

1277 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1272 MOTION Strike Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Briefs ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 05/07/2008)

1278 MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 3 Local Rule 37.1 Certiﬁcation)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/07/2008)

1279 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Their Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/07/2008)

1280 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/07/2008)

1281 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1280 Notice of Manual Filing, 1278 MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment, 1279 Notice of Manual Filing (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/07/2008)

1282 MOTION to Withdraw 1278 MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

323/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Assessment by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

05/09/2008

1283

Amended MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

05/09/2008

1284 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Memorandum in Support of Their Amended Motion to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

05/09/2008

1285

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

05/09/2008

1286 CERTIFICATE Local Rule 37.1 Certiﬁcation in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

05/09/2008

1287

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1284 Notice of Manual Filing, 1283 Amended MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition, 1285 Notice of Manual Filing, 1282 MOTION to Withdraw 1278 MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment, 1286 CERTIFICATE (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

05/12/2008

1288

ORDER : The notices attached as Exhbitis A thru T to the 4/30/08 ﬁling 1271 are APPROVED. Plaintiffs' counsel shall post and mail the respective notices as soon as practicable an in accordance with this Court's previous order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 5/12/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 05/12/2008)

05/14/2008

1289

DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER COURT'S ORDER 1292 ORDER: 1278 Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc shall produce to Plaintiffs the documents which Defendant received from the IRS relating to the IRS's conclusion that Defendant's drivers "should be reclassiﬁed". Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 5/14/08. (sdf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/15/2008: # (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/14/2008

1290

REPLY to Response to Motion re (1148 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 124 in 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN) MOTION for Reconsideration re (117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Rel MOTION for Reconsideration re (117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Rel MOTION for Reconsideration re (117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN, 117 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 1131 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Rel ﬁled by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Leo Rittenhouse. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(Barton, George) (Entered: 05/14/2008)

05/15/2008 1291 NOTICE of Appearance by Lesley A Pate on behalf of FedEx Ground (Pate, Lesley) (Entered: 05/15/2008)

05/15/2008 1292 ORDER granting (1282) Motion to Withdraw 1278 Motion to Compel nunc pro tunc.

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

324/498

5/8/2020
05/27/2008 05/27/2008
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Court's May 14, 2008 1289 order is STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 5/15/08. (sdf) (Entered: 05/15/2008)

1293 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert G Ames on behalf of FedEx Ground (Ames, Robert) (Entered: 05/27/2008)

1294

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1283 Amended MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 McGuinness Declaration, # 2 Fryt Declaration, # 3 Priest Declaration)(McGuinness, Michael) (Entered: 05/27/2008)

1295 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Illinois Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1296 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Illinois Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1297 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Illinois Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1298 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Illinois Plaintiffs' Appendix in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1299 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Montana Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1300 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Montana Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication by Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1301 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Montana Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1302 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Montana Plaintiffs' Appendix in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1303

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of South Dakota Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1304

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of South Dakota Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication by Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1305

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of South Dakota Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

325/498

5/8/2020
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008
06/02/2008 06/02/2008

1306

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of South Dakota Plaintiffs' Appendix in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1307

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Jean Capobianco, Richard Syrek, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1308

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication by Jean Capobianco, Richard Syrek, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1309

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Jean Capobianco, Richard Syrek, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1310

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Appendix in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Jean Capobianco, Richard Syrek, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1311 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits C, H and I to its Memorandum of Law in Support of its Fleming (Mississippi) Motion for Summary Judgment by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1312

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits C, G and H to its Memorandum of Law in Support of its Johnson (New York) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1313 MOTION for Summary Judgment Michigan Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake. (Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1314

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of MICHIGAN PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1315

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of APPENDIX A: MICHIGAN PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1316

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF LYNN ROSSMAN FARIS IN SUPPORT OF MICHIGAN PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1317

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF TIM MCLYNCH IN SUPPORT OF MICHIGAN PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

326/498

5/8/2020
06/02/2008 06/02/2008
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008

1318

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MOTION to Certify Class Michigan Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order by Plaintiffs Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake. (Attachments: # 1 Michigan Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1319

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake re 1316 Notice of Manual Filing, 1318 MOTION to Certify Class Michigan Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order, 1317 Notice of Manual Filing, 1315 Notice of Manual Filing, 1314 Notice of Manual Filing, 1313 MOTION for Summary Judgment Michigan Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1320

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Missouri Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, Carl Tucker, Raymond Tierney. (Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1321

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1322

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of APPENDIX A: MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1323

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF LYNN ROSSMAN FARIS IN SUPPORT OF MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1324

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATIONS OF MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS CARL TUCKER, JAMES TICHENOR, MARCUS HOLMES, ROY PATTON, REGINALD GRAY AND JAMMIE HILL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1325

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF TIM MCLYNCH IN SUPPORT OF MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1326

MOTION to Certify Class MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER by Plaintiffs Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker. (Attachments: # 1 MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTIO TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1327

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker re 1323 Notice of Manual Filing, 1326 MOTION to Certify Class MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER, 1320 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Missouri

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

327/498

5/8/2020
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1325 Notice of Manual Filing, 1322 Notice of Manual Filing, 1321 Notice of Manual Filing, 1324 Notice of Manual Filing, (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1328

MOTION for Summary Judgment VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Plaintiffs Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory. (Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1329

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1330

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of APPENDIX A: VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1331

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF LYNN ROSSMAN FARIS IN SUPPORT OF VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION by Mark Gagnon, Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1332

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF TIM MCLYNCH IN SUPPORT OF VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS by Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1333

MOTION to Certify Class Virginia Plaintiffs' Motio to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order by Plaintiffs Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory. (Attachments: # 1 Virginia Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1334

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory re 1328 MOTION for Summary Judgment VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS, 1332 Notice of Manual Filing, 1329 Notice of Manual Filing, 1331 Notice of Manual Filing, 1333 MOTION to Certify Class Virginia Plaintiffs' Motio to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order, 1330 Notice of Manual Filing, (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1335

MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly. (Attachments: # 1 Illinois Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law, # 2 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 3 Illinois Plaintiffs' Appendix, # 4 Illinois Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1336

MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa. (Attachments: # 1 Montana Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law, # 2 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 3 Montana Plaintiffs' Appendix, # 4 Montana Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts)(Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1337

MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Jean Capobianco, Richard Syrek, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner. (Attachments: # 1 Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law, # 2 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 3 Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Appendix, # 4 Massachusetts

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

328/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts)(Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 06/02/2008)

06/02/2008

1338

MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck. (Attachments: # 1 South Dakota Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law, # 2 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 3 South Dakota Plaintiffs' Appendix, # 4 South Dakota Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts)(Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 06/02/2008)

06/02/2008

1339

MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(c) by Plaintiffs Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly. (Attachments: # 1 Illinois Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

06/02/2008

1340

MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) by Plaintiffs Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa. (Attachments: # 1 Montana Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

06/02/2008

1341

MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) by Plaintiffs Jean Capobianco, Richard Syrek, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner. (Attachments: # 1 Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

06/02/2008

1342

MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) by Plaintiffs Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck. (Attachments: # 1 South Dakota Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

06/02/2008

1343

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1307 Notice of Manual Filing, 1338 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 1339 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c) (1)(c) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(c), 1300 Notice of Manual Filing, 1335 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 1340 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), 1305 Notice of Manual Filing, 1297 Notice of Manual Filing, 1299 Notice of Manual Filing, 1310 Notice of Manual Filing, 1296 Notice of Manual Filing, 1298 Notice of Manual Filing, 1306 Notice of Manual Filing, 1295 Notice of Manual Filing, 1302 Notice of Manual Filing, 1301 Notice of Manual Filing, 1308 Notice of Manual Filing, 1341 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), 1337 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 1342 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), 1303 Notice of Manual Filing, 1309 Notice of Manual Filing, 1336 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 1304 Notice of Manual Filing (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

06/02/2008 1344 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Fleming (Mississippi) by Defendant FedEx Ground

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

329/498

5/8/2020
06/02/2008 06/02/2008
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008
06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/02/2008 06/09/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Package System Inc. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1345 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1344 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Fleming (Mississippi) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1346

STATEMENT of Material Facts re 1344 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Fleming (Mississippi), 1345 Memorandum in Support ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit J, # 9 Exhibit K-1, # 10 Exhibit K-2, # 11 Exhibit L, # 12 Exhibit M, # 13 Exhibit N, # 14 Exhibit O)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1347 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) in Johnson (New York) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1348 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1347 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) in Johnson (New York) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1349

STATEMENT of Material Facts re 1347 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) in Johnson (New York), 1348 Memorandum in Support ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit I, # 8 Exhibit J)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1350 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Ellison (Maryland) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1351 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1350 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Ellison (Maryland) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1352 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Capers (New Jersey) by Defendant Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1353 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1352 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Capers (New Jersey) ﬁled by Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795). (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1354 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Jones (Maryland) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1355 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1354 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Jones (Maryland) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1356 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Pedrazzi (California) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1357 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1356 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Pedrazzi (California) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

1358 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Statement Of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts In Support of Memoranda Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiffs Motions For Summary Adjudication Of Employment Status and Omnibus Collateral

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

330/498

5/8/2020
06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Estoppel Motion and CD ROM Of Exhibits To FedEx Ground's Statement Of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts ﬁled under Seal by FedEx Ground (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/3/2012: # 1 Statement of Genuine Issues, # 2 Exhibit A Part 1 Operating Agreements, # 3 Exhibit A Part 2 Operating Agreements, # 4 Exhibit B Policies and Procedures, # 5 Exhibit C Deposition Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit D Part 1 Company Declarations, # 7 Exhibit D Part 2 Company Declarations, # 8 Exhibit D Part 3 Company Declarations, # 9 Exhibit E Stricken Contractor Declarations, # 10 Exhibit F Discovery Reports, # 11 Exhibit G Part 1 Discovery Materials, # 12 Exhibit G Part 2 Discovery Materials, # 13 Exhibit G Part 3 Discovery Materials, # 14 Exhibit H Part 1 Estoppel Materials, # 15 Exhibit H Part 2 Estoppel Material) (jld). (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1359

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1283 Amended MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition (Unopposed) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1360

BRIEF in Opposition to 1225 MOTION for Summary Judgment Alexander (California) California Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1361

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1235 MOTION for Summary Judgment Carlson (Florida) Florida Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman. (Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 6/10/2008 to correct ﬁlers (sdf). (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1362

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1229 MOTION for Summary Judgment Riewe (Indiana) Indiana Plaintiffs' Memoradum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1363 First RULE 56 MOTION to Strike and Exclude the Expert Testimony and Report of Robert Wood by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1364

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1215 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Craig (Kansas) ERISA/Kansas Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1365

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1231 MOTION for Summary Judgment Coleman (Kentucky) Kentucky Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1366

BRIEF IN SUPPORT of 1363 First RULE 56 MOTION to Strike and Exclude the Expert Testimony and Report of Robert Wood - Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and Report of Robert Wood by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) Modiﬁed on 1/29/2009 (sdf). (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1367 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1213 MOTION for Summary Judgment in

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

331/498

5/8/2020
06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008
06/09/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Maryland (Westcott) Maryland Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1368

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1211 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Alexander (California) Minnesota Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1369

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1227 MOTION for Summary Judgment Tofaute (New Jersey) New Jersey Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Michael B Kilmartin, Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1370

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1219 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Louzau (New York) New York Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1371

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1233 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Tierney (Rhode Island) Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Roland Guillet. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1372

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1217 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Smith (Tennessee) Tennessee Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, John Lindsey. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1373

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1223 MOTION for Summary Judgment Humphreys (Texas) Texas Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1374

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1221 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Larson (Wisconsin) Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Darren Zabrocki, Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1375 STATEMENT Plaintiffs' Statement of Genuine Issues in Response to FedEx Ground Package System Inc's Statement of Material Facts Under Local Rule 56.1 re 1237 Statement ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1376

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1369 Memorandum in Opposition, 1373 Memorandum in Opposition, 1375 Statement, 1360 Brief in Opposition, 1361 Memorandum in Opposition, 1372 Memorandum in Opposition, 1367 Memorandum in Opposition, 1365 Memorandum in Opposition, 1374 Memorandum in Opposition, 1368 Memorandum in Opposition, 1370 Memorandum in Opposition, 1364 Memorandum in Opposition, 1371 Memorandum in Opposition, 1362 Memorandum in Opposition, (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1377 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1157 MOTION for Summary Judgment Arkansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

332/498

5/8/2020
06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008

1378

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1165 MOTION for Summary Judgment Kentucky Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Coleman) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1379 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1167 MOTION for Summary Judgment Maryland Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Wescott) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1380 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1169 MOTION for Summary Judgment Minnesota Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Lee) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1381 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1171 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Gennell) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1382 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1173 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Jersey Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Tofaute) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1383 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1177 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oregon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Slayman) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1384 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1183 MOTION for Summary Judgment South Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Cooke) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1385 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1189 MOTION for Summary Judgment West Virginia Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Ashbury) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1386 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1191 MOTION for Summary Judgment Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Larson) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1387 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1161 MOTION for Summary Judgment Indiana Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Riewe) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Pope, D) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1388 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1153 MOTION for Summary Judgment California Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Alexander) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1389 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1159 MOTION for Summary Judgment Florida Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Carlson) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1390 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1179 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Willis) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1391 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1187 MOTION for Summary Judgment Texas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Humphreys) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1392 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1163 MOTION for Summary Judgment ERISA and Kansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Craig) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

333/498

5/8/2020
06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008
06/09/2008
06/10/2008 06/10/2008
06/11/2008
06/11/2008
06/11/2008

1393

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1175 MOTION for Summary Judgment New York Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Louzau) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1394 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1181 MOTION for Summary Judgment Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Tierney) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1395 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Tennessee Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Smith) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1396 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1155 MOTION for Summary Judgment Alabama Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Floyd) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Jih, Victor) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1397 MEMORANDUM OF LAW Omnibus Response In Opposition To Plaintiffs Memorandum Of Law Re: Collateral Estoppel. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1398 MOTION To Strike Plaintiffs Individualized Proof Submitted In Support Of Summary Judgment Motions by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1399

MEMORANDUM in Support to 1398 MOTION To Strike Plaintiffs Individualized Proof Submitted In Support Of Summary Judgment Motions ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Fox, Alison) Modiﬁed on 6/10/2008 to reﬂect that this is a memorandum in SUPPORT not in OPPOSITION (jld). (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1400

MOTION FOR HEARING Request For Oral Argument On Plaintiffs' Motions For Summary Adjudication Of Employment Status. (Fox, Alison) Modiﬁed on 6/10/2008 to show this is a motion not a brief (jld). Modiﬁed on 6/10/2008 (jld). (Entered: 06/09/2008)

1401 ORDER denying (1272) Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/10/08. (sdf) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

1402

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1283 Amended MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2-3)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/10/2008)

1403

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibit 4 to the Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

1404

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

1405

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1359 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1283 Amended MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition (Unopposed) MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1283 Amended MOTION to Compel Production of IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition (Unopposed), 1404 Notice of Manual Filing, 1402 Reply to Response to Motion, 1403 Notice of Manual Filing, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

334/498

5/8/2020
06/11/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1406 ORDER denying 1061 FedEx's motion as moot. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 6/11/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

06/11/2008

1407

ORDER granting (1145) FedEx's Motion for Leave to File a partial summary judgment motion on the ERISA exhaustion issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/11/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 06/11/2008)

06/11/2008

1408

ORDER granting 1359 Motion for extention of time to reply in support of Motion to Compel FedEx Ground Package System Inc to produce Notice of Proposed Assessment.. ( Reply to be ﬁled by 6/10/2008.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/11/08..(sdf) (Entered: 06/12/2008)

06/12/2008

1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/12/2008)

06/12/2008

1410

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew Eastus & Exh. C thereto (Exhibits A and B ﬁled under seal 4/15/08, Doc. No. 1144))(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/12/2008)

06/13/2008

1411 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan M Purdie on behalf of Theodore Fleming Jr Associated Cases: 3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 06/13/2008)

06/17/2008

1412 Joint MOTION to Amend the Case Schedule and File Amended Complaints by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

06/19/2008 1413 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Correction to Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Riewe (IN) Motion for Summary Adjudication (Pope, D) (Entered: 06/19/2008)

06/19/2008

1425

ORDER granting (1412) Motion to Amend the Case Schedule and File Amended Complaints in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Plaintiffs to ﬁle motions for certiﬁcation of classes and/or collective actions relating to newly transferred cases by 8/4/2008. FedEx Ground to ﬁle their response by 9/15/2008. Plaintiffs reply is due 10/13/2008. Movants for summary judgment/adjudication to serve expert reports in support by 7/31/2008. Opponents of summary judgment/adjudication to depose movants' experts by 8/30/2008. Opponents of summary adjudication to serve expert reports by 8/30/3008. Parties to ﬁle summary judgment/adjudication motions related to independent contractor/employment status by 11/10/2008. Responses in opposition to be ﬁled by 12/22/2008 and Replies in support to be ﬁled by 1/22/2009. Plaintiffs in Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota and Virginia actions may amend their complaints solely to add additional named plaintiffs by 9/30/2008. Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs' Motions to Amend the Class Certiﬁcation Orders to be ﬁled by 7/17/2008, and plaintiffs' Reply briefs to be ﬁled by 8/16/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/19/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) Modiﬁed text (to add Illinois) on 6/24/2008 (ksc). (Entered: 06/23/2008)

06/20/2008 1414 Joint MOTION to Suspend Deadlines for Today, June 20, 2008 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/20/2008)

06/20/2008

1415

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of MICHIGAN, MISSOURI AND VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERRORS IN THE RECORD FILED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION by Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Percival Currithers,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

335/498

5/8/2020
06/20/2008
06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Bradley D Gregory (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/20/2008)

1416

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF LYNN ROSSMAN FARIS IN SUPPORT OF MICHIGAN, MISSOURI AND VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERRORS IN THE RECORD FILED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Bradley D Gregory, Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor (Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 6/24/2008 (sdf). (Entered: 06/20/2008)

1417

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Bradley D Gregory re 1415 Notice of Manual Filing, 1416 Notice of Manual Filing, (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/20/2008)

1418

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1339 MOTION to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) Modiﬁed to correct link on 6/23/2008 (ksc). (Entered: 06/20/2008)

1419 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1318 MOTION to Certify Class Michigan Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order in Michigan (Currithers) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/20/2008)

1420

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1326 MOTION to Certify Class MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/20/2008)

1421 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1333 MOTION to Certify Class Virginia Plaintiffs' Motio to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/20/2008)

1422

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1340 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) in Montana (Carlson) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/20/2008)

1423

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1342 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) in South Dakota (Bunger) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/20/2008)

1424

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1341 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) in Massachusetts (Sheehan) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/20/2008)

1426 MOTION to Amend Order Certifying a Minnesota (Lee) Class on the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Claim by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/25/2008)

1427 ORDER denying as moot 141 Joint Motion to Suspend Deadlines set for 6/20/08.

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

336/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 6/25/08. (sdf) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

06/26/2008

1428 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1358 Notice of Manual Filing, MOTION TO STRIKE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC'S STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

06/26/2008

1429

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1428 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1358 Notice of Manual Filing, MOTION TO STRIKE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC'S STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

06/26/2008

1430

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF LYNN ROSSMAN FARIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC'S STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES by FedEx Plaintiffs (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

06/26/2008

1431

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1429 Memorandum in Support, 1428 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1358 Notice of Manual Filing, MOTION TO STRIKE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC'S STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES, 1430 Notice of Manual Filing (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

06/27/2008

1432 RESPONSE in Opposition re 1363 First RULE 56 MOTION to Strike and Exclude the Expert Testimony and Report of Robert Wood ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

06/27/2008

1433

AMENDED COMPLAINT Fourth (Sheehan) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Scott Erickson, Mouloud Zouaoui, Elhadj Ndoye, Paul Fenner, Daniel Graham, Ronald Parker, Kwame Poku, Stephen Tarasiak, John Shinnick, Manuel Leite, Aguinaldo Ferreira, John Mooney, Smail Bencheikh, Henry Szupel, Robson Araujo, Vincent Laurino, Ed Rosa, Richard Lacina, Jr, Paulo DaSilva, John Chiasson, Michael Timmons, Joseph Pasquale, Robert Willis, Wayne Curran, Rosita Claudio, Clayton Schwan, Michael Leto, Ismael de La Rosa, Lucas Xavier, Mohammed Belaabd, Michael Brennan, Kevin Moynagh, Steven Swartwout, James Grasso, Richard Knowlton, Mohamed Tamart, Geoffrey Bowan, Brian Flynn, Genaro Vargas, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

06/27/2008 1434 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1432 Response in Opposition to Motion, 1433 Amended Complaint,,, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

06/27/2008

1435

BRIEF in Opposition to 1398 MOTION To Strike Plaintiffs Individualized Proof Submitted In Support Of Summary Judgment Motions ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to FedEx Ground Package System Inc' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Individualized Proof Submitted in Support of Summary Judgment Motions)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

06/27/2008 1436 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1435 Brief in Opposition, and Declaration (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

07/02/2008 1437 Joint MOTION to Amend the Case Schedule by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/02/2008)

07/09/2008

1438 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1157 MOTION for Summary Judgment Arkansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by David Harris. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 1439 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1155 MOTION for Summary Judgment Alabama

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

337/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1440

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1153 MOTION for Summary Judgment California Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1441

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1159 MOTION for Summary Judgment Florida Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by David R Mosher, Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1442

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1161 MOTION for Summary Judgment Indiana Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1443

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1163 MOTION for Summary Judgment ERISA and Kansas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Barry. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1444

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1165 MOTION for Summary Judgment Kentucky Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1445 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1167 MOTION for Summary Judgment Maryland Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1446

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1169 MOTION for Summary Judgment Minnesota Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1447

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1171 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Donald Swazey, Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker, Robert Gennell, Jr, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1448 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1211 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Alexander (California) Minnesota (Lee) (Original Motion Mislabeled as Alexander California) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1449

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1173 MOTION for Summary Judgment New Jersey Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Michael B Kilmartin, Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Frank Cucinotti, Patrick Carrigan. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 1450 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1213 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Maryland (Westcott) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 1451 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1175 MOTION for Summary Judgment New York Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Nicholas

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

338/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1452 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1177 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oregon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Dennis McHenry, Jeremy Brinker, Edward Slayman. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 1453 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1215 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Craig (Kansas) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1454 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1179 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 1455 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1217 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Smith (Tennessee) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 1456 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1219 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Louzau (New York) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1457

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1181 MOTION for Summary Judgment Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Roland Guillet. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 1458 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1221 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Larson (Wisconsin) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1459

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1183 MOTION for Summary Judgment South Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588). (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 1460 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1223 MOTION for Summary Judgment Humphreys (Texas) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1461

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1185 MOTION for Summary Judgment Tennessee Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, John Lindsey. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1462

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1187 MOTION for Summary Judgment Texas Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 1463 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1225 MOTION for Summary Judgment Alexander (California) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1464 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1191 MOTION for Summary Judgment Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Darren Zabrocki, Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008 1465 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1227 MOTION for Summary Judgment Tofaute (New Jersey) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

07/09/2008

1466 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1189 MOTION for Summary Judgment West Virginia Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

339/498

5/8/2020
07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008
07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008
07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008
07/10/2008 07/10/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

1467 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1229 MOTION for Summary Judgment Riewe (Indiana) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Pope, D) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

1468 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1231 MOTION for Summary Judgment Coleman (Kentucky) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

1469 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1233 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Tierney (Rhode Island) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

1470 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1235 MOTION for Summary Judgment Carlson (Florida) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

1471

MOTION FOR HEARING Request for Oral Argument On Its Motions (Docket #'s 1448, 1450, 1453, 1455, 1456, 1458, 1460, 1463, 1465, 1467, 1468, 1469, and 1470) for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) Modiﬁed event type to show as a motion for hearing, not a brief on 7/10/2008 (jld). (Entered: 07/09/2008)

1472 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C & D-1, # 4 Exhibit D-2)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

1473 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 1397 Memorandum of Law (Other) OMNIBUS REPLY MEMORANDUM RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

1474

AFFIDAVIT of EDWARD SLAYMAN re 1386 Memorandum in Opposition, 1389 Memorandum in Opposition, 1395 Memorandum in Opposition, 1387 Memorandum in Opposition, 1378 Memorandum in Opposition, 1392 Memorandum in Opposition, 1381 Memorandum in Opposition, 1382 Memorandum in Opposition, 1384 Memorandum in Opposition, 1377 Memorandum in Opposition, 1380 Memorandum in Opposition, 1388 Memorandum in Opposition, 1379 Memorandum in Opposition, 1393 Memorandum in Opposition, 1383 Memorandum in Opposition, 1391 Memorandum in Opposition, 1394 Memorandum in Opposition, 1396 Memorandum in Opposition, 1385 Memorandum in Opposition, 1390 Memorandum in Opposition by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/09/2008)

1475 AMENDED DOCUMENT by David Harris. Amendment to 1438 Reply to Response to Motion Arkansas Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1476 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Tina Floyd. Amendment to 1439 Reply to Response to Motion Alabama Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1477

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. Amendment to 1440 Reply to Response to Motion, California Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1478

AMENDED DOCUMENT by David R Mosher, Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman. Amendment to 1441 Reply to Response to Motion, Florida Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1479 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. Amendment to 1442 Reply to Response to Motion Indiana

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

340/498

5/8/2020
07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) SEE 1492 FOR CORRECT DOCUMENT: Text Modiﬁed on 7/11/2008 to add link to correct document (jld). (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1480

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore. Amendment to 1443 Reply to Response to Motion, Kansas Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1481

AMENDED DOCUMENT by John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders. Amendment to 1444 Reply to Response to Motion Kentucky Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1482

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Thomas Westcott. Amendment to 1445 Reply to Response to Motion Maryland Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) Modiﬁed on 7/14/2008 to correct ﬁler (from Terrance E Ellison & TEE One Enterprises LLC to Thomas Westcott. (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1483

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey. Amendment to 1446 Reply to Response to Motion, Minnesota Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1484

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Donald Swazey, Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker, Robert Gennell, Jr, Kimball Rice, Gary Terrio. Amendment to 1447 Reply to Response to Motion, New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1485

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Jessie Capers, Patrick Ngei, Tariq Baskerville, Gitonga Waiguchu. Amendment to 1449 Reply to Response to Motion, New Jersey Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1486

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Daniel Santa, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin. Amendment to 1451 Reply to Response to Motion, New York Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1487

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Dennis McHenry, Jeremy Brinker, Edward Slayman. Amendment to 1452 Reply to Response to Motion Oregon Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1488 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Jeffrey Hart. Amendment to 1454 Reply to Response to Motion Pennsylvania Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1489

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Raymond Tierney, Wayne F Mills Jr, Alan Ginet, Sammy Farland, Donald J McClafferty, Ricardo Bacani, Paul Luongo, Stephen H McGuinness, Roland Guillet. Amendment to 1457 Reply to Response to Motion, Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

1490 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588). Amendment to

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

341/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1459 Reply to Response to Motion, South Carolina Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

07/10/2008

1491

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Buddy D Johnson, Robert Erbentraut, John Lindsey. Amendment to 1461 Reply to Response to Motion, Tennessee Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

07/10/2008

1492

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. Amendment to 1479 Amended Document Indiana Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

07/10/2008

1493

AMENDED DOCUMENT by John Humphreys, David Meredith, Jeffrey Quebe, Charles Campbell, Tim Mershon. Amendment to 1462 Reply to Response to Motion Texas Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

07/10/2008

1494

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki(Western District of Wisconsin). Amendment to 1464 Reply to Response to Motion Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

07/10/2008

1495 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory. Amendment to 1466 Reply to Response to Motion West Virginia Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

07/10/2008

1496

AMENDED DOCUMENT by FedEx Plaintiffs. Amendment to 1472 Notice (Other) Plaintiffs' Second Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C & D-1, # 4 Exhibit D-2)(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

07/10/2008

1497 AMENDED DOCUMENT by FedEx Plaintiffs. Amendment to 1473 Memorandum of Law (Other) Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum Re: Collateral Estoppel in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Adjudication. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/10/2008)

07/11/2008

1498

NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1429 Memorandum in Support, 1428 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1358 Notice of Manual Filing, MOTION TO STRIKE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC'S STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES, 1430 Notice of Manual Filing PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF WITHDRAWL OF MOTION TO STRIKE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC'S STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/11/2008)

07/11/2008

1499 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1358 Notice of Manual Filing, by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/11/2008)

07/11/2008

1500 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1499 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1358 Notice of Manual Filing, ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/11/2008)

07/11/2008

1501 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1499 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1358 Notice of Manual Filing,, 1500 Memorandum in Support, 1498 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/11/2008)

07/11/2008

1502

OPINION AND ORDER granting (1151) Motion for Reconsideration re: the Court's 1119 Order of 3/25/08 and DENYING Tennessee plaintiffs' 599 Motion for Class Certiﬁcation under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in case 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 7/11/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 07/14/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

342/498

5/8/2020
07/14/2008 07/14/2008 07/14/2008
07/14/2008 07/14/2008 07/15/2008
07/17/2008
07/17/2008 07/17/2008 07/17/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

1503

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of DECLARATION OF LYNN ROSSMAN FARIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC'S STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/14/2008)

1504 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Exhibit F to the Afﬁdavit of Anne T. Regan by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey (Regan, Anne) (Entered: 07/14/2008)

1505

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1426 MOTION to Amend Order Certifying a Minnesota (Lee) Class on the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Claim ﬁled by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Anne T. Regan, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Regan, Anne) (Entered: 07/14/2008)

1506

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1363 First RULE 56 MOTION to Strike and Exclude the Expert Testimony and Report of Robert Wood ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/14/2008)

1507

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1398 MOTION To Strike Plaintiffs Individualized Proof Submitted In Support Of Summary Judgment Motions ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 07/14/2008)

1508

ORDER granting 1437 Motion to Amend Case Schedule in case 3:05-md-527. Defendant to ﬁle response to plaintiff's 1428 Motion to Strike Defendant's Statement of Genuine Issues by 7/28/08; Plaintiff's to ﬁle their reply in support by 8/11/08; the Scheduling Order of 3/28/08 is amended so that the parties shall have until 8/25/08 to ﬁle reply briefs in support of motions for summary judgment, ﬁled on 6/2/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 7/15/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) Modiﬁed to correct link on 7/15/2008 (ksc). (Entered: 07/15/2008)

1509

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.s Separate Statements of Genuine Issues And Statement of Additional Material Facts In Support of Its Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Adjudication of Employment Status in Fluegel, 3-05-CV-529-RLM-CAN (IL); Sheehan 3-05-CV-351-RLM-CAN (MA); Currithers, 3-05-CV-532-RLM-CAN (MI); Gray, 3-05CV-337-RLM-CAN (MO); Carlson, 3-06-CV-393-RLM-CAN (MT); Bunger, 3-05-CV539-RLM-CAN (SD); and Gregory, 3-05-CV-541-RLM-CAN (VA) under seal by FedEx Ground (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 main, # 2 exhibits) (jld). (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1510 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1356 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Pedrazzi (California) on Employment Status ﬁled by Jeremiah Pedrazzi. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1511 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1352 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Capers (New Jersey) on Employment Status ﬁled by Jessie Capers. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1512 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1350 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Ellison (Maryland) on Employment Status ﬁled by Terrance E Ellison. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

343/498

5/8/2020
07/17/2008 07/17/2008 07/17/2008 07/17/2008 07/17/2008 07/17/2008
07/17/2008 07/17/2008 07/17/2008
07/17/2008 07/17/2008
07/17/2008 07/17/2008
07/21/2008

1513

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1354 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Jones (Maryland) on Employment Status ﬁled by Laron Jones. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1514 ANSWER to Complaint and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint in Sheehan (MA) by FedEx Ground.(Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1515 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1347 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) in Johnson (New York) ﬁled by Curtis Johnson. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1516 STATEMENT of Genuine Issues In Response to Def's Statement of Material Facts re 1349 Statement, ﬁled by Curtis Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Statement in Response to Def's SOFs)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1517 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1344 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Fleming (Mississippi) ﬁled by Theodore Fleming, Jr. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1518

STATEMENT of Genuine Facts In Response to Def's Statement of Material Facts re 1346 Statement,, ﬁled by Theodore Fleming, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Exhibits to Genuine Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1519 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1338 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Bunger (South Dakota) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1520 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1336 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Carlson (Montana) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1521

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1320 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Missouri Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status in Gray (Missouri) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1522 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1335 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Fluegel (Illinois) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1523

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1328 MOTION for Summary Judgment VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS in Gregory (Virginia) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1524 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1337 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Sheehan (Massachusetts) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1525

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1313 MOTION for Summary Judgment Michigan Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status in Currithers (Michigan) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

1526

AMENDED ANSWER to Class Action Complaint in Boudreaux et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (Louisiana), 3:08-CV-193, by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 07/21/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

344/498

5/8/2020
07/28/2008
07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/28/2008 07/29/2008 07/31/2008 08/04/2008 08/04/2008 08/04/2008

1527

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of (1) Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Corrected Statement Of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts In Support of Its Memoranda of Law In Opposition To Plaintiffs Motions For Summary Adjudication Of Employment Status; (2) Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Statement of Genuine Issues; and (3) CD ROM of Exhibits To FedEx Ground's Corrected Statement Of Genuine Issues and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike in Floyd (AL); Harris (AR); Alexander (CA); Carlson (FL); Riewe (IN); Berry (KS); Coleman (KY); Wescott (MD); Lee (MN); Gennell (NH); Tofaute (NJ); Louzau (NY); Slayman (OR); Willis (PA); Tierney (RI); Cooke (SC); Smith (TN); Humphrey (TX); Asbury (WV); Larson (WI); and ALL CASES (Collateral Estoppel) by FedEx Ground (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2008)

1528

NOTICE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) Notice of ﬁling of errata with regard to defendant's oppositions to motions for summary adjudication Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2008)

1529

NOTICE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) Notice of Errata to Exhibits in Support of Defendant's Statement of Genuine Issues in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Adjudication (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2008)

1530 NOTICE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902) Notice of Errata to Defendant's Statement of Genuine Issues in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Adjudication (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2008)

1531 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) to 1472 Notice (Other). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2008)

1532 CORRECTED RESPONSE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) to 1472 Notice (Other) to Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2008)

1533

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1426 MOTION to Amend Order Certifying a Minnesota (Lee) Class on the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Claim ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2008)

1534 NOTICE by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey re 1505 Memorandum in Opposition, Request for Judicial Notice (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Regan, Anne) (Entered: 07/29/2008)

1542 ORDER : granting 1130 Motion for Clariﬁaction. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 7/31/08. (sdf) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

1535 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Ninth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

1536 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Ninth Plaintiffs' Appendix in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation by FedEx Plaintiffs (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

1537 MOTION to Certify Class (Colorado). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Plaintiffs' Ninth Appendix, # 3 Ninth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 4 Index to Plaintiffs' Ninth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

345/498

5/8/2020
08/04/2008

1538

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MOTION to Certify Class (Utah). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Ninth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Ninth Appendix, # 4 Plaintiffs' Ninth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/04/2008

1539 MOTION to Certify Class (Ohio). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Ninth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 3 Index to Plaintiffs' Ninth Appendix, # 4 Plaintiffs' Ninth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/04/2008

1540

MOTION to Certify Class (Louisiana). (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Certiﬁcation of Ryan Boudreaux, # 3 Certiﬁcation of Timothy Bellow, # 4 Ninth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 5 Index to Plaintiffs' Ninth Appendix, # 6 Plaintiffs' Ninth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/04/2008

1541

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1537 MOTION to Certify Class (Colorado), 1538 MOTION to Certify Class (Utah), 1535 Notice of Manual Filing, 1539 MOTION to Certify Class (Ohio), 1536 Notice of Manual Filing, 1540 MOTION to Certify Class (Louisiana) MOTION to Certify Class (Louisiana) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/04/2008

1543

Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Filing Deadlines in Connection with FedEx Ground's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's ERISA Claim by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Statement of Material Facts)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/04/2008

1544

STATEMENT of Material Facts in Support regarding 1410 Memorandum in Support, ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/04/2008)

08/07/2008

1545

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of CD ROMs (3 total) containing electronic copies of Revised Exhibit Lists and corrected electronic copies of all exhibits to the Separate Statements of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts ﬁled under seal with the court on July 17, 2008 in Fluegel, 3:05-CV-529-RLM-CAN (IL); Sheehan, 3:05-CV-351-RLM-CAN (MA); Currithers, 3:05-CV-532-RLM-CAN (MI); Gray, 3:05CV-337-RLM-CAN (MO); Carlson, 3:06-CV-393-RLM-CAN (MT); Bunger, 3:05-CV539-RLM-CAN (SD); and Gregory, 3:05-CV-541-RLM-CAN (VA) by FedEx Ground (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

08/07/2008

1546

NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Errata Sheet Correcting Exhibits to Separate Statement of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts ﬁled under seal 7-17-08 in Support of its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Fluegel (Illinois) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

08/07/2008

1547

NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Errata Sheet Correcting Exhibits to Separate Statement of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts ﬁled under seal 7-17-08 in Support of its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Sheehan (MA) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

08/07/2008

1548

NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Errata Sheet Correcting Exhibits to Separate Statement of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts ﬁled under seal 7-17-08 in Support of its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Currithers (Michigan) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

08/07/2008

1549

NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Errata Sheet Correcting Exhibits to Separate Statement of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts ﬁled under seal 7-17-08 in Support of its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Gray (Missouri) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

346/498

5/8/2020
08/07/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

1550

NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Errata Sheet Correcting Exhibits to Separate Statement of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts ﬁled under seal 7-17-08 in Support of its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Carlson (Montana) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

08/07/2008

1551

NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Errata Sheet Correcting Exhibits to Separate Statement of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts ﬁled under seal 7-17-08 in Support of its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Bunger (South Dakota) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

08/07/2008

1552

NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Errata Sheet Correcting Exhibits to Separate Statement of Genuine Issues and Statement of Additional Material Facts ﬁled under seal 7-17-08 in Support of its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Gregory (Virginia) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

08/08/2008

1553 RESPONSE TO LEE PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by FedEx Ground System Inc(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326) to 1534 Notice (Other). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/08/2008)

08/08/2008 1554 MOTION HOLD SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS IN ABEYANCE by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/08/2008)

08/11/2008

1555 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1499 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1358 Notice of Manual Filing, ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 08/11/2008)

08/13/2008

1556

NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Supplemental Authority in wave 4 cases Decesare Civil No. 3:07-cv-00120-RLM-CAN (NV), Gibson Civil No. 3:07-cv-00272-RLM-CAN (AZ), Givens Civil No. 3:07-cv-00324-RLM-CAN (LA), Gruhn Civil No. 3:07-cv-00412-RLMCAN (VT), Leighter Civil No. 3:07-cv-00328-RLM-CAN (OR), Magno Civil No. 3:07-cv00322-RLM-CAN (CT), Vargas Civil No. 3:07-cv-00325-RLM-CAN (MA), White Civil No. 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-CAN (GA), Whiteside Civil No. 3:07-cv-00326-RLM-CAN (NC) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

08/13/2008 1557 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Supplemental Authority in Alexander Civil No.3-05-cv528 (CA) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

08/15/2008

1558 Letter from Larry C Burge Jr, President/CEO of Contract Delivery Services Inc requesting to be excluded from litigation Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

08/15/2008

1559

RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1419 Memorandum in Opposition, 1424 Memorandum in Opposition, 1421 Memorandum in Opposition, 1422 Memorandum in Opposition, 1418 Memorandum in Opposition, 1423 Memorandum in Opposition, 1420 Memorandum in Opposition PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE REFERENCES TO STRICKEN DECLARATIONS IN DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDA IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COURT'S CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDERS by Plaintiffs Robert Lee Taylor, Dale Fluegel, Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton, Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck, Bradley D Gregory, Diane Gordon, Andy Parker, Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Ya Vang, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, Ernest Neal, III, Genaro Vargas, Clarence Kelly. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

08/15/2008

1560

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 1559 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1419 Memorandum in Opposition, 1424 Memorandum in Opposition, 1421 Memorandum in Opposition, 1422 Memorandum in Opposition, 1418 Memorandum in Opposition, 1423 Memorandum in Opposition, 1420 Memorandum in Opposit RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1419

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

347/498

5/8/2020
08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/18/2008
08/18/2008 08/18/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Memorandum in Opposition, 1424 Memorandum in Opposition, 1421 Memorandum in Opposition, 1422 Memorandum in Opposition, 1418 Memorandum in Opposition, 1423 Memorandum in Opposition, 1420 Memorandum in Opposit RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1419 Memorandum in Opposition, 1424 Memorandum in Opposition, 1421 Memorandum in Opposition, 1422 Memorandum in Opposition, 1418 Memorandum in Opposition, 1423 Memorandum in Opposition, 1420 Memorandum in Opposit RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1419 Memorandum in Opposition, 1424 Memorandum in Opposition, 1421 Memorandum in Opposition, 1422 Memorandum in Opposition, 1418 Memorandum in Opposition, 1423 Memorandum in Opposition, 1420 Memorandum in Opposit ﬁled by Robert Lee Taylor, Dale Fluegel, Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton, Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck, Bradley D Gregory, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

1561 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1318 MOTION to Certify Class Michigan Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order ﬁled by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

1562

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1326 MOTION to Certify Class MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER ﬁled by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton, Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

1563 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1333 MOTION to Certify Class Virginia Plaintiffs' Motio to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order ﬁled by Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 08/15/2008)

1564

MOTION to Amend/Correct 1559 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1419 Memorandum in Opposition, 1424 Memorandum in Opposition, 1421 Memorandum in Opposition, 1422 Memorandum in Opposition, 1418 Memorandum in Opposition, 1423 Memorandum in Opposition, 1420 Memorandum in Opposit RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1419 Memorandum in Opposition, 1424 Memorandum in Opposition, 1421 Memorandum in Opposition, 1422 Memorandum in Opposition, 1418 Memorandum in Opposition, 1423 Memorandum in Opposition, 1420 Memorandum in Opposit RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1419 Memorandum in Opposition, 1424 Memorandum in Opposition, 1421 Memorandum in Opposition, 1422 Memorandum in Opposition, 1418 Memorandum in Opposition, 1423 Memorandum in Opposition, 1420 Memorandum in Opposit RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1419 Memorandum in Opposition, 1424 Memorandum in Opposition, 1421 Memorandum in Opposition, 1422 Memorandum in Opposition, 1418 Memorandum in Opposition, 1423 Memorandum in Opposition, 1420 Memorandum in Opposit by Plaintiffs Robert Lee Taylor, Dale Fluegel, Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton, Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck, Bradley D Gregory, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1565 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Montana Plaintiffs' Appendix in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1566 NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Appendix in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication by Jean Capobianco, Richard Syrek, Edward

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

348/498

5/8/2020
08/18/2008 08/18/2008 08/18/2008
08/18/2008 08/18/2008 08/18/2008 08/18/2008 08/18/2008
08/18/2008
08/20/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1567

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1339 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) (c) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(c) ﬁled by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1568

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1340 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) (C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) ﬁled by Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1569

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1341 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) (C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) ﬁled by Jean Capobianco, Richard Syrek, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1570 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1338 MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1571 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1335 MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1572

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1336 MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa. (Attachments: # 1 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 2 Montana Plaintiffs' Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1573

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1337 MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Jean Capobianco, Richard Syrek, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner. (Attachments: # 1 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 2 Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1574

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1342 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) (C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) ﬁled by Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1575

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1569 Reply to Response to Motion, 1567 Reply to Response to Motion, 1571 Reply to Response to Motion, 1574 Reply to Response to Motion, 1573 Reply to Response to Motion, 1572 Reply to Response to Motion, 1570 Reply to Response to Motion, 1565 Notice of Manual Filing, 1566 Notice of Manual Filing, 1568 Reply to Response to Motion, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2008)

1580 ORDER granting (1543) Motion to Amend Filing Deadlines in Connection With FedEx Ground's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's ERISA Claim. Plaintiffs' opposition to be ﬁled by 8/26/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

349/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Nuechterlein on 8/20/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 08/22/2008)

08/21/2008 1581 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' (1283) Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 8/21/08. (sdf) (Entered: 08/22/2008)

08/22/2008

1576

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Plaintiffs Reply in Support of their Request for Judicial Notice of the District of Minnesotas Decision in the Mooney, et al. v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No 06-545 by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey (Cialkowski, David) (Entered: 08/22/2008)

08/22/2008

1577

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of Declaration of David M. Cialkowski in Support of Request for Judicial Notice of the District of Minnesotas Decision in the Mooney, et al. v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No 06-545 and Exhibits A and B by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey (Cialkowski, David) (Entered: 08/22/2008)

08/22/2008

1578 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Sergei Selenskikh, Katrina Lee, Magnus B Conroy, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey re 1576 Notice of Manual Filing, 1577 Notice of Manual Filing, (Cialkowski, David) (Entered: 08/22/2008)

08/22/2008

1579

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY CONCERNING FOURTH WAVE CLASS CERTIFICATION by Michael Decesare, Genaro Vargas, Troy Givens, Frank Gruhn, Ernest White, Margaret Gibson, Thomas Magno, Sharon B Whiteside, Jon Leighter to 1244 Statement, 1240 Statement, 1243 Statement, 1239 Statement, 1238 Statement, 1245 Statement, 1241 Statement, 1242 Statement, 1246 Statement. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 08/22/2008)

08/22/2008 1586 ORDER denying (1148) Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate's 4/4/08 order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/22/08. (sdf) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1582 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1350 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Ellison (Maryland) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1583 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1354 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Jones (Maryland) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1584 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1356 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Pedrazzi (California) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1585 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1352 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Capers (New Jersey) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1587 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1554 MOTION HOLD SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS IN ABEYANCE ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1588

RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1509 Notice of Manual Filing,, by Plaintiffs Robert Lee Taylor, Dale Fluegel, Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton, Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck, Bradley D Gregory, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

350/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

08/25/2008

1589 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1347 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) in Johnson (New York) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1590

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1588 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1509 Notice of Manual Filing,, RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1509 Notice of Manual Filing,, RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1509 Notice of Manual Filing,, ﬁled by Robert Lee Taylor, Dale Fluegel, Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton, Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck, Bradley D Gregory, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1591

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1344 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Fleming (Mississippi) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 Bell Deposition Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2 Steed Deposition Excerpts)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1592 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1313 MOTION for Summary Judgment Michigan Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1593

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1320 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Missouri Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton, Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/25/2008

1594

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1328 MOTION for Summary Judgment VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS ﬁled by Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 08/25/2008)

08/26/2008

1595

Seaed Document (Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Review). (Attachments: # 1 ERISA Plaintiffs' Response to Def's Statement of Material Fact and Cross Designation In Opposition to Def's Partial Summary Judgment Motion, # 2 Declaration of Matthew Houston In Support of Pltfs' Opp. to Def's Partial Summary Judgment Motion, # 3 Exhibit A to Houston Declaration, # 4 Exhibit B to Houston Declaration, # 5 Exhibit C to Houston Declaration, # 6 Exhibit D to Houston Declaration, # 7 Exhibit E to Houston Declaration, # 8 Exhibit F to Houston Declaration, # 9 Exhibit G to Houston Declaration, # 10 Exhibit H to Houston Declaration, # 11 Exhibit I to Houston Declaration, # 12 Exhibit J to Houston Declaration, # 13 Exhibit K to Houston Declaration, # 14 Exhibit L to Houston Declaration, # 15 Exhibit M to Houston Declaration, # 16 Exhibit N to Houston Declaration, # 17 Exhibit O to Houston Declaration, # 18 Exhibit P to Houston Declaration (Part 1), # 19 Exhibit P to Houston Declaration (Part 2), # 20 Exhibit P to Houston Declaration (Part 3), # 21 Exhibit P to Houston Declaration (Part 4), # 22 Exhibit Q to Houston Declaration, # 23 Exhibit R to Houston Declaration)(Harwood, Robert) Modiﬁed on 8/26/2008 to add title of document (jld). (Entered: 08/26/2008)

08/27/2008 1596 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Carlene M Craig re 1595 Sealed Document,,,,, (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 08/27/2008)

09/02/2008

1597 CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

351/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson to 1557 Notice (Other). (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 09/02/2008)

09/03/2008 1598 NOTICE of Appearance by Robin Dean on behalf of FedEx Ground (Dean, Robin) (Entered: 09/03/2008)

09/04/2008

1599 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1554 MOTION HOLD SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULINGS IN ABEYANCE ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 09/04/2008)

09/05/2008 1600 Emergency MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Schedule (Unopposed) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 09/05/2008)

09/08/2008

1601

MOTION for Reconsideration re 1581 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Draft IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Related Corporate Designee Deposition by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 09/08/2008)

09/08/2008

1602

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1601 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1581 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Draft IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Related Corporate Designee Deposition ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 09/08/2008)

09/10/2008

1603

ORDER granting (1600) Emergency Motion to Amend/Correct Case Schedule. FedEx Ground to respond to plaintiff's motion by 10/27/2008, Plaintiffs to reply in support by 11/24/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/10/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-00193-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 09/11/2008)

09/12/2008

1604

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1588 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1509 Notice of Manual Filing,, RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1509 Notice of Manual Filing,, RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1509 Notice of Manual Filing,, ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 09/12/2008)

09/15/2008

1605

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1539 MOTION to Certify Class (Ohio) (Kelly) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6)(Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 09/15/2008)

09/15/2008

1606

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1537 MOTION to Certify Class (Colorado) (Flores) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1-Part 1, # 3 Exhibit 1 - Part 2, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9)(Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 09/15/2008)

09/15/2008

1607

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4 to Memorandum in Opposition to Colorado (Flores) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, # 2 Exhibit 10 to Memorandum in Opposition to Colorado (Flores) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation)(Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 09/15/2008)

09/15/2008

1608

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1538 MOTION to Certify Class (Utah) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Part 1, # 3 Exhibit 1 - Part 2, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 9 - Part 1, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Part 2, # 10 Exhibit 9 - Part 3, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11)(Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 09/15/2008)

09/15/2008 1609 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4 - Part 1 to Memorandum in Opposition to Utah (Fishler) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, # 2 Exhibit 4 - Part 2 to Memorandum in

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

352/498

5/8/2020
09/17/2008 09/22/2008
09/22/2008 09/25/2008 09/26/2008 09/30/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Opposition to Utah (Fishler) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, # 3 Exhibit 5 - Part 1 to Memorandum in Opposition to Utah (Fishler) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, # 4 Exhibit 5 - Part 2 to Memorandum in Opposition to Utah (Fishler) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Part 3 to Memorandum in Opposition to Utah (Fishler) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, # 6 Exhibit 8 to Memorandum in Opposition to Utah (Fishler) Motion for Class Certiﬁcation)(Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 09/15/2008)

1610

ORDER denying Defendant FedEx Ground's (1554) Motion to Hold i Abeyance the rulings on the parties' motions for summary adjudication to the extent it requests that the court stay rulings until after the expiration of all the opt-out periods. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/17/08. (sdf) (Entered: 09/17/2008)

1611 RESPONSE in Support re 1588 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1509 Notice of Manual Filing,, RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1509 Notice of Manual Filing,, RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1509 Notice of Manual Filing,, ﬁled by Robert Lee Taylor, Dale Fluegel, Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake, Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton, Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck, Bradley D Gregory, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 09/22/2008)

1612

SUPPLEMENT to 1397 Memorandum of Law (Other) Notice of Supplemental Authority ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc( Western District of Texas 1:05cv155). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Denial of Mot. for Summ. Judgment in Anﬁnson)(Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 09/22/2008)

1613 Sealed Document to 1145 (Schwartz PHV, Robert) Modiﬁed on 10/3/2008 to add link (jld). (Entered: 09/25/2008)

1614

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1601 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1581 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Draft IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Related Corporate Designee Deposition ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/26/2008)

1615

AMENDED COMPLAINT Fifth against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Joseph Amato, Scott Anderson, Jorge Ascencio, Ruben Austria, Ralph Babcock, Reno Baietti, James Barr, Elizabeth Bergstrom, Christopher Bowman, Eric Burba, Richard Cadrin, Brian Carlin, David Carlson, William Catelotti, Abraham Cerrato, Steve Cohen, Christopher Collman, Robert Conlon, Anthony Constantino, Robert Correia, Michael Cosgrove, Paul Costello, Glen Coulombe, Manuel Da Silva, Dana Dodd, Donna Eickhorst, Patrick Fletcher, Kenneth Flynn, Joseph Forgitano, Robert Francione, Stephen Gabourel, Patrick Gall, George Gammons, Paul Jackmauh, Gregory Jambora, Chris Johnson, Peter Kiritsy, Roland Klinger, Thomas Ladago, Mark Lane, Mark A. Lane Sr., Richard Letson, Keith Levesque, Rod Lopez, Christian MacFarland, Charles Mack, Chester Mann, Joseph McDonald, Mark McDonough, Charles Miedema, John Mikulski, Erin Murphy, Matthew Murphy, Michael F. Murphy, Michael J. Murphy, Edward Nelson, Scott O'Connell, J. Barry O'Hagan, Matthew Oppel, Danilo Orquiola, Fritz Pady, Brian Parse, Jason Pike, Michael Prokopovich, Michael Rhoades, Ronald Ricciardi, Edward Rizzuto, Sr, Thomas Robinson, Robert Ross, Rafﬁque Sabare, Shelly Samuel, Milton Sanchez, Ernani T.S. Santana, Clay Seaver, William Shallies, Sheila St. Cyr, George Stephenson, Donnalee Straube, Ernest Tarr, George Therrien, Richard Townes, Rodney Tremblay, Eduardo Vazquez, David Walsh, Mohamoud Warfa, Christian Wilson, Stephen Wood, Vernon Yates, Genaro Vargas, Jean Capobianco, Richard Syrek, Scott Erickson, Mouloud Zouaoui, Elhadj Ndoye, Paul Fenner, Daniel Graham, Ronald Parker, Kwame Poku, Stephen Tarasiak, John Shinnick, Manuel Leite,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

353/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Aguinaldo Ferreira, John Mooney, Smail Bencheikh, Henry Szupel, Robson Araujo, Vincent Laurino, Ed Rosa, Richard Lacina, Jr, Paulo DaSilva, John Chiasson, Michael Timmons, Joseph Pasquale, Robert Willis, Wayne Curran, Rosita Claudio, Clayton Schwan, Michael Leto, Ismael de La Rosa, Lucas Xavier, Mohammed Belaabd, Michael Brennan, Kevin Moynagh, Steven Swartwout, James Grasso, Richard Knowlton, Mohamed Tamart, Geoffrey Bowan, Brian Flynn, Edward Sheehan, Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco, William Gardner.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008

1616

AMENDED COMPLAINT Second against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Gordon Lane, Roscoe Haggerty, Wallace Koehmstedt, Erik Olson, Jeff Rohrer, Tony Rand, Monty Smith, James Rick Allen, Jerry Steward, Charley Johnson, Steven Sholey, Fred Walton, Todd Edelen, James Daly, Wes Bird, David Taylor, Terri Bibeau, Talliesin Dodd Hayden, Kent Belcher, Shawn Penrod, Ken Beck, Dallas Crnich, Jim Pantojs, Donna Jones, Floyd Hagen, Rob Carlson, Mike Callahan, Penny Massa.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008

1617 AMENDED COMPLAINT Fourth (Illinois) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Peter McDonald, Mark Phillips, Nathan Gross, Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Michael Vosbein, Clarence Kelly.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008

1618

AMENDED COMPLAINT Third (Georgia) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by John Whymss, Graylon Anderson, Catherine Mack, Latif Atanda, Jeff Layﬁeld, Marvin Washington, Ernest White, Hadi Tresna.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008

1619

AMENDED COMPLAINT Second (Missouri) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Bobby Brown, Michael Jost, Rich Mitchell, Mike Sheffer, John Waweru, Kevin Pour, Jamie Tenison, Seid Huskic, Bob Candella, Dave King, Michael Light, Mike Sanders, Bob Arbutti, Ken Stibor, Gary Austin, Don Blackmon, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Roy Patton, Jr, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008

1620

AMENDED COMPLAINT Fourth (Michigan) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Darrin Ray, Michael Blauvelt, Michael Assaff, Carl Candy, Greg Kane, Anthony King, Thomas Chalker, Rodney Flaga, David Testori, Spencer Williams, Thomas Suchan, Arthur King Jr., Robert Abdullah, Christine Constantino, Scott Baker, Mark Levine, Percival Currithers, Tyrone Hawkins, Daniel Lavake.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

09/30/2008

1621

AMENDED COMPLAINT Fifth (Virginia) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Linda Brankley Bowman, Temple Jackson, Charles Perdwe, Donald Powell, Karen Pryor, Guy Willis, Bruce Wittmeier, Frederick Howell Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Bradley D Gregory.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

10/01/2008

1622

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1618 Amended Complaint, 1616 Amended Complaint, 1615 Amended Complaint,,,,,,,, 1617 Amended Complaint, 1619 Amended Complaint, 1620 Amended Complaint, 1621 Amended Complaint, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

10/03/2008 1624 MOTION to Intervene by Movant Jonathan Lee Riches. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 10/08/2008)

10/06/2008 1623 APPLICATION for Attorney Steve Dennis to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc ; Receipt #3340876. (sdf) (Entered: 10/08/2008)

10/09/2008 1634 ORDER granting (147) Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Steve Dennis PHV for FedEx Ground. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

354/498

5/8/2020
10/10/2008 10/13/2008 10/13/2008
10/13/2008 10/13/2008 10/13/2008 10/13/2008 10/13/2008
10/14/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
10/9/08. (sdf) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

1625

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1601 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1581 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Draft IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Related Corporate Designee Deposition ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/10/2008)

1626

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1537 MOTION to Certify Class (Colorado) ﬁled by Horacio Flores, Mark Niles. (Attachments: # 1 Tenth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Tenth Appendix, # 3 Plaintiffs' Tenth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

1627

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1539 MOTION to Certify Class (Ohio) ﬁled by Paul Kelly, Dean Johnson, Thomas Wenzlick, Kenneth R Miller, Adelbert Lawrence, Russell Jackson, Robert Velo. (Attachments: # 1 Tenth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Tenth Appendix, # 3 Plaintiffs' Tenth Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

1628

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1538 MOTION to Certify Class (Utah) ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Attachments: # 1 Tenth Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Tenth Appendix, # 3 Plaintiffs' Tenth Appendix) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

1629 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

1630 MOTION to Certify Class (Colorado) CORRECTED DOC. 1537 by Plaintiffs Horacio Flores, Mark Niles. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

1631 MOTION to Certify Class (Utah) CORRECTED DOC. 1538 by Plaintiffs Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

1632

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1630 MOTION to Certify Class (Colorado) CORRECTED DOC. 1537, 1626 Reply to Response to Motion, 1629 Sealed Document, 1627 Reply to Response to Motion, 1628 Reply to Response to Motion, 1631 MOTION to Certify Class (Utah) CORRECTED DOC. 1538 (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/13/2008)

1633

ORDER denying (148) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; denying (1624) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN; denying (142) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN; denying (140) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN; denying (148) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv00530-RLM-CAN; denying (140) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00531-RLMCAN; denying (141) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN; denying (141) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN; denying (142) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN; denying (142) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN; denying (139) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00537RLM-CAN; denying (139) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN; denying (139) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN; denying (140) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN; denying (139) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN; denying (141) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN; denying (141) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00593RLM-CAN; denying (138) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN; denying (138) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN; denying (141) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN; denying (142) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN; denying (138) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN; denying (139) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00600RLM-CAN; denying (139) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN;

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

355/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
denying (134) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00652-RLM-CAN; denying (135) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN; denying (136) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN; denying (135) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00667-RLM-CAN; denying (137) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00668RLM-CAN; denying (134) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00720-RLM-CAN; denying (126) Motion to Intervene in case 3:05-cv-00796-RLM-CAN; denying (126) Motion to Intervene in case 3:06-cv-00209-RLM-CAN; denying (131) Motion to Intervene in case 3:06-cv-00269-RLM-CAN; denying (127) Motion to Intervene in case 3:06-cv-00337-RLM-CAN; denying (120) Motion to Intervene in case 3:06-cv-00393RLM-CAN; denying (116) Motion to Intervene in case 3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN; denying (116) Motion to Intervene in case 3:06-cv-00429-RLM-CAN; denying (68) Motion to Intervene in case 3:06-cv-00485-RLM-CAN; denying (98) Motion to Intervene in case 3:06-cv-00801-RLM-CAN; denying (96) Motion to Intervene in case 3:06-cv-00802-RLM-CAN; denying (101) Motion to Intervene in case 3:06-cv-00826RLM-CAN; denying (85) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00120-RLM-CAN; denying (66) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00189-RLM-CAN; denying (80) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00190-RLM-CAN; denying (70) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00191-RLM-CAN; denying (74) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00272-RLM-CAN; denying (73) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00281RLM-CAN; denying (70) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00322-RLM-CAN; denying (69) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00323-RLM-CAN; denying (77) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00324-RLM-CAN; denying (75) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00325-RLM-CAN; denying (72) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00326-RLM-CAN; denying (69) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00327RLM-CAN; denying (71) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00328-RLM-CAN; denying (63) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00410-RLM-CAN; denying (65) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-CAN; denying (64) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00412-RLM-CAN; denying (58) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00478-RLM-CAN; denying (56) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-00496RLM-CAN; denying (42) Motion to Intervene in case 3:08-cv-00052-RLM-CAN; denying (42) Motion to Intervene in case 3:08-cv-00053-RLM-CAN; denying (41) Motion to Intervene in case 3:08-cv-00087-RLM-CAN; denying (23) Motion to Intervene in case 3:08-cv-00193-RLM-CAN; denying (18) Motion to Intervene in case 3:08-cv-00227-RLM-CAN; denying (9) Motion to Intervene in case 3:08-cv-00336RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 10/14/08. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

10/20/2008

1635

ANSWER to 1615 Amended Complaint,,,,,,,, and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in Sheehan (MA) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

10/20/2008

1636

ANSWER to 1616 Amended Complaint, and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint in Carlson (MT) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

10/20/2008

1637

ANSWER to 1617 Amended Complaint and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint in Fluegel (IL) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

10/20/2008

1638

ANSWER to 1618 Amended Complaint and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint in White (GA) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

356/498

5/8/2020
10/20/2008
10/20/2008
10/20/2008
10/23/2008 10/23/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/27/2008
10/27/2008
10/27/2008 10/27/2008 10/27/2008 10/28/2008
10/29/2008 10/29/2008 11/03/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

1639

ANSWER to 1619 Amended Complaint, and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint in Gray (MO) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

1640

ANSWER to 1620 Amended Complaint, and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint in Currithers (MI) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

1641

ANSWER to 1621 Amended Complaint, and Additional Defenses to Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in Gregory (VA) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

1642 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/23/2008)

1643 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/23/2008)

1644 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/24/2008)

1645 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/24/2008)

1646

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Aaronian Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B to Aaronian Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C to Aaronian Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D to Aaronian Declaration, # 5 Exhibit E to Aaronian Declaration, # 6 Exhibit F to Aaronian Declaration)(Harwood, Robert) (Additional attachment added on 10/31/2008: # 7 Corrected Main Document) (jld). (Entered: 10/27/2008)

1647

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1540 MOTION to Certify Class (Louisiana) MOTION to Certify Class (Louisiana) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 - Bellow Dep. Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2 Boudreaux Dep. Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 3 Ground Operating Agreement, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 5 Complaint)(Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

1648 Sealed Document. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

1649 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

1650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1649 Sealed Document (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

1651

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1631 MOTION to Certify Class (Utah) CORRECTED DOC. 1538 Fishler (Utah) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 10/28/2008)

1652 Sealed Document. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/29/2008)

1653 Sealed Document. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/29/2008)

1654 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) re 1644 Sealed Document, 1652 Sealed Document, 1645 Sealed

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

357/498

5/8/2020
11/06/2008 11/07/2008 11/07/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/11/2008 11/12/2008
11/12/2008
11/20/2008 11/21/2008 11/24/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Document, 1653 Sealed Document (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 11/03/2008)

1655 STIPULATION to Dismiss With and Without Prejudice (Perez TX). (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/06/2008)

1656 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1631 MOTION to Certify Class (Utah) CORRECTED DOC. 1538 ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/07/2008)

1657 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini re 1656 Reply to Response to Motion (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/07/2008)

1658 MOTION for Summary Judgment Huerta (California) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

1659 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1658 MOTION for Summary Judgment Huerta (California) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

1660 MOTION for Summary Judgment Holloway (Maryland) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 11/10/2008)

1661 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1660 MOTION for Summary Judgment Holloway (Maryland) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

1662 STATEMENT of Material Facts Not in Dispute re 1661 Memorandum in Support ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

1663 Sealed Document. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

1665 Letter from District of Nevada indicating that the CTO has been received from MDL panel Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-00520-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 11/13/2008)

1664 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Ground re 1663 Sealed Document (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 11/11/2008)

1666

ORDER granting (1655) Stipulation to Dismiss. Individual claims asserted by Mr Perez against FedEx Ground are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with the exception that Mr Perez continues to have the right to participate as a class member in the Texas and ERISA class actions befor this court. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys fees. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11/12/08. Associated Cases: 3:08-cv00227-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 11/14/2008)

1667

ORDER granting FedEx Ground's (1103) Motion for Reconsideration and affords the plaintiffs the opportunity for a response of up to 50 pages with no reply to be allowed. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11/12/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00325-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 11/14/2008)

1668 NOTICE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902) Withdrawal of Appearance of Andrew Weiner and Raquel Millman (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 11/20/2008)

1669 MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE - in response to Court's order 1633 by Jonathan Lee Riches ﬁled by Jonathan Lee Riches. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 11/24/2008)

1670 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1540 MOTION to Certify Class (Louisiana) MOTION to Certify Class (Louisiana) ﬁled by Ryan Boudreaux, Timothy Bellow. (Attachments: #

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

358/498

5/8/2020
11/24/2008 11/24/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 12/09/2008 12/09/2008
12/15/2008
12/15/2008 12/15/2008
12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/17/2008 12/18/2008

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1 Eleventh Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 2 Index to Plaintiffs' Eleventh Appendix, # 3 Plaintiffs' Eleventh Appendix)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/24/2008)

1671 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/24/2008)

1672 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1671 Sealed Document, 1670 Reply to Response to Motion, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/24/2008)

1673 NOTICE of Appearance by Larry A Golston, Jr on behalf of Bruce Edwin Gentle, Bruce Edwin Gentle, Stephanie Sullins Gentle Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00191-RLM-CAN(Golston, Larry) (Entered: 11/25/2008)

1674 NOTICE of Appearance by Larry A Golston, Jr on behalf of Tina Floyd, Tina Floyd Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN(Golston, Larry) (Entered: 11/25/2008)

1675 STATEMENT Supplemental Statement Regarding State Law Variations Appendix Filed in Opposition to Class Certiﬁcation (Vargas) re 1007 Memorandum in Opposition, ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 12/09/2008)

1676

NOTICE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936) re 1001 Memorandum in Opposition, Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 12/09/2008)

1677

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Final Class Lists by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs, Defendant Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Harwood, Robert) Modiﬁed on 12/16/2008 to term as pending motion. Only blank pages attached (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2008)

1678 MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Final Class Lists by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) Modiﬁed on 12/16/2008 to term as pending motion. Only blank pages attached (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2008)

1679

Joint MOTION for Approval of Supplemental Notice Process by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs, Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Joint Motion for Approval of Suppl Notice Process, # 2 Exhibit B to Joint Motion for Approval of Suppl Notice Process)(Harwood, Robert) Modiﬁed on 12/16/2008 to term as pending motion. Only blank pages attached (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2008)

1680 Joint MOTION for Approval of Supplemental Notice Process by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs, Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/16/2008)

1681 MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Final Class Lists by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/16/2008)

1682 ORDER denying FedEx's Motion to amend order certiﬁying a Minnesota (Lee) class o the MPCFA claim (1426). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/16/08. Associated Cases: 3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 12/16/2008)

1683 ORDER denying WITHOUT PREJUDICE (1680) (1681) Motions for approval of suppleental notice process. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 12/17/08. (sdf) (Entered: 12/17/2008)

1684

Joint MOTION for Approval of Supplemental Notice Process by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs, Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 (Proposed) Order on the Joint Motion - removed)(Harwood, Robert) Modiﬁed on 12/19/2008 to remove proposed order (jld). (Entered: 12/18/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

359/498

5/8/2020
12/18/2008

1685

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Final Class Lists by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 (Proposed) Order for Extension of Time - Removed ) (Harwood, Robert) Modiﬁed on 12/19/2008 to remove proposed order (jld). (Entered: 12/18/2008)

12/18/2008

1686

NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Amero v. Townsend Oil Company, # 2 Exhibit B - Ethel J. Enterprises, Inc. v. Division of Unemployment Assistance, # 3 Exhibit C - Driscoll v. Worcester Telegram & Gazette)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/18/2008)

12/19/2008

1687

NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1676 Notice (Other) Nevada Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority and Response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Andrew Kahn, # 2 Exhibit 1-2)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/19/2008)

12/19/2008

1688

SUPPLEMENT to 1667 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 874 MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas) MOTION to Certify Class (Vargas), 1007 Memorandum in Opposition, Vargas Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's "State Law Variations Appendix" ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/19/2008)

12/19/2008

1689 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1686 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 1688 Supplement, 1687 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/19/2008)

12/22/2008

1690

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1660 MOTION for Summary Judgment Holloway (Maryland) ﬁled by Theodore Holloway, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Soye Kim in Support of Theodore Holloway's Opposition to Def's Motion for Summary Judgment on Employment Status, # 2 Exhibit A to Soye Kim Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Soye Kim Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to Soye Kim Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D to Soye Kim Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E to Soye Kim Declaration, # 7 Exhibit F to Soye Kim Declaration, # 8 Exhibit G to Soye Kim Declaration, # 9 Exhibit H to Soye Kim Declaration, # 10 Plaintiff Holloway's Statement of Genuine ssues In Response to Deffendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/22/2008)

12/22/2008 1691 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1658 MOTION for Summary Judgment Huerta (California) ﬁled by Ricardo Huerta. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/22/2008)

12/23/2008

1692 NOTICE of Appearance by Anne T Regan on behalf of Katrina Lee (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Certiﬁcate of Service)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al. (Regan, Anne) (Entered: 12/23/2008)

12/23/2008

1693 ORDER ON (1684)Joint Motion For Approval of Supplemental Notice Process Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 12/23/08. (sdf) (Entered: 12/23/2008)

12/23/2008

1694

ORDER on(1685) Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Final Class Lists. Plaintiffs are provided the ﬁrst 30 days following the last day of the supplemental opt-out period proposed in parties Joint Motoin for Approval of Supplemental Notice Process 1684 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 12/23/08. (sdf) (Entered: 12/23/2008)

12/31/2008

1695

NOTICE by Troy Givens of the Filing of Consent Forms of Kenneth L. Barber, Dan Buckley, Sean Dunmire, Kevin Hiscox, Russell M. Jackson, Adelbert Lawrence, and Kenneth R. Miner (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Consent Forms)Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00324-RLM-CAN(DeRose, Robert) (Entered: 12/31/2008)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

360/498

5/8/2020
12/31/2008 01/05/2009 01/06/2009 01/08/2009
01/08/2009
01/12/2009 01/22/2009 01/22/2009 01/26/2009
01/26/2009 01/26/2009 01/30/2009 02/03/2009 02/04/2009
02/06/2009

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1696 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Troy Givens re 1695 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (DeRose, Robert) (Entered: 12/31/2008)

1697 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint in Tofaute v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. (New Jersey), 3:09-cv-02, by FedEx Ground. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 01/05/2009)

1698 RESPONSE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) to 1687 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Notice of Supplemental Authority in Nevada. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/06/2009)

1699

MOTION to Certify Class to Reinstate Class Certiﬁcation Under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act by Plaintiffs Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Robert Erbentraut. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

1700

NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE ENTRY OF STIPULATED JUDGMENT IN ESTRADA V. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., CASE NO. BC2310130 (LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

1701 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Robert Erbentraut re 1699 MOTION to Certify Class to Reinstate Class Certiﬁcation Under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/12/2009)

1702 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 01/22/2009)

1703 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1660 MOTION for Summary Judgment Holloway (Maryland) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 01/22/2009)

1704

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Pursue and Exhaust Administrative Remedies by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) Modiﬁed on 1/27/2009 (sdf). (Entered: 01/26/2009)

1705 ANSWER to Complaint in Mitchell v. FedEx Ground, Case No. 3:09-cv-03 (Pa.) by FedEx Ground.(Becker PHV, Evelyn) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

1706 RESPONSE in Opposition re 1699 MOTION to Certify Class to Reinstate Class Certiﬁcation Under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

1707 RESPONSE by FedEx Ground to 1702 Notice (Other) of Supplemental Authority (Lucey). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

1708 NOTICE of Appearance by Ian Otto on behalf of Thomas Westcott (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Otto, Ian) (Entered: 02/03/2009)

1709

SUGGESTION OF REMAND: Pursuant to Rule 7,6(c)(ii) of the Rules of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, the court SUGGESTS that the Panel REMAND this case to the Southern District of Iowa, Central Division for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/4/09. Associated Cases: 3:05-cv-00652-RLMCAN(sdf) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

1710 RESPONSE in Opposition re 1704 MOTION to Supplement 1410 Memorandum in

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

361/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion for Partial Su MOTION to Supplement 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion for Partial Su MOTION to Supplement 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion for Partial Su ﬁled by Carlene M Craig. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

02/09/2009

1711 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1699 MOTION to Certify Class to Reinstate Class Certiﬁcation Under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ﬁled by Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook, Robert Erbentraut. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/09/2009)

02/13/2009 1712 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

02/13/2009

1713 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1709 Order, Motion to Clarify and Reconsider the Court's Suggestion of Remand in Johnson v. FedEx Ground, 3:05-cv-652 (IA) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

02/13/2009

1714

MOTION for Reconsideration OF ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' TAX RECORDS PURSUANT TO RECENT SEVENTH CIRCUIT DECISION IN SUSKOVICH V. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF VIRGINIA, INC. by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

02/13/2009

1715

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1714 MOTION for Reconsideration OF ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' TAX RECORDS PURSUANT TO RECENT SEVENTH CIRCUIT DECISION IN SUSKOVICH V. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF VIRGINIA, INC. ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Fox, Alison) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

02/17/2009

1716

BRIEF Reply in Support of Motion to Supplement FXG's Opposition to Remand, which Motion was Originally Filed in Transferor Court (D. Colo.) Prior to Transfer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FXG's Opp'n to Remand, # 2 Exhibit FXG's Notice of Removal, # 3 Exhibit Pl.'s Compl., # 4 Exhibit Pl.'s Mot. to Remand, # 5 Exhibit Pl.'s Reply ISO Mot. to Remand, # 6 Exhibit FXG's Mot. to Supplement, # 7 Exhibit Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. to Supplement)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 02/17/2009)

02/24/2009

1717

RESPONSE to Motion re 1713 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1709 Order, Motion to Clarify and Reconsider the Court's Suggestion of Remand in Johnson v. FedEx Ground, 3:05-cv-652 (IA) Plaintiffs' Response to FedEx's Motion to Clarify and Reconsider the Court's February 5, 2009 Suggestion of Remand ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 02/24/2009)

03/02/2009

1718 APPLICATION for Attorney Michal J Puma to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of FedEx Groung Package System Inc ; Receipt #3342099. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 03/02/2009)

03/02/2009

1719

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1714 MOTION for Reconsideration OF ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' TAX RECORDS PURSUANT TO RECENT SEVENTH CIRCUIT DECISION IN SUSKOVICH V. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF VIRGINIA, INC. ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 03/02/2009)

03/02/2009 1720 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE by FedEx Plaintiffs to 1712 Notice (Other) OF

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

362/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY RE SUSKOVICH V. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF VIRGINA, INC.. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 03/02/2009)

03/04/2009

1721 ORDER granting (156) Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Michael J Puma PHV for FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/4/09. (sdf) (Entered: 03/04/2009)

03/09/2009

1722

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1713 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1709 Order, Motion to Clarify and Reconsider the Court's Suggestion of Remand in Johnson v. FedEx Ground, 3:05-cv-652 (IA) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

03/10/2009 1723 NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1709 Order, of Filing with J.P.M.L. (Attachments: # 1 Letter to J.P.M.L.)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 03/10/2009)

03/16/2009

1724

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1714 MOTION for Reconsideration OF ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' TAX RECORDS PURSUANT TO RECENT SEVENTH CIRCUIT DECISION IN SUSKOVICH V. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF VIRGINIA, INC. ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

03/18/2009

1725 NOTICE by Troy Givens, Clarence Dalcour re 873 MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) MOTION to Certify Class (FLSA) Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/18/2009)

03/25/2009

1726

NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1341 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) (C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), 1337 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/25/2009)

04/07/2009 1727 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Supplemental Authority (Anﬁnson v. FedEx Ground) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/07/2009)

04/14/2009

1728 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY RE: ANFINSON V. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/14/2009)

04/15/2009

1729

NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1714 MOTION for Reconsideration OF ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' TAX RECORDS PURSUANT TO RECENT SEVENTH CIRCUIT DECISION IN SUSKOVICH V. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF VIRGINIA, INC. Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion for Reconsideration (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

04/23/2009

1730 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Supplemental Authority (FedEx Home Delivery v NLRB (D.C. Cir.)) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FedEx Home Delivery v NLRB (D.C. Cir. Apr. 21, 2009))(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

04/28/2009

1731

STATEMENT in Response to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority re: Anﬁnson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc." regarding 1728 Response/Reply ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Judgment and Order on Defendants Cost Bill in Anﬁnson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

05/04/2009 1732 DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER COURT'S ORDER 1739 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (State of Maryland Determination and

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

363/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Settlement) in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation and Summary Adjudication of Employment Status and Request for Judical Notice (Morton, Eleanor) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/12/2009: # 1 -) (sdf). (Entered: 05/04/2009)

05/04/2009

1733

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (ANFINSON V. FEDEX GROUND) IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFFS' TAX RECORDS by FedEx Plaintiffs to 1729 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other). (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 05/04/2009)

05/05/2009

1734 Emergency MOTION to Seal Docket Entry 1732 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Michael G. McGuinness)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2009)

05/07/2009

1735

MOTION TO REMOVE FROM THE PUBLIC DOCKET SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY PLAINTIFFS re 1732 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 05/07/2009)

05/07/2009

1736

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1735 MOTION TO REMOVE FROM THE PUBLIC DOCKET SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY PLAINTIFFS re 1732 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 05/07/2009)

05/07/2009

1737

NOTICE OF MANUAL FILING of PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 05/07/2009)

05/08/2009

1739

ORDER denying as moot (1734)FedEx's Emergency Motion to Seal docket entry; granting Plaintiffs' (1735) Motion to remove from the public docket supplemental authority and request for judicial notice ; Document 1732 is STRICKEN and Plaintiffs' notice of supplemental authority 1737 is ﬁled under seal. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/8/09. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 05/12/2009)

05/11/2009

1738 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1737 Notice of Manual Filing, (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 05/11/2009)

05/12/2009

1740 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 05/12/2009)

05/13/2009 1741 Sealed Document. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/13/2009)

05/13/2009

1742

NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1737 Notice of Manual Filing, 1741 Sealed Document Notice of Filing of Sealed Document -- Defendant's Response to "Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (State of Maryland Determination and Settlement) in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certiﬁcation and Summary Adjudication of Employment Status and Request for Judicial Notice" (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/13/2009)

05/19/2009

1743 MOTION to Substitute Declaration of Ray A. Wolf with Amended Declaration (UNOPPOSED MOTION) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Amended Declaration of Ray A. Wolf)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/19/2009)

05/22/2009

1744 NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1183 MOTION for Summary Judgment South Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status . FedEx Ground's Notice of Supplemental Authority -- Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transportation Co. (S.C.

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

364/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
May 4, 2009) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transportation Co.)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/22/2009)

05/22/2009

1745 STATEMENT in Response to "Plaintiffs' Response to FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Notice of Supplemental Authority (FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB)" re 1740 Response/Reply ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/22/2009)

05/26/2009

1750 ORDER granting (1743) Motion to Substitute Declaration of Ray A. Wolf in case 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/26/09. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

05/27/2009

1746 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Plaintiff Kenneth Rascon. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:09-cv-00060-RLM-CAN(Gordon, Philip) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

05/27/2009

1747

MEMORANDUM in Support of (1746 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 6 in 3:09-cv00060-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Remand to State Court ﬁled by Kenneth Rascon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Part 1 Notice of Removal, # 2 Exhibit A Part 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit A Part 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit A Part 4 Complaint, # 5 Exhibit A Part 5 Summons, # 6 Exhibit A Part 6 Case Cover Sheet, # 7 Exhibit A Part 7 Return of Service, # 8 Exhibit A Part 8 Delay Reduction Order, # 9 Exhibit A Part 9 Case History Search, # 10 Exhibit A Part 10 Index, # 11 Exhibit A Part 11 Civil Cover Sheet, # 12 Exhibit A Part 12 Supplemental Cover Sheet, # 13 Exhibit A Part 13 Receipt, # 14 Exhibit A Part 14 Answer, # 15 Exhibit B Part 1 Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 16 Exhibit B Part 2 Exhibit 1 to Opposition to Remand, # 17 Exhibit B Part 3 Exhibit 2 to Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 18 Exhibit B Part 4 Exhibit 3 to Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 19 Exhibit B Part 5 Exhibit 4 to Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 20 Exhibit B Part 6 Exhibit 5 to Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 21 Exhibit B Part 7 Exhibit 6 to Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 22 Exhibit B Part 8 Exhibit 7 to Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 23 Exhibit B Part 9 Exhibit 8 to Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 24 Exhibit B Part 10 Exhibit 9 to Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 25 Exhibit B Part 11 Exhibit 10 to Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 26 Exhibit B Part 12 Exhibit 11 to Opposition to Motion to Remand, # 27 Exhibit B Part 13 Exhibit 12 to Opposition to Motion to Remand)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:09-cv-00060-RLM-CAN(Gordon, Philip) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

05/27/2009

1748

MOTION for Hearing re (1746 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 6 in 3:09-cv-00060RLM-CAN) MOTION to Remand to State Court by Plaintiff Kenneth Rascon. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:09-cv-00060-RLM-CAN(Gordon, Philip) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

05/27/2009 1749 CERTIFICATE Of Service. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:09-cv00060-RLM-CAN(Gordon, Philip) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

06/01/2009 1751 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Voelz on behalf of FedEx Ground (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 1752 NOTICE of Appearance by Chris A Hollinger on behalf of FedEx Ground (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/02/2009

1753 NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1744 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Notice of Remittitur in Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transportation Co. (S.C. May 4, 2009) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Remittitur)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/02/2009)

06/03/2009

1754

NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Withdrawal of Appearance of Laura Bremer, David Caperton, Michael Camunez, Lee Fink, Stacy Hauf, Dorothy Anne Jarrell, Thomas Jirgal, Anh-Nguyet LyJordan, Matthew Merrick, and Theodore Schroeder (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/03/2009)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

365/498

5/8/2020
06/12/2009

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1755 NOTICE of Change of Address by Shannon Liss-Riordan and Law Firm Change Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 06/12/2009)

06/12/2009

1756 SOUTH CAROLINA PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by FedEx Plaintiffs to 1753 Notice (Other), 1744 Notice (Other), Notice (Other). (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/12/2009)

06/15/2009

1757

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1748 MOTION for Hearing re (1746 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 6 in 3:09-cv-00060-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Remand to State Court, 1746 MOTION to Remand to State Court FedEx Ground's Opposition to Motion to Remand in Rascon, 09-cv-60 ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Plaintiff's Original Motion to Remand, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Supplemental Declaration of Robert Crandall, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Supplemental Amount in Controversy Worksheet for Putative Class)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

06/16/2009

1758

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-1 Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-1 Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-1 Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-2, # 5 Exhibit B-1, # 6 Exhibit B-2, # 7 Exhibit C-1, # 8 Exhibit C-2, # 9 Exhibit C-3, # 10 Exhibit D-1, # 11 Exhibit D-2, # 12 Exhibit D-3, # 13 Exhibit E-1, # 14 Exhibit E-2, # 15 Exhibit E-3, # 16 Exhibit F-1, # 17 Exhibit F-2, # 18 Exhibit F-3, # 19 Exhibit G-1, # 20 Exhibit G-2, # 21 Exhibit G-3, # 22 Exhibit H-1, # 23 Exhibit H-2, # 24 Exhibit H-3, # 25 Exhibit I-1, # 26 Exhibit I-2, # 27 Exhibit I-3, # 28 Exhibit J-1, # 29 Exhibit J-2, # 30 Exhibit J-3, # 31 Exhibit K-1, # 32 Exhibit K-2, # 33 Exhibit K-3, # 34 Exhibit L-1, # 35 Exhibit L-2, # 36 Exhibit L-3, # 37 Exhibit M-1, # 38 Exhibit M-2, # 39 Exhibit M-3, # 40 Exhibit N-1, # 41 Exhibit N-2, # 42 Exhibit N3, # 43 Exhibit O-1, # 44 Exhibit O-2, # 45 Exhibit 0-3, # 46 Exhibit P-1, # 47 Exhibit P-2, # 48 Exhibit P-3, # 49 Exhibit Q-1, # 50 Exhibit Q-2, # 51 Exhibit Q-3, # 52 Exhibit R-1, # 53 Exhibit R-2, # 54 Exhibit R-3, # 55 Exhibit S-1, # 56 Exhibit S-2, # 57 Exhibit S-3, # 58 Exhibit T-1, # 59 Exhibit T-2, # 60 Exhibit T-3, # 61 Exhibit U-1, # 62 Exhibit U-2, # 63 Exhibit U-3)(Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/16/2009

1759 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1758 Sealed Document,,,,, Declaration of Cristina Rhodebeck Concerning Notiﬁcation Procedure (Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/16/2009

1760 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1758 Sealed Document,,,,, Declaration of Cristina Rhodebeck Concerning Notiﬁcation Procedure (Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

06/29/2009

1761 NOTICE of Substitution of Attorney as to Plaintiff Jon Leighter terminating Attorney David F Rees and adding Attorney Mark A Friel Associated Cases: 3:07cv328(sdf) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

06/30/2009 1762 MOTION for Approval of Supplemental Class Notice Process by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

06/30/2009

1763

MEMORANDUM in Support of 1762 MOTION for Approval of Supplemental Class Notice Process ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Supplemental Notice Cover Letter, # 2 Exhibit B - List of Individuals to Receive Notice Through Proposed Supplemental Notice Process)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

07/14/2009 1765 BRIEF in Opposition to 1762 MOTION for Approval of Supplemental Class Notice Process ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 07/14/2009)

07/17/2009

1766 NOTICE by Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

366/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Allen, Eric Jepson Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority Re Messenger Courier Association of the Ameicas, et al v California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 07/17/2009)

07/23/2009

1767 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Merrie Frost for Plaintiff Walter Wallace Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00801-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 07/23/2009)

07/24/2009

1768

ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN; granting (1767) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Merrie M Frost terminated in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN; granting (112) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Merrie M Frost terminated in case 3:06-cv-00801-RLM-CAN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 7/24/2009. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 07/27/2009)

07/27/2009 1769 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1762 MOTION for Approval of Supplemental Class Notice Process ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2009)

07/27/2009

1770

OPINION AND ORDER in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN denying Motions (825), (867), (872), (873), (874), (1008) and (1537); denying Motion (857) as moot; granting Motions (866), (868), (869), (1538) and (1539); granting in part and denying in part (870) Motion to Certify Class; granting in part and denying in part (871) Motion to Certify Class; granting in part and denying in part (1540) Motion to Certify Class. Louisiana (Boudreaux) plaintiffs to ﬁle revised class deﬁnition for claims under Section 23:631 by 8/6/2009. The Court, on reconsideration, decertiﬁes plaintiffs recission claim in Oregoan Slayman action (3:05-cv-596). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 7/27/09. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 07/27/2009)

07/31/2009

1771 STATEMENT Plaintiffs' Statement of Intent to Provide the Court with Common Proof of Employment Status ﬁled by Jon Leighter, David Spicer. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

08/03/2009

1772 MOTION to Amend/Correct PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINTS by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

08/06/2009

1773 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Plaintiffs Ryan Boudreaux, Timothy Bellow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Complaint)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/06/2009)

08/07/2009

1774 ORDER granting (1773) Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/7/09. Associated Cases: 3:08-cv-00193-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

08/11/2009

1775 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Louisiana) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Ryan Boudreaux, Timothy Bellow.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/11/2009)

08/13/2009

1776

ORDER: This Court's 7/19/09 Order 1425 is amended to extend certain deadlines as follows: Regarding the 8 cases in which class certiﬁcation was granted on 7/27/09 Summary Judgment Motion are due by 9/28/09, Responses in Opposition are due by 11/12/09, Replies are due by 12/14/09. Regarding the 5 caes in which class certiﬁcation was denied on 7/27/09 Amended complaints (solely to add additional named parties) are due by 9/30/09, Summary Judgment Motions are due by 10/30/09, Responses in Opposition are due by 12/14/09, Replies are due by 1/13/09. The responses in opposition to any motion to alter/amend the class certiﬁcation order ﬁled simultaneously with the motions for summary judgment shall be ﬁled by 12/14/09 and any replies thereto shall be ﬁled by 1/13/10 Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 8/13/09. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 08/16/2009)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

367/498

5/8/2020
08/13/2009 08/13/2009 08/17/2009 08/18/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/26/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009
09/15/2009
09/21/2009
09/21/2009
09/21/2009 09/21/2009
09/25/2009

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1777 ORDER terminating (1630) Motion to Certify Class; terminating (1631) Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/13/09. Associated Cases: 3:07cv-00478-RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-00053-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 08/16/2009)

1778 ORDER granting FedEx Ground's motion (1762) for approval of supplemental class notice process. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 8/13/09. (sdf) (Entered: 08/16/2009)

1779 OBJECTION by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38) to 1771 Statement of Intent to Provide the Court with Common Proof of Employment Status. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

1780 AGREED NOTICE to extend time to ﬁle answer ﬁled by FedEx Ground ; answer due by 08/21/09 (Ward v. FedEx Ground (3:09-cv-356)). (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 08/18/2009)

1781 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint) in Ward v. FedEx Ground (3:09-cv356) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

1782 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint in Ward v. FedEx Ground (3:09-cv-356) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

1783 ANSWER to 1775 Amended Complaint in Boudreaux (Louisiana), 3:08-cv-193, by FedEx Ground Package System Inc.(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 08/26/2009)

1784 NOTICE by FedEx Ground of Developments in Connection with a 2007 Draft IRS Notice of Proposed Adjustment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

1785

NOTICE by FedEx Ground of D.C. Circuit's Denial of Petitions for Rehearing in FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A -- Order denying petition for rehearing en banc, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B -- Order denying petition for panel rehearing) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

1786

RESPONSE to Defendant's 1781 Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative For Leave to Amend Complaint ﬁled by Scott Ward. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1, # 2 Exhibit A2, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Notive of Conventional Filing)Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:09-cv-00356-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

1787

MOTION to Compel Production of 2009 IRS Employment Tax Audit, Notice Of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 3 Exhibit 15)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

1788

CERTIFICATE Local Rule 37.1 Certiﬁcation in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of 2009 IRS Employment Tax Audit, Notice Of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

1789 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

1790

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1788 CERTIFICATE, 1787 MOTION to Compel Production of 2009 IRS Employment Tax Audit, Notice Of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition, 1789 Sealed Document (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/21/2009)

1791 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1341 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

368/498

5/8/2020
09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), 1337 MOTION for Summary Judgment Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authorities (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/25/2009)

1792 MOTION for Summary Judgment Arizona Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1793 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1794

MOTION for Summary Judgment Georgia Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Ernest White, Hadi Tresna, John Whymss, Graylon Anderson, Catherine Mack, Latif Atanda, Jeff Layﬁeld, Marvin Washington. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1795 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1796 MOTION for Summary Judgment Louisiana (Boudreaux) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Ryan Boudreaux, Timothy Bellow. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1797 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1798

MOTION for Summary Judgment North Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1799 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1800 MOTION for Summary Judgment Nevada Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Michael Decesare, Michael Meno. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1801 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1802

MOTION for Summary Judgment Ohio Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Paul Kelly, Dean Johnson, Thomas Wenzlick, Kenneth R Miller, Adelbert Lawrence, Russell Jackson, Robert Velo. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1803 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1804 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oregon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Jon Leighter, David Spicer. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1805 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1806 MOTION for Summary Judgment Utah Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1807 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1808 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1809 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 13 Part 2, # 2 Exhibit 13 Part 3, # 3 Exhibit 13 Part 4)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

369/498

5/8/2020
09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009 09/28/2009
09/28/2009 09/29/2009

1810

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 14, Volume 1, Part 2, # 2 Exhibit 14, Volume 1, Part 3, # 3 Exhibit 14, Volume 1, Part 4, # 4 Exhibit 14, Volume 1, Part 5, # 5 Exhibit 14, Volume 1, Part 6, # 6 Exhibit 14, Volume 1, Part 7)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1811 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 14, Volume 2, Part 2, # 2 Exhibit 14, Volume 2, Part 3, # 3 Exhibit 14, Volume 2, Part 4)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1812 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 15 Part 2, # 2 Exhibit 15 Part 3, # 3 Exhibit 15 Part 4, # 4 Exhibit 15 Part 5)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1813 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 16 etc, Part 2, # 2 Exhibit 16 etc, Part 3, # 3 Exhibit 16 etc, Part 4)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1814 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1815 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1816 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1817

STATEMENT of Material Facts under Rule 56.1 ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to Statement of Material Facts)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1818 MOTION for Summary Judgment White (Georgia) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1819 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1818 MOTION for Summary Judgment White (Georgia) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1820 MOTION for Summary Judgment Boudreaux (Louisiana) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1821 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1820 MOTION for Summary Judgment Boudreaux (Louisiana) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1822 MOTION for Summary Judgment Fishler (Utah) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1823 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1822 MOTION for Summary Judgment Fishler (Utah) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1824 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Unopposed) In Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Ward, et al.'s Second Amended Complaint by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1825 RESPONSE to Motion (Unopposed) to Plaintiff Ward, et al.'s (FL) Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/28/2009)

1826

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1813 Sealed Document, 1804 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oregon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1807 Sealed Document, 1808 Sealed Document, 1809 Sealed Document, 1792 MOTION for Summary Judgment Arizona Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1797 Sealed Document, 1798 MOTION for Summary Judgment North Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1805 Sealed Document, 1800 MOTION for Summary Judgment Nevada Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1811 Sealed Document, 1793 Sealed Document, 1815 Sealed Document, 1796 MOTION for Summary Judgment Louisiana (Boudreaux) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

370/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Adjudication of Employment Status, 1810 Sealed Document, 1802 MOTION for Summary Judgment Ohio Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1814 Sealed Document, 1794 MOTION for Summary Judgment Georgia Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1816 Sealed Document, 1799 Sealed Document, 1803 Sealed Document, 1795 Sealed Document, 1812 Sealed Document, 1806 MOTION for Summary Judgment Utah Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 1801 Sealed Document (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1827

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Ground re 1824 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Unopposed) In Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Ward, et al.'s Second Amended Complaint, 1825 Response to Motion (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/29/2009)

09/29/2009

1829

ORDER DENYING as moot FedEx's (1781) Motion to Dismiss, (1824) Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. The Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs (3:09cv356) leave to amend their complaint and deems their proposed 3rd amended complaint ﬁled. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/29/09. Associated Cases: 3:09-cv-00356-RLMCAN(sdf) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/29/2009 1830 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT for Damages against all defendants (3:09cv356). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(sdf) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1828

AMENDED COMPLAINT Second against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902), ﬁled by Larry Armstrong, Mark Autry, David Bolen, Gary Bozlinski, Kathy Carkhuff, Mauria Clark, Joseph Crawley, Douglas Culver, Aaron Dahl, Girmay Dawit, Sherry Dover, Robert Eusebio, Kimberly Fletcher, Donald French, Eric Gengenbach, Thomas Ghiazza, Girum Alemayehu Glmariam, Kay Goldsmith, Allen Gonsorowski, Jason R Harry, Eric P Herbert, Steve Hobbs, Dan Hoyberg-Nielsen, Ryan Hudson, Larry Jackson, Steven L James, Chris M Kaspar, Raymond Killen, Kristopher Klockenteger, Jeffrey LaFleur, Rafus LaGree, Johnny Dane Leonard, Julius Lester, Margaret Lurvey, Bruce McCloskey, Aaron McCray, William Meltz, Cheryl L Meyers, Michael Millinder, John Morrissey, Norm Neiberger, Kim Nelson, David Nielsen, Patrick Oehmke, Michael Orin, Rick Pannullo, Samuel Parker, Shawn Parker, Stanislav Pavlovski, Gerald Petersen, Raymond G Repola, Larry Richard, Larry Roland, Joe Roybal, Michael Roybal, Keith Rudolph, Mario Ruiz, Karen L Salensky, Ricky Schissler, Terry L Scott, Del Sharp, Jason E Sharp, Brycen M Smith, Melvin Smith, Patrick H Smith, John W Stein, James Switzer, John Teman, Paul Thill, William Thompson, Benjamin Valentin, David Velasquez, Richard Vicars, Kenneth Wagner, Robert Waid, Robert Wall, Bret Wallman, Nicholas N Wolfe, Victor A Zink, III, Horacio Flores, Mark Niles.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1831

AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Robert Ajanku, Paul Alfano, Kamal Aly, Michael Amusu, Douglas Bailey, Colin Baker, Earnest Baldwin, Kevin Barnes, Johnny Batista, Brian Belisle, Kevin Blackler, Michael Boiteux, James Burnett, W Gary Butterﬁeld, Orestes Cal, Richard Cali, Sean Cappalla, Thomas Castellani, Wayne Chase, David Chauvin, Lawrence Chenkus, Robert Christ, Mark Corso, Douglas Demars, Heidi Densmore, Mark Desormeaux, James Dobensky, Kimberly Dore, Marek Drelichowski, Howard Eddy, Edward Ellenberg, John Ferrigno, Ary Fuchs, Darrin Gerst, Patrick Giglio, Carl Hester, Joseph Iacampo, Errol James, Huntley Jameson, Ernest Johnson, Gilbert Johnson, Burton Jones, Ed Kalinowski, George Kalmancy, James Kelleher, Ian Kowza, Richard Langley, John Lattimer, Godfrey Lee, Jr, Joseph Lombardo, Peter Luedke, Allan May, Dennis Monahan, Robert Moore, John Neely, Guy Nyswaner, Richard Oblinger, Paul Orsini, Remzi Ozturk, Jim Rainone, Stephen Randazzo, Thomas Reardon, Eberto Rodriguez, William Rodriguez, Bryce Rooney, Leonardo Salazar, James Schultz, Michael Silva, Dan Stender, Winston

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

371/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Stephenson, Bruce Telhiard, Yerodin Thompson, Anthony Tyson, John Ulysse, Dewitt Watson, Barry Whittemore, Jeffrey Wild, Peter Woods, Neville Edwards, Thomas Magno.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1832

AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Attilio Cantanese, Sean Dunmire, Steve Hatton, Kevin Hiscox, Carl Veal, Kenneth Miner, Andy Parker, Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, Ernest Neal, III, Adelbert Lawrence, Russell Jackson.(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1833 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaints (Unopposed) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3 Proposed Amended Complaints)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

09/30/2009

1834 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1828 Amended Complaint,,,,, 1831 Amended Complaint,,,,, 1833 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaints (Unopposed), 1832 Amended Complaint, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

10/01/2009

1835 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' (1833) Motion to Amend Complaints in cases 3:5cv531, 3:07cv412, and 3:08cv193. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 10/1/09. (sdf) (Entered: 10/01/2009)

10/01/2009

1836 SIXTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Ronald Perry, Randy Azzato, Alan Pacheco. 3:05CV531(sdf) (Entered: 10/01/2009)

10/01/2009

1837 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against FedEx Home Delivery, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, ﬁled by Frank Gruhn, Kristi Gruhn,Robert Thurston. 3:07CV412(sdf) (Entered: 10/01/2009)

10/01/2009

1838 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Ryan Boudreaux, Timothy Bellow. 3:08CV193(sdf) (Entered: 10/01/2009)

10/01/2009

1839

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1787 MOTION to Compel Production of 2009 IRS Employment Tax Audit, Notice Of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/01/2009)

10/02/2009

1840

ORDER Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc shall ﬁle its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of 2009 IRS Employment Tax Audit Notice of Porposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition ( by 10/26/2009, and Plantiffs shall ﬁle their Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of 2009 IRS Employment Tax Audit Notice of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee deposition by 11/25/2009.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 10/2/09. (sdf) (Entered: 10/05/2009)

10/07/2009

1841

AMENDED COMPLAINT (CORRECTED SECOND) against FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), ﬁled by Chung Byungchul, Wylie Smith, Horacio Flores, Mark Niles, Larry Armstrong, Mark Autry, David Bolen, Gary Bozlinski, Kathy Carkhuff, Mauria Clark, Joseph Crawley, Douglas Culver, Aaron Dahl, Girmay Dawit, Sherry Dover, Robert Eusebio, Kimberly Fletcher, Donald French, Eric Gengenbach, Thomas Ghiazza, Girum Alemayehu Glmariam, Kay Goldsmith, Allen Gonsorowski, Jason R Harry, Eric P Herbert, Steve Hobbs, Dan Hoyberg-Nielsen, Ryan Hudson, Larry Jackson, Steven L James, Chris M Kaspar, Raymond Killen, Kristopher Klockenteger, Jeffrey LaFleur, Rafus LaGree, Johnny Dane Leonard, Julius Lester, Margaret Lurvey, Bruce McCloskey, Aaron McCray, William Meltz, Cheryl L Meyers, Michael Millinder, John Morrissey, Norm Neiberger, Kim Nelson, David Nielsen, Patrick Oehmke, Michael Orin, Rick Pannullo, Samuel Parker, Shawn Parker, Stanislav

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

372/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Pavlovski, Gerald Petersen, Raymond G Repola, Larry Richard, Larry Roland, Joe Roybal, Michael Roybal, Keith Rudolph, Mario Ruiz, Karen L Salensky, Ricky Schissler, Terry L Scott, Del Sharp, Jason E Sharp, Brycen M Smith, Melvin Smith, Patrick H Smith, John W Stein, James Switzer, John Teman, Paul Thill, William Thompson, Benjamin Valentin, David Velasquez, Richard Vicars, Kenneth Wagner, Robert Waid, Robert Wall, Bret Wallman, Nicholas N Wolfe, Victor A Zink, III. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/07/2009

1842 MOTION for Clariﬁcation of Nevada (DeCesare) Class Certiﬁcation in Court's July 27, 2009 Opinion and Order (Doc. No. 1770) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 10/07/2009)

10/09/2009

1843

Joint MOTION Approval of Summary and Long Form Class Notices Pertataining to the Fourth and ﬁfth Wave Class Actions ﬁled by Fedex Defendants and by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Joint Motion, # 2 Exhibit B to Joint Motion, # 3 Exhibit C to Joint Motion, # 4 Exhibit D to Joint Motion, # 5 Exhibit E to Joint Motion, # 6 Exhibit F to Joint Motion, # 7 Exhibit G to Joint Motion, # 8 Exhibit H to Joint Motion, # 9 Exhibit I to Joint Motion)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

10/09/2009

1844

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Ground, FedEx Plaintiffs re 1843 Joint MOTION Approval of Summary and Long Form Class Notices Pertataining to the Fourth and ﬁfth Wave Class Actions ﬁled by Fedex Defendants and (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 10/09/2009)

10/13/2009

1845 STATEMENT in Response to Plaintiffs' Notices of Supplemental Authorities in Sheehan (Mass.) re 1791 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

10/14/2009 1846 AGREED NOTICE to extend time to ﬁle answer ﬁled by FedEx Ground ; answer due by November 2, 2009. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 10/14/2009)

10/14/2009

1848 ORDER granting 1843 Motion For Approval of The Summary And Long Form Class Notices. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 10/14/09. (sdf) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

10/15/2009

1847

NOTICE by Andy Parker, Michael Vosbein, Tim Ketterhagen, Michael Wise, Jeff Smith, Ernest Neal, III, Adelbert Lawrence, Russell Jackson, Attilio Cantanese, Sean Dunmire, Steve Hatton, Kevin Hiscox, Carl Veal, Kenneth Miner re 1832 Amended Complaint, of Filing of Consents to Become Party Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

10/26/2009

1849 BRIEF in Opposition to 1842 MOTION for Clariﬁcation of Nevada (DeCesare) Class Certiﬁcation in Court's July 27, 2009 Opinion and Order (Doc. No. 1770) ﬁled by Michael Decesare. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/26/2009

1850 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1787 MOTION to Compel Production of 2009 IRS Employment Tax Audit, Notice Of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/30/2009

1851 DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER COURT'S ORDER 1941 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Colorado) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1852 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1853 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1854 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Tabs 1-2, # 2 Tab 3 - Part 1, # 3 Tab 3 - Part 2, # 4 Tab 4- Part 1, # 5 Tab 4 - Part 2, # 6 Tab 5 - Part 1, # 7 Tab 5 - Part 2, # 8 Tabs 6-9, # 9

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

373/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Tabs 10-11, # 10 Tab 12 - Part 1, # 11 Tab 12 - Part 2, # 12 Tab 12 - Part 3, # 13 Tabs 13-14, # 14 Tab 15, # 15 Tabs 16-18, # 16 Tab 19)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1855 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Colorado) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1856 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1855 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Colorado) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1857 DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER COURT'S ORDER 1941 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Connecticut) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1858 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1859 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1860

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Tabs 1-2, # 2 Tabs 3-4, # 3 Tab 5 - Part 1, # 4 Tab 5 - Part 2, # 5 Tab 5 - Part 3, # 6 Tabs 6-8, # 7 Tab 9, # 8 Tab 10 - Part 1, # 9 Tab 10 - Part 2, # 10 Tab 10 - Part 3, # 11 Tab 10 - Part 4, # 12 Tab 10 - Part 5, # 13 Tab 11, # 14 Tab 12 - Part 1, # 15 Tab 12 - Part 2, # 16 Tab 12 - Part 3, # 17 Tabs 13-15, # 18 Tabs 16-18, # 19 Tab 19, # 20 Tab 20, # 21 Tabs 21-22)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1861 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Connecticut) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1862 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1861 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Connecticut) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1863 DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER COURT'S ORDER 1941 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Vermont) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) ( (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1864 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1865 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1866 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Vermont) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1867

NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1787 MOTION to Compel Production of 2009 IRS Employment Tax Audit, Notice Of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- 8-K (Oct. 30, 2009))(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1868

NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1601 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1581 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Draft IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Related Corporate Designee Deposition (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- 8-K (Oct. 30, 2009)) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1869

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Tabs 1-2, # 2 Tabs 3-5, # 3 Tab 6, # 4 Tab 7, # 5 Tab 8, # 6 Tab 9, # 7 Tab 10 - Part 1, # 8 Tab 10 - Part 2, # 9 Tab 11-13, # 10 Tab 14 Part 1, # 11 Tab 14 - Part 2, # 12 Tab 14 - Part 3, # 13 Tab 15 - Part 1, # 14 Tab 15 - Part 2, # 15 Tab 16, # 16 Tab 17 - Part 1, # 17 Tab 17 - Part 2, # 18 Tab 17 - Part 3, # 19 Tab 17 - Part 4, # 20 Tab 17 - Part 5, # 21 Tab 18-19, # 22 Tab 20, # 23 Tab 21-22, # 24 Tab 23, # 25 Tab 24 - Part 1, # 26 Tab 24 - Part 2, # 27 Tab 25-29)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

374/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

10/30/2009

1870 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Tim Ketterhagen (Vargas Named Plaintiff) on Independent Contractor vs. Employee Status by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1871 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1870 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Tim Ketterhagen (Vargas Named Plaintiff) on Independent Contractor vs. Employee Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1872 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Catanese) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1873 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009 1874 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1875

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Tab 1-3, # 2 Tab 4, # 3 Tab 5, # 4 Tab 6, # 5 Tab 7, # 6 Tab 8, # 7 Tab 9, # 8 Tab 10, # 9 Tab 11 - Part 1, # 10 Tab 11 - Part 2, # 11 Tab 1215, # 12 Tab 16 - Part 1, # 13 Tab 16 - Part 2, # 14 Tab 17-18, # 15 Tab 19 - Part 1, # 16 Tab 19 - Part 2, # 17 Tab 19 - Part 3, # 18 Tab 19 - Part 4, # 19 Tab 19 - Part 5, # 20 Tab 20-22, # 21 Tab 23, # 22 Tab 24-25)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1876 MEMORANDUM in Support of 1866 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Vermont) Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

10/30/2009

1877

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1853 Sealed Document, 1875 Sealed Document, 1872 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Catanese), 1865 Sealed Document, 1857 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Connecticut), 1869 Sealed Document,, 1852 Sealed Document, 1861 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Connecticut), 1859 Sealed Document, 1873 Sealed Document, 1858 Sealed Document, 1860 Sealed Document, 1864 Sealed Document, 1855 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Colorado), 1851 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Colorado), 1863 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Vermont), 1876 Memorandum in Support, 1866 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Vermont), 1854 Sealed Document, 1856 Memorandum in Support, 1874 Sealed Document, 1862 Memorandum in Support (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

11/02/2009

1878 ANSWER to 1832 Amended Complaint, in Cantanese, 3:07-cv-324 (FLSA) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

11/02/2009

1879 ANSWER to 1838 Amended Complaint in Boudreaux, 3:08-cv-193 (LA) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

11/02/2009

1880 ANSWER to 1841 Amended Complaint,,,,, in Flores, 3:07-cv-478 (CO) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

11/02/2009

1881 ANSWER to 1837 Amended Complaint in Gruhn, 3:07-cv-412 (VT) by Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795).(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

11/02/2009

1882 ANSWER to 1831 Amended Complaint,,,,, in Magno, 3:07-cv-322 (CT) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

11/02/2009 1883 ANSWER to 1836 Amended Complaint in Sheehan, 3:05-cv-531 (MA) by FedEx

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

375/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38).(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

11/02/2009

1884 ANSWER to 1830 Amended Complaint in Ward, 3:09-cv-356 (FL) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

11/09/2009

1885 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1842 MOTION for Clariﬁcation of Nevada (DeCesare) Class Certiﬁcation in Court's July 27, 2009 Opinion and Order (Doc. No. 1770) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/09/2009)

11/12/2009

1886

NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1601 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1581 Order on Motion to Compel Production of Draft IRS Notice of Proposed Assessment and Related Corporate Designee Deposition [Second Notice of Developments] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Form 8-K (Nov. 10, 2009))(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009

1887

NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1787 MOTION to Compel Production of 2009 IRS Employment Tax Audit, Notice Of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition [Second Notice of Developments] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Form 8-K (Nov. 10, 2009))(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009

1888

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1818 MOTION for Summary Judgment White (Georgia) ﬁled by Ernest White, Hadi Tresna, John Whymss, Graylon Anderson, Catherine Mack, Latif Atanda, Jeff Layﬁeld, Marvin Washington. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009

1889 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1820 MOTION for Summary Judgment Boudreaux (Louisiana) ﬁled by Ryan Boudreaux, Timothy Bellow. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009

1890 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1822 MOTION for Summary Judgment Fishler (Utah) ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009

1891

STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES re 1818 MOTION for Summary Judgment White (Georgia), 1822 MOTION for Summary Judgment Fishler (Utah), 1820 MOTION for Summary Judgment Boudreaux (Louisiana) ﬁled by Ernest White, Hadi Tresna, Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini, Ryan Boudreaux, Timothy Bellow, John Whymss, Graylon Anderson, Catherine Mack, Latif Atanda, Jeff Layﬁeld, Marvin Washington. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009

1892

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Ernest White, Hadi Tresna, Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini, Ryan Boudreaux, Timothy Bellow, John Whymss, Graylon Anderson, Catherine Mack, Latif Atanda, Jeff Layﬁeld, Marvin Washington re 1891 Statement, 1890 Memorandum in Opposition, 1888 Memorandum in Opposition, 1889 Memorandum in Opposition (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 11/12/2009)

11/12/2009

1893

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Robert Schwartz in Support of FedEx Ground's Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit A Vol. 1 - Pgs 1-992, # 4 Exhibit A Vol. 2 - Pgs. 993-1692, # 5 Exhibit A Vol. 3 - Pgs. 1693-1792, # 6 Exhibit B Vol.1 - Pgs.1793-1869, # 7 Exhibit B Vol.2 - Pgs.18701949, # 8 Exhibit B Vol.3 - Pgs.1950-2029, # 9 Exhibit B Vol.4 - Pgs.2030-2120, # 10 Exhibit B Vol.5 - Pgs.2121-2235, # 11 Exhibit B Vol.6 - Pgs.2236-2323, # 12 Exhibit B Vol.7 - Pgs.2324-2384, # 13 Exhibit C Vol.1 - Pgs.2385-2534, # 14 Exhibit C Vol.2 Pgs.2535-2703, # 15 Exhibit C Vol.3 - Pgs.2704-2880, # 16 Exhibit C Vol.4 - Pgs.28812921, # 17 Exhibit C Vol.5 - Pgs.2922-3028, # 18 Exhibit C Vol.6 - Pgs.3029-3048, # 19 Exhibit D Vol.1 - Pgs.3049-3151, # 20 Exhibit D Vol.2 - Pgs.3152-3239, # 21 Exhibit D Vol.3 - Pgs.3240-3356, # 22 Exhibit D Vol.4 - Pgs.3357-3435, # 23 Exhibit D Vol.5 Pgs.3436-3490, # 24 Exhibit D Vol.6 - Pgs.3491-3585, # 25 Exhibit E Vol.1 - Pgs.3586-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

376/498

5/8/2020
11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/24/2009 11/25/2009 11/25/2009 11/25/2009 11/30/2009

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
3845, # 26 Exhibit E Vol.2 - Pgs.3846-4013, # 27 Exhibit E Vol.3 - Pgs.4014-4069, # 28 Exhibit F - Pgs.4070-4291, # 29 Exhibit G Vol.1 - Pgs.4292-4417, # 30 Exhibit G Vol.2 - Pgs.4418-4447, # 31 Exhibit G Vol.3 - Pgs.4448-4509, # 32 Exhibit G Vol.4 Pgs.4510-4620, # 33 Exhibit G Vol.5 - Pgs.4621-4773, # 34 Exhibit H - Pgs.4774-4779) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Additional attachment added on 11/13/2009 after rotating pags: # 35 Exhibit G Part 2 Pgs. 4418-4447) (jld). (Entered: 11/12/2009)
1894 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1798 MOTION for Summary Judgment North Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
1895 RESPONSE by FedEx Ground to Plaintiffs' Third Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
1896 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1792 MOTION for Summary Judgment Arizona Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
1897 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1794 MOTION for Summary Judgment Georgia Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
1898 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1800 MOTION for Summary Judgment Nevada Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
1899 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1796 MOTION for Summary Judgment Louisiana (Boudreaux) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
1900 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1806 MOTION for Summary Judgment Utah Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
1901 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1804 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oregon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
1902 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1802 MOTION for Summary Judgment Ohio Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
1903 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1872 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Catanese) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
1904 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1787 MOTION to Compel Production of 2009 IRS Employment Tax Audit, Notice Of Proposed Assessment and Corporate Designee Deposition ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
1905 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
1906 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1904 Reply to Response to Motion, 1905 Sealed Document (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
1907 ORDER granting (1903) Motion for Extension of Time.( Defendant's opposition brief to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to be ﬁled by 12/21/2009, Plaintiff's Reply to be ﬁled by 1/20/2010.) in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

377/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Miller, Jr on 11/30/09. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00324RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

12/04/2009 1908 ORDER granting (1787) Motion to Compel N. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 12/4/09. (sdf) (Entered: 12/04/2009)

12/09/2009

1909 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1882 Answer to Amended Complaint (Unopposed) in Magno, 3:07-cv-322 (CT) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -Proposed First Amended Answer)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/09/2009)

12/09/2009

1910

MOTION to Strike or Hold in Abeyance re 1857 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Connecticut), 1851 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Colorado), 1863 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Vermont) , with Respect to the 181 Newly-Added Plaintiffs' Motions, by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 12/09/2009)

12/10/2009

1911 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1893 Sealed Document,,,,,, (the Record of FedEx Ground's Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 12/10/2009)

12/10/2009

1912

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 -- Schwartz Supplemental Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1, Exhibit I (Part One), # 3 Exhibit 1, Exhibit I (Part Two), # 4 Exhibit 1 -Amended SGI Exhibit List, # 5 Exhibit 2 -- SGI with Exhibit Citations)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 12/10/2009)

12/10/2009

1913 ORDER granting FedEx Ground's {1909) Motion for Leave to ﬁle First Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/10/09. Associated Cases: 3:07-cv-00322-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 12/11/2009)

12/11/2009

1914 AMENDED ANSWER to 1831 Amended Complaint,,,,, in Magno, 3:07-cv-322 (CT) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/11/2009)

12/14/2009

1915 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1870 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Tim Ketterhagen (Vargas Named Plaintiff) on Independent Contractor vs. Employee Status ﬁled by Tim Ketterhagen. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1916 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1912 Sealed Document, 1893 Sealed Document,,,,,, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009 1917 Sealed Document. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1918 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1792 MOTION for Summary Judgment Arizona Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1919

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1794 MOTION for Summary Judgment Georgia Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Ernest White, Hadi Tresna, John Whymss, Graylon Anderson, Catherine Mack, Latif Atanda, Jeff Layﬁeld, Marvin Washington. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1920 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1796 MOTION for Summary Judgment Louisiana (Boudreaux) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Ryan Boudreaux, Timothy Bellow. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1921 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1800 MOTION for Summary Judgment Nevada Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Michael Decesare, Michael Meno. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009 1922 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1798 MOTION for Summary Judgment North Carolina Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

378/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1923

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1802 MOTION for Summary Judgment Ohio Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Paul Kelly, Dean Johnson, Thomas Wenzlick, Kenneth R Miller, Adelbert Lawrence, Russell Jackson, Robert Velo. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1924 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1804 MOTION for Summary Judgment Oregon Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Jon Leighter, David Spicer. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1925 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1806 MOTION for Summary Judgment Utah Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009 1926 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1820 MOTION for Summary Judgment Boudreaux (Louisiana) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009 1927 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1822 MOTION for Summary Judgment Fishler (Utah) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009 1928 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1818 MOTION for Summary Judgment White (Georgia) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1929

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1855 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Colorado) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Chris A. Hollinger in Support of FedEx Ground's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Class Certiﬁcation Order, # 2 Exhibit A -- Allison Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B - Olsen Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C - Wright Declaration (ﬁled under seal), # 5 Exhibit D Edwards Deposition Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit E - Flores Deposition Excerpts, # 7 Exhibit F - Leighter Deposition Excerpts, # 8 Exhibit G - Niles Deposition Excerpts)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009 1930 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C - Wright Declaration)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1931 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1851 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Colorado) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit -- Rule 56(f) Declaration of Victor Jih)(Jih, Victor) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1932 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1857 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Connecticut) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Rule 56(f) Declaration of Scott Voelz)(Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1933

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1866 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Vermont) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit In Support of Opposition to the Gruhn (Vermont) Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Class Certiﬁcation Order, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to the Declaration of Chris Hollinger In Support of Defendant's Opposition to the Gruhn (Vermont) Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Class Certiﬁcation Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to the Declaration of Chris Hollinger In Support of Defendant's Opposition to the Gruhn (Vermont) Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1934

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Scott Voelz, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit A Vol. 1, # 4 Exhibit A Vol. 2, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C Vol. 1, # 7 Exhibit C Vol. 2, # 8 Exhibit C Vol. 3, # 9 Exhibit C Vol. 4, # 10 Exhibit C Vol. 5, # 11 Exhibit C Vol. 6, # 12 Exhibit C Vol. 7, # 13 Exhibit C Vol. 8, # 14 Exhibit D Vol.1,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

379/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
# 15 Exhibit D Vol.2, # 16 Exhibit D Vol.3, # 17 Exhibit D Vol.4, # 18 Exhibit D Vol.5, # 19 Exhibit E Vol. 1, # 20 Exhibit E Vol. 2, # 21 Exhibit E Vol. 3, # 22 Exhibit E Vol. 4, # 23 Exhibit E Vol. 5, # 24 Exhibit E Vol. 6, # 25 Exhibit E Vol. 7, # 26 Exhibit E Vol. 8, # 27 Exhibit F, # 28 Exhibit G)(Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/14/2009

1935 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1863 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Vermont) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Jih Declaration)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

12/14/2009

1938

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Defendant's Opposition to Colorado Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication, # 2 Exhibit A Vol 1, # 3 Errata A Vol. 2, # 4 Exhibit B Vol. 1, # 5 Exhibit B Vol. 2, # 6 Exhibit C Vol. 1, # 7 Exhibit C Vol. 2, # 8 Exhibit D, Vol. 1, # 9 Exhibit E, Vol. 1, # 10 Exhibit C, Vol. 3, # 11 Exhibit E, Vol. 2, # 12 Exhibit E, Vol. 3, # 13 Exhibit E, Vol. 4, # 14 Exhibit E, Vol. 5, # 15 Exhibit E, Vol. 6, # 16 Exhibit E, Vol. 7, # 17 Exhibit F, # 18 Exhibit G, # 19 Exhibit C, Vol. 4, # 20 Exhibit C, Vol. 5, # 21 C, Vol. 7, # 22 Exhibit C, Vol. 6, # 23 Exhibit C, Vol. 6a, # 24 Exhibit C, Vol 8, # 25 Exhibit C, Vol. 8a)(Jih, Victor) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

12/14/2009

1941

ORDER granting (1910) Motion to Strike or Hold in Abeyance Motions for Summary Judgment 1851 , 1857 , 1863 . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/14/09. Associated Cases: 3:07-cv-00322-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00412-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv00478-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

12/14/2009

1942

OPINION AN ORDER granting (1911) Motion to Amend/Correct. Exhibits 1 and 2 attached to entry 1912 (under seal) are now part of the record as Exhibit 1 (under seal) to entry 1893 pursuant to this Court's order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/14/09. (sdf) (Entered: 12/16/2009)

12/15/2009

1936 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 1861 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Connecticut) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

12/15/2009 1937 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

12/15/2009

1939

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Hollinger Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C-1, # 6 Exhibit C-2, # 7 Exhibit D-1, # 8 Exhibit D-2, # 9 Exhibit D-3, # 10 Exhibit D-4, # 11 Exhibit D-5, # 12 Exhibit D-6, # 13 Exhibit D-7, # 14 Exhibit D-8, # 15 Exhibit D-9, # 16 Exhibit D-10, # 17 Exhibit D-11, # 18 Exhibit D-12, # 19 Exhibit D-13, # 20 Exhibit D-14, # 21 Exhibit D15, # 22 Exhibit D-16, # 23 Exhibit D-17, # 24 Exhibit D-18, # 25 Exhibit D-19, # 26 Exhibit E, # 27 Exhibit F, # 28 Exhibit G-1, # 29 Exhibit G-2, # 30 Exhibit G-3, # 31 Exhibit G-4)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

12/15/2009

1940

NOTICE by Michael Decesare of Supplemental Authority Regarding Defendant's Motion for Clariﬁcation of the Nevada Class Certiﬁcation Decision (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00120-RLMCAN(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

12/17/2009

1943

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1916 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 1912 Sealed Document, 1893 Sealed Document,,,,,, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

12/18/2009

1944

DOCUMENT STRICKEN BY COURT'S ORDER 1976 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by FedEx Ground re 1908 Order on Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael G. McGuinness)(McGuinness, Michael) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2010: # 2 -) (sdf). Modiﬁed on 1/14/2010 (sdf). (Entered: 12/18/2009)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

380/498

5/8/2020
12/18/2009 12/21/2009
12/21/2009 12/21/2009
12/22/2009 12/23/2009
12/23/2009 12/28/2009 12/28/2009 12/29/2009 12/30/2009 12/30/2009 01/04/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1945 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(McGuinness, Michael) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

1946

ORDER granting Defendant's (1943) Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Plaintiff's 1916 Motion to Strike. ( Brief to be ﬁled by 1/15/2010, Reply Brief to be ﬁled by 1/20/2010.). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/21/09. (sdf) (Entered: 12/21/2009)

1947 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2009)

1948

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Chris Hollinger, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit A Volume 1, # 4 Exhibit A Volume 2, # 5 Exhibit B Volume 1, # 6 Exhibit B Volume 2, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E Volume 1, # 10 Exhibit E Volume 2, # 11 Exhibit E Volume 3, # 12 Exhibit E Volume 4, # 13 Exhibit E Volume 5, # 14 Exhibit E Volume 6, # 15 Exhibit E Volume 7, # 16 Exhibit E Volume 8, # 17 Exhibit F, # 18 Exhibit G)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2009)

1949 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1944 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court (Unopposed) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/22/2009)

1950

ORDER granting Plaintiff's (1949) Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to FedEx's motion for reconsideraton of the Magistrate Judge's December 4, 2009 discovery ruling.( Response to be ﬁled by 1/19/2010). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/23/09. (sdf) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

1952 AMENDED ORDER t0 1950 . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/23/09. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(sdf) (Entered: 12/29/2009)

1951 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1880 Answer to Amended Complaint in Flores, 07-cv-478 (CO) -- Unopposed -- by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -Amended Answer)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/28/2009)

1953 OPINION AND ORDER denying (1601) Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/28/09. (sdf) (Entered: 12/30/2009)

1954 ORDER granting (1951) Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/29/09. Associated Cases: 3:07-cv-00478-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 12/30/2009)

1955 ** Filing Error - DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REFILED - SEE 1956 ** AMENDED ANSWER to 1841 Amended Complaint,,,,, in Flores (CO), 07-cv-478 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) Modiﬁed on 12/30/2009 (ksc). (Entered: 12/30/2009)

1956 AMENDED ANSWER to 1841 Amended Complaint,,,,, in Flores (CO), 07-cv-478 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/30/2009)

1957

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-1, # 2 Exhibit A-2, # 3 Exhibit B-1, # 4 Exhibit B-2, # 5 Exhibit C-1, # 6 Exhibit C-2, # 7 Exhibit C-3, # 8 Exhibit D-1, # 9 Exhibit D-2, # 10 Exhibit D-3, # 11 Exhibit E-1, # 12 Exhibit E-2, # 13 Exhibit E-3, # 14 Exhibit F-1, # 15 Exhibit F-2, # 16 Exhibit F-3, # 17 Exhibit G-1, # 18 Exhibit G-2, # 19 Exhibit G-3, # 20 Exhibit H-1, # 21 Exhibit H-2, # 22 Exhibit H-3, # 23 Exhibit I-1, # 24 Exhibit I-2, # 25 Exhibit I-3, # 26 Exhibit J-1, # 27 Exhibit J-2, # 28 Exhibit J-3, # 29 Exhibit K-1, # 30 Exhibit K-2, # 31 Exhibit K-3, # 32 Exhibit L-1, # 33 Exhibit L-2, # 34 Exhibit L-3, # 35 Exhibit M-1, # 36 Exhibit M-2, # 37 Exhibit M-3, # 38 Exhibit N1, # 39 Exhibit N-2, # 40 Exhibit N-3, # 41 Exhibit O-1, # 42 Exhibit O-2, # 43 Exhibit O-3, # 44 Exhibit, # 45 Exhibit P-2, # 46 Exhibit P-3, # 47 Exhibit Q-1, # 48 Exhibit Q2, # 49 Exhibit Q-3, # 50 Exhibit R-1, # 51 Exhibit R-2, # 52 Exhibit R-3, # 53 Exhibit S-1, # 54 Exhibit S-2, # 55 Exhibit S-3, # 56 Exhibit T-1, # 57 Exhibit T-2, # 58 Exhibit

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

381/498

5/8/2020
01/04/2010 01/04/2010 01/04/2010 01/05/2010 01/06/2010
01/12/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010 01/13/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
T-3, # 59 Exhibit U-1, # 60 Exhibit U-2, # 61 Exhibit U-3)(Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

1958 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1957 Sealed Document,,,,, Declaration of Stephanie Moore Concerning the Supplemental Notiﬁcation Procedure ﬁled (Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

1959 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1957 Sealed Document,,,,, (Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

1960 STATEMENT Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' (NV) Notice of Supplemental Authority regarding 1940 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) ﬁled by Michael Decesare. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

1961 OPINION AND ORDER denying (1714) Motion for Reconsideration of Court's December 14, 2006 order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/5/09..(sdf) (Entered: 01/06/2010)

1962

MOTION for Trials by Jury by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix - Jury Trial Demands in the 63 Cases in MDL 1700, # 2 Exhibit 1 -- Ltr from Blalack to Faris, # 3 Exhibit 2 -- Ltr from Faris to Blalack)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/06/2010)

1963 MOTION to Withdraw 1944 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court (Unopposed) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (McGuinness, Michael) (Entered: 01/12/2010)

1964 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Horacio Flores, Mark Niles. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1965 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1964 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Horacio Flores, Mark Niles. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1966 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1855 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Colorado) ﬁled by Horacio Flores, Mark Niles. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1967 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Neville Edwards, Thomas Magno. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1968 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1967 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Neville Edwards, Thomas Magno. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1969 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 1967 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad ﬁled by Neville Edwards, Thomas Magno. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 23-24)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1970 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1861 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Connecticut) ﬁled by Neville Edwards, Thomas Magno. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1971 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Frank Gruhn, Kevin Draper. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1972 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1971 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Frank Gruhn, Kevin Draper. (Attachments: # 1 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad, # 2 Exhibit 60-61)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1973 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1866 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Vermont) ﬁled by Frank Gruhn, Kevin Draper. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

382/498

5/8/2020
01/13/2010
01/13/2010
01/13/2010 01/15/2010 01/15/2010 01/19/2010
01/19/2010
01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/20/2010 01/20/2010 01/20/2010 01/20/2010 01/20/2010
01/21/2010

1974

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1967 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 1970 Reply to Response to Motion, 1965 Reply to Response to Motion, 1966 Reply to Response to Motion, 1964 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 1973 Reply to Response to Motion, 1969 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion, 1968 Reply to Response to Motion, 1971 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 1972 Reply to Response to Motion (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1975

REPLY to Response to Motion re 1870 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Tim Ketterhagen (Vargas Named Plaintiff) on Independent Contractor vs. Employee Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38). (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/13/2010)

1976 ORDER granting (1963) Motion to Withdraw 1944 motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's 12/4/09 ruling. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/13/10. (sdf) (Entered: 01/14/2010)

1977 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 1946 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

1978 Sealed Document. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

1979

ORDER granting (1977) Motion to Amend 1946 Order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Defendant's Response to 1916 Motion to Strike to be ﬁled by 1/15/2010. Plaintiff's Reply to be ﬁled by 1/29/2010. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/19/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 01/19/2010)

1980

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AA-1, # 2 Exhibit AA-2, # 3 Exhibit AA3, # 4 Exhibit BB-1, # 5 Exhibit BB-2, # 6 Exhibit BB-3, # 7 Exhibit CC-1, # 8 Exhibit CC-2, # 9 Exhibit CC-3, # 10 Exhibit V-1, # 11 Exhibit V-2, # 12 Exhibit V-3, # 13 Exhibit W-1, # 14 Exhibit W-2, # 15 Exhibit W-3, # 16 Exhibit X-1, # 17 Exhibit X-2, # 18 Exhibit X-3, # 19 Exhibit Y-1, # 20 Exhibit Y-2, # 21 Exhibit Y-3, # 22 Exhibit Z-1, # 23 Exhibit Z-2, # 24 Exhibit Z-3)(Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 01/19/2010)

1981 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1980 Sealed Document,, No. 1980 (Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 01/19/2010)

1982 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1980 Sealed Document,, (Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 01/19/2010)

1983 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment (Catanese) by Plaintiff FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 01/20/2010)

1984 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1983 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment (Catanese) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Second Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/20/2010)

1985 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/20/2010)

1986 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1984 Reply to Response to Motion, 1983 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment (Catanese), 1985 Sealed Document (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/20/2010)

1987

Amended MOTION re 1962 MOTION for Trials by Jury by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix -- Jury Trial Demands in the 63 Cases in MDL 1700, # 2 Exhibit 1 -- Ltr from Blalack to Faris, # 3 Exhibit 2 -- Ltr from Faris to Blalack) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/20/2010)

1988 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs of ﬁling of Declaration of Matthew Houston Concerning Completion of the Notice Process for Class Certiﬁcation (Waves One through Five)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

383/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 01/21/2010)

01/21/2010

1989

BRIEF in Opposition to 1987 Amended MOTION re 1962 MOTION for Trials by JuryAmended MOTION re 1962 MOTION for Trials by Jury ﬁled by Frederick Howell, Jr, Robert Lee Taylor, Curtis Johnson, Margaret Johnson, Bradley D Gregory, Terrance E Ellison, TEE One Enterprises LLC, Jeremiah Pedrazzi, Michael Decesare, Michael Meno, Ernest White, Hadi Tresna, Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp, Laron Jones, Horacio Flores, Mark Niles, Paul Kelly, Dean Johnson, Thomas Wenzlick, Kenneth R Miller, Adelbert Lawrence, Russell Jackson, Robert Velo, John Whymss, Graylon Anderson, Catherine Mack, Latif Atanda, Jeff Layﬁeld, Marvin Washington, Linda Brankley Bowman, Temple Jackson, Charles Perdwe, Donald Powell, Karen Pryor, Guy Willis, Bruce Wittmeier, John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 01/21/2010)

01/22/2010 1990 NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 01/22/2010)

01/22/2010

1991

OPINION AND ORDER: The court reconsiders its previous order and for the reasons stated in this order, pursuant to Rule 7.6(c)(ii) of the Rules of the Judicial Panel of Multi-District Litigation SUGGESTS tha the Panel REMAND Johnson 3:05cv652 (Iowa) to the Souther District of Iowa, Central Division, for further proceedings. ( Parties shall prepare and ﬁle the pretrial order by 2/22/2010.). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/22/10. (sdf) (Entered: 01/25/2010)

01/27/2010

1992

MOTION to Supplement Plaintiffs' Motion to Augment the Record with Newly Created and Newly Produced Documents Relevant to Cross-Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiffs Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dean Wiley, Joey Rodriguez, Albert Anaya, Gupertino Magana, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Anthony Ybarra, Allan Ross, Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Peter Allen, Eric Jepson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 01/27/2010)

01/27/2010

1994

Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 18, # 2 Exhibit 19, # 3 Exhibit 20, # 4 Exhibit 21-Part 1, # 5 Exhibit 21-Part 2, # 6 Exhibit 21-Part 3, # 7 Exhibit 21-Part 3b, # 8 Exhibit 21-Part 4, # 9 Exhibit Exh 21-Part 5, # 10 Exhibit 22)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 01/27/2010)

01/27/2010

1995

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1994 Sealed Document, 1992 MOTION to Supplement Plaintiffs' Motion to Augment the Record with Newly Created and Newly Produced Documents Relevant to Cross-Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 01/27/2010)

01/28/2010 1996 RESPONSE by FedEx Ground to 1990 Notice (Other) of Supplemental Authority (Huggins v FedEx Ground). (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

01/29/2010 1997 Sealed Document. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 01/29/2010)

02/01/2010

1998 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1987 Amended MOTION re 1962 MOTION for Trials by JuryAmended MOTION re 1962 MOTION for Trials by Jury ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 02/01/2010)

02/08/2010 1999 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint (Unopposed) by Plaintiff Richard H Somers, II. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/08/2010)

02/08/2010 2000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Richard H Somers, II re 1999 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint (Unopposed) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/08/2010)

02/11/2010 2001 OPINION AND ORDER granting (1746) Motion to Remand to State Court CAN;

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

384/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
granting (6) Motion to Remand to State Court in case 3:09-cv-00060-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/11/10. Associated Cases: 3:09-cv-00060-RLMCAN(sdf) (Entered: 02/12/2010)

02/16/2010

2002

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1992 MOTION to Supplement Plaintiffs' Motion to Augment the Record with Newly Created and Newly Produced Documents Relevant to Cross-Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit -- James Krappa Declaration)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

02/16/2010 2003 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit -- Michael McGuinness Declaration, with attachments A-D)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

02/17/2010

2004

ORDER granting (1842) Motion for clariﬁcation 1842 , and now clariﬁes the 7/27/09 order 1770 as it applies to Nevada class. The court GRANTS the Nevada plaintiffs' motion for class certiﬁcation with respect to their claims arising under NEV.REV.STAT.Ch.616, but DENIES the motion in all other respects. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/17/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv00120-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 02/17/2010)

02/17/2010

2005

ORDER granting (1699) Motion to Certify Class to the Tennessee plaintiffs as set forth in the court's 3/25/08 order 1119 . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/17/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 02/17/2010)

02/17/2010

2006

ORDER granting (1999) Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff may serve and ﬁle the 1st amended complaint attahed to the motion to amend complaint in this matter within 10 days after this order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/17/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-00575-RLM-CAN(sdf) (Entered: 02/17/2010)

02/18/2010

2007 AMENDED COMPLAINT against FedEx Ground Package System Inc, ﬁled by Dale Urbank. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/18/2010)

02/22/2010 2008 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) in Johnson v. FedEx Ground, 3:05-cv-652 (IA), by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 02/22/2010)

02/23/2010

2009

REPLY to Response to Motion re (1992 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Supplement Plaintiffs' Motion to Augment the Record with Newly Created and Newly Produced Documents Relevant to Cross-Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by Carlene M Craig. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN et al.(Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 02/23/2010)

02/23/2010

2010

ORDER granting in part (1499) and 1588 Rule 56 Motions to Strike ; granting (1559), and 1564 Rule 56 Motions to Strike ; The court will address the plaintiff's broader requests to strike FedEx SGI by separate order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/23/10. (sdf) (Entered: 03/01/2010)

03/02/2010

2011 SUGGESTION OF REMAND, OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/2/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00652RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 03/03/2010)

03/08/2010

2012 ANSWER to 2007 Amended Complaint in Urbank v. FedEx Ground, 3:08-cv-575 (MA), by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902).(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

03/29/2010 2013 MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

385/498

5/8/2020
03/29/2010
03/29/2010
03/29/2010 03/29/2010 03/30/2010
04/06/2010 04/06/2010 04/06/2010
04/06/2010 04/09/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

2014

MOTION re 2013 MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority Certiﬁcate of Service by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

2015

NOTICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 1341 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) (C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), 1337 MOTION for Summary Judgment Massachusetts Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

2016

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' requests to take judicial notice re 1068 , 1195 , 1472 , 1700 , 1737 , 1816 . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/29/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

2017 MOTION Clariﬁcation To Clarify Scheduling Order by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 03/29/2010)

2018

OPINION AND ORDER denying (1318 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Certify Class Michigan Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order. The parties that have ﬁled briefs on motions to amend class certiﬁcation on the ground addressed in this order are instructed to ﬁle a supplemental statement, not to exceed three pages, by 4/30/2010. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/30/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 03/30/2010)

2019 STIPULATION to Dismiss Plaintiffs Dunmire and Hatton (Catanese) by Plaintiffs FedEx Plaintiffs, FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/06/2010)

2020 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 2019 STIPULATION to Dismiss Plaintiffs Dunmire and Hatton (Catanese), 2015 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/06/2010)

2021

RESPONSE to Motion re 2013 MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 04/06/2010)

2022 NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1818 MOTION for Summary Judgment White (Georgia) of Supplemental Authority (Ruiz v Afﬁnity Logistics Corp.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Ruiz v Afﬁnity Logistics Corp.)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/06/2010)

2023

REPLY by FedEx Ground to 2013 MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

386/498

5/8/2020
04/12/2010 04/12/2010 04/19/2010
04/21/2010 04/21/2010 04/21/2010 04/21/2010
04/23/2010 04/26/2010
04/28/2010 04/28/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 04/09/2010)

2024 BRIEF in Opposition to (2017 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION Clariﬁcation To Clarify Scheduling Order ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN et al.(Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 04/12/2010)

2025 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re (2017 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION Clariﬁcation To Clarify Scheduling Order ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 04/12/2010)

2026

STIPULATION to File Third Amended Complaint to Add Four New Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Bob Arbutti, Gary Austin, Don Blackmon, Bobby Brown, Bob Candella, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Seid Huskic, Michael Jost, Dave King, Michael Light, Rich Mitchell, Roy Patton, Jr, Kevin Pour, George Sanders, Mike Sheffer, Ken Stibor, Jamie Tenison, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, John Waweru. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/19/2010)

2027

ORDER granting (2026) Stipulation to File Third Amended Complaint to Add Four New Plaintiffs in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/21/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00337-RLMCAN(ksc) (Entered: 04/22/2010)

2028 OPINION AND ORDER granting (2017) Motion To Clarify Scheduling Order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/21/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 04/22/2010)

2029

OPINION AND ORDER denying plaintiff's requests in their various motions for summary judgment to give preclusive effect to the Estrada courts ﬁnding of control in all the MDL proceedings. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/21/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 04/22/2010)

2030

OPINION AND ORDER denying (1318), (1326), (1333), (1339), (1340), (1341) and (1342) Motions to Amend denial of Class Certiﬁcation on the basis of collateral estoppel in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. The court will rule on plaintiff's remaining arguments to amend class certiﬁcation by spearate order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/21/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 04/22/2010)

2031

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (RUIZ V. AFFINITY LOGISTICS CORP.) by Graylon Anderson, Latif Atanda, Jeff Layﬁeld, Catherine Mack, Hadi Tresna, Marvin Washington, Ernest White, John Whymss. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

2032

AMENDED COMPLAINT Third Amended Class Action Complaint (Missouri) against FedEx Ground, ﬁled by Bob Arbutti, Gary Austin, Don Blackmon, Bobby Brown, Bob Candella, Clarence Dalcour, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Seid Huskic, Michael Jost, Dave King, Michael Light, Rich Mitchell, Roy Patton, Jr, Kevin Pour, Mike Sanders, Mike Sheffer, Ken Stibor, Jamie Tenison, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, John Waweru.(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/26/2010)

2033

OPINION AND ORDER denying (1499, 1588, 1916 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) RULE 56 MOTIONs to Strike, denying as moot (1428 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) RULE 56 MOTION to Strike. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/28/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 04/28/2010)

2034 STIPULATION to File Third Amended Complaint to Add Four New Plaintiffs (Montana) by Plaintiffs James Rick Allen, Ken Beck, Kent Belcher, Terri Bibeau, Wes

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

387/498

5/8/2020
04/30/2010 04/30/2010 04/30/2010
04/30/2010
04/30/2010 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 04/30/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Bird, Mike Callahan, Rob Carlson, Dallas Crnich, James Daly, Todd Edelen, Floyd Hagen, Roscoe Haggerty, Talliesin Dodd Hayden, Charley Johnson, Donna Jones, Wallace Koehmstedt, Gordon Lane, Penny Massa, Erik Olson, Jim Pantojs, Shawn Penrod, Tony Rand, Jeff Rohrer, Steven Sholey, Monty Smith, Jerry Steward, David Taylor, Fred Walton. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 04/28/2010)

2035

STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (Illinois Plaintiffs) regarding 1339 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(c) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(c) ﬁled by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2036

STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (Montana Plaintiffs) regarding 1340 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) ﬁled by Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Rob Carlson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2037

STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (Massachusetts Plaintiffs) regarding 1341 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) ﬁled by Richard Syrek, Jean Capobianco, Randy Azzato, Ronald Perry, William F Gardner, Jr, Alan Pacheco, Edward Sheehan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2038

STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (South Dakota Plaintiffs) regarding 1342 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) ﬁled by Chad Viereck, Steve Persing, Darrell Engbrecht, Kimberly A Bunger, Jay Heintz. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2039 STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (Colorado Plaintiffs) regarding 1855 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Colorado) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2040 STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (Connecticut Plaintiffs) regarding 1861 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Connecticut) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2041 STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (Vermont Plaintiffs) regarding 1866 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Vermont) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2042 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 2039 Statement, 2041 Statement, 2036 Statement, 2040 Statement, 2035 Statement, 2037 Statement,, 2038 Statement, (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2043 STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL re 1333 MOTION to Certify Class Virginia Plaintiffs' Motio to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order ﬁled by Linda Brankley Bowman, Bradley D Gregory, Frederick Howell, Jr, Temple Jackson, Charles Perdwe, Donald Powell, Karen

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

388/498

5/8/2020
04/30/2010
04/30/2010 04/30/2010 04/30/2010 04/30/2010
04/30/2010 04/30/2010 04/30/2010
04/30/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Pryor, Robert Lee Taylor, Guy Willis, Bruce Wittmeier. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2044

STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL re 1326 MOTION to Certify Class MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER ﬁled by Bob Arbutti, Gary Austin, Don Blackmon, Bobby Brown, Bob Candella, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Seid Huskic, Michael Jost, Dave King, Michael Light, Rich Mitchell, Roy Patton, Jr, Kevin Pour, Mike Sanders, Mike Sheffer, Ken Stibor, Jamie Tenison, James Tichenor, Carl Tucker, John Waweru. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2045 STATEMENT (FedEx Ground's Supplemental Statement) regarding 1855 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Colorado) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2046

STATEMENT (FedEx Ground's Supplemental Statement (MT)) regarding 1340 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) ﬁled by Mike Callahan, Penny Massa, Rob Carlson. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2047

STATEMENT (FedEx Ground's Supplemental Statement (VA)) regarding 1333 MOTION to Certify Class Virginia Plaintiffs' Motio to Amend Class Certiﬁcation Order ﬁled by Bradley D Gregory, Robert Lee Taylor, Frederick Howell, Jr. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2048

STATEMENT (FedEx Ground's Supplemental Statement (MA)) regarding 1341 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) ﬁled by Richard Syrek, Jean Capobianco, Randy Azzato, Ronald Perry, William F Gardner, Jr, Alan Pacheco, Edward Sheehan. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2049

STATEMENT (FedEx Ground's Supplemental Statement (IL)) regarding 1339 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(c) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(c) ﬁled by Dale Fluegel, Diane Gordon, Clarence Kelly. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2050 STATEMENT (FedEx Ground's Supplemental Statement (CT)) regarding 1861 MOTION to Amend/Correct Class Certiﬁcation Order Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) (Connecticut) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2051

STATEMENT (FedEx Ground's Supplemental Statement (SD)) regarding 1342 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) MOTION to Amend/Correct 1119 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) ﬁled by Chad Viereck, Steve Persing, Darrell Engbrecht, Kimberly A Bunger, Jay Heintz. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

2052 STATEMENT (FedEx Ground's Supplemental Statement (MO)) regarding 1326 MOTION to Certify Class MISSOURI PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND CLASS

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

389/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
CERTIFICATION ORDER ﬁled by Jammie Hill, Carl Tucker, Reginald Gray, Roy Patton, Jr, James Tichenor, Marcus Holmes. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

04/30/2010

2053 STATEMENT (FedEx Ground's Supplemental Statement (VT)) regarding 1866 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Vermont) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

05/03/2010

2054 SUPPLEMENT to 1988 Notice (Other) , Declaration of Matthew M. Houston Concerning Completion of the Notice Process for Class Certiﬁcation (Waves One through Five) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 05/03/2010)

05/03/2010 2055 Sealed Document. (Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 05/03/2010)

05/04/2010

2056

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING (1363 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) First RULE 56 MOTION to Strike and Exclude the Expert Testimony and Report of Robert Wood ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/4/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(jld) (Entered: 05/06/2010)

05/04/2010

2057 ORDER granting (2034) Stipulation to ﬁle third amended complaint in case 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/4/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN(jld) (Entered: 05/06/2010)

05/10/2010

2058

MOTION to Amend/Correct 1939 Sealed Document,, 1934 Sealed Document,, 1422 Memorandum in Opposition, [Motion to Correct the Record] by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Chris Hollinger, # 2 Exhibit 1 -- Chart of Corrections to Record Citations, # 3 Exhibit 2 -- Page from Kristi Gruhn Deposition Transcript)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

05/10/2010 2059 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3 -- Declaration of Peggy Carrera) (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

05/11/2010

2060

OPINION AND ORDER granting (2058 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Correct the Record re (1939) Sealed Document, (1934) Sealed Document, (1422) Memorandum in Opposition. FedEx is allowed to correct the record by providing corrected citations to the existing record for the Connecticut and Vermont SSGIs and its Opposition to the Montana Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, as well as by adding the deposition page and declaration cited but inadvertently omitted from its Vermont SSGI. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/11/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00393-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00322-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00412RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/13/2010 2061 ANSWER to 2032 Amended Complaint, in Gray (MO), 06-cv-337, by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 05/13/2010)

05/18/2010

2062 AMENDED ORDER clarifying the Court's 4/21/2010 Order (2029 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN) on collateral estoppel. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/18/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

05/19/2010

2063

OPINION AND ORDER denying motions to amend the court's denial of the class certiﬁcation orders (1326, 1333, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1855, 1861, and 1866 in 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/19/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 05/20/2010)

05/21/2010

2064 Second MOTION to Supplement the Record in Support of Their Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status and Opposition to Fedex Ground's Motions for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 05/21/2010)

05/24/2010 2065 BRIEF in Opposition to 2064 Second MOTION to Supplement the Record in Support of

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

390/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Their Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status and Opposition to Fedex Ground's Motions for Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/24/2010)

05/27/2010 2066 MOTION for Leave to Serve Subpoena by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B -- Rule 37.1 Certiﬁcation)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

05/27/2010 2067 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Proposed Subpoena)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

05/28/2010

2068

OPINION AND ORDER granting the Illinois plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to its claims under that Act 1335 . The court will address the plaintiffs remaining claims in their summary judgment motion by separate order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/28/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00529RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

06/14/2010

2069 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 2066 MOTION for Leave to Serve Subpoena ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

06/21/2010 2070 NOTICE of Appearance by Laura E Robinson on behalf of FedEx Ground (Robinson, Laura) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

06/21/2010 2071 NOTICE of Appearance by Cameron H Biscay on behalf of FedEx Ground (Biscay, Cameron) (Entered: 06/21/2010)

06/23/2010 2072 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 1633 Order denying Motion to Intervene, by Jonathan Lee Riches. (ksc) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/24/2010

2073 Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2072 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Order of 10/14/2008, # 3 Docket Sheet)(ksc) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/24/2010 2074 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2066 MOTION for Leave to Serve Subpoena ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/24/2010

2075

NOTICE by Mike Callahan, Rob Carlson, Penny Massa re 1336 MOTION for Summary Judgment Montana Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Declaration of Susan E Ellingstad)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/24/2010 2076 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 2075 Notice (Other) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/24/2010 2077 USCA Case Number 10-2524 for 2072 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Jonathan Lee Riches. (ksc) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/28/2010

2078

OPINION AND ORDER granting (1409 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies. Plaintiffs' ERISA claims are dismissed without prejudice with leave to re-ﬁle once named plaintiffs' administrative remedies under the ERISA plans are exhausted. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/28/10. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 06/29/2010)

06/29/2010

2079 NOTICE by FedEx Ground re 1393 Memorandum in Opposition Notice of Supplemental Authority in Louzau (NY) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 -- Edwards v. Publishers Circulation Fulﬁllment, Inc.)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2010)

07/09/2010 2080 MOTION to Substitute Attorney (Lee v. FedEx Ground) (Case No. 3:05-CV-00533) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Perl, Justin) (Entered: 07/09/2010)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

391/498

5/8/2020
07/09/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2081 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Cooney, James) (Entered: 07/09/2010)

07/09/2010

2082 MOTION to Substitute Attorney in re: Carlson, et al. v. FedEx Ground (3:05-cv-664) (FL) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Hill, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/09/2010)

07/12/2010

2083

RESPONSE TO MONTANA PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by FedEx Ground to 2075 Notice (Other). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mediation Req. Ltr. 1-13-10)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 07/12/2010)

07/12/2010

2084

ORDER granting Motions to Susbstitute Attorney (2082 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN)in re: Carlson, et al. v. FedEx Ground (3:05-cv-664) (FL); (2081 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN)in re: Sharon Witeside, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (3:07-cv-326)(NC); and(2080 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) (Lee v. FedEx Ground) (Case No. 3:05-CV-00533). The appearance of David Duddleston is hereby withdrawn and substituted with the appearance of Justin H. Perl. The appearance of Louis Bledsoe III is hereby withdrawn and substituted with the appearance of James P. Cooney III. The appearance of Heather Brock is hereby withdrawn and substituted with the appearance of Benjamin H. Hill, III. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 7/12/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00326-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 07/13/2010)

07/16/2010

2085 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Narayan v EGL, Inc., July 13, 2010) (Morton, Eleanor) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/19/2010: # 1 Notice of Supplemental Authority) (smp). (Entered: 07/16/2010)

07/19/2010

2086 STIPULATION to Dismiss Plaintiff Christopher C. Collman by Plaintiffs FedEx Plaintiffs, FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/19/2010

2087

Third MOTION to Supplement Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Augment the Record with Newly Produced Documents Relevant to Cross-Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/19/2010

2088

AFFIDAVIT in Support Declaration of Lynn Rossman Faris in Support of Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Augment the Record with Newly Produced Documents Relevant to Cross-Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8 Part 1 of 2, # 9 Exhibit 8 Part 2 of 2, # 10 Exhibit 9 Part 1 of 2, # 11 Exhibit 9 Part 2 of 2)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/19/2010 2089 Sealed Document. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 07/19/2010)

07/21/2010 2090 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Randall John Forbes by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Forbes, Randall) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

07/21/2010

CASE DISMISSED as to Plaintiff Christopher Collman ONLY pursuant to 2086 Stipulation to Dismiss and Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ksc) (Entered: 07/21/2010)

07/22/2010

2091

ORDER granting (2090) Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Randall John Forbes is substituted as counsel of record in this action for the Defendant in place of Attorney John J. Yates. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 7/22/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 07/22/2010)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

392/498

5/8/2020
07/26/2010

2092

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
NOTICE of Appearance by Brett J Preston on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119) Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00664-RLM-CAN(Preston, Brett) (Entered: 07/26/2010)

07/28/2010

2093

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 2087 Third MOTION to Supplement Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Augment the Record with Newly Produced Documents Relevant to Cross-Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit --St. Croix Sensory Inc v. Department of Employment and Economic Development)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/28/2010)

07/30/2010

2094

STATEMENT in Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Narayan v EGL) re 2085 Notice (Other) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -Murray v Principal Financial, # 2 Exhibit B -- Bowman v Wyatt)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 07/30/2010)

08/04/2010

2095

RESPONSE to Motion re 2087 Third MOTION to Supplement Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Augment the Record with Newly Produced Documents Relevant to Cross-Motions for Summary Adjudication of Employment Status, 2013 MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority, 2014 MOTION re 2013 MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority MOTION Suppl MOTION re 2013 MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority MOTION Suppl MOTION re 2013 MOTION Supplemental Authority re 1410 Memorandum in Support, 1409 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' ERISA Claim for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Supplemental Authority MOTION Suppl ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Morton, Eleanor) (Entered: 08/04/2010)

08/11/2010

2096 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Haynes, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/11/2010)

08/11/2010

2097

OPINION AND ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN et al; GRANTING IN PART 1398 ; DENYING 1992 , 2064 , & 2087 the plaintiffs' motions to augment the record; DENYING 1400 & 1471 FedEx's request for oral argument; DENYING 1163 & 1248 plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment; and GRANTING 1215 FedEx's motion for summary judgment. In class action cases where summary judgment motions pend, the court INSTRUCTS the parties to ﬁle a supplement statement within 30 days, not to exceed 5 pages indicating why the outcome should be different or the same as this Kansas opinion. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/11/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(jld) (Entered: 08/12/2010)

08/12/2010

2098

ORDER granting (2096) Motion to Substitute Attorney. The appearance of Clark C Johnson is withdrawn and the appearance of Kenneth G Haynes is entered in case 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/12/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00666-RLM-CAN(jld) (Entered: 08/13/2010)

08/12/2010

2099

OPINION AND ORDER, Pursuant to Rule 7/6(c)(ii) of the Rules of Judicial Panel of Multi-District Litigation SUGGESTING that the Panel REMAND cases to the various district courts. The court will retain jurisdiction to consider attorney fees and expenses by attorneys acting for administration and common beneﬁt of all MDL plaintiffs. Parties

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

393/498

5/8/2020
08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/18/2010 08/18/2010 08/19/2010
08/19/2010
08/19/2010
08/19/2010 08/20/2010 08/20/2010 08/23/2010 08/23/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
to ﬁle joint proposed pretrial orders by 9/11/10. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/12/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN et al.(jld)(cc: Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation) (Entered: 08/13/2010)

2100 MOTION to Substitute Attorney John B. Renick in place of Ronald E. Jenkins in RE 3:06-cv-00337 (Gray - MO) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Renick, John) (Entered: 08/17/2010)

2101 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Defendants FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM -CAN(Welk, Thomas) (Entered: 08/17/2010)

2102 MOTION to Substitute Attorney in re 3:05cv00541 (Gregory - VA) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (McFarland, Robert) (Entered: 08/18/2010)

2103 MOTION to Substitute Attorney Joe Edward Lea, Jr. by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00540RLM-CAN(Lea, Joe) (Entered: 08/18/2010)

2104

ORDER granting (2103) Motion to Substitute Attorney; (182) Motion to Substitute Attorney in case 3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN. The appearance of Attorney Steve Dennis is substituted for Attorney Joe E Lea, Jr. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/19/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv00802-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

2105

ORDER granting (2102) Motion to Substitute Attorney. The appearance of Attorney Robert William McFarland is substituted for Attorneys Rafael Eloy Morell and Michael J Murphy in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/19/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00541-RLM CAN(ksc) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

2106

ORDER granting (2101) Motion to Substitute Attorney; (183) Motion to Substitute Attorney in case 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN. The appearance of Attorney Thomas Welk is substituted for Attorneys Sandra K Hoglund-Hanson and Susan Brunick Simons in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/19/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

2107

ORDER granting (2100) Motion to Substitute Attorney. The appearance of Attorney Ronald E Jenkins is substituted by Attorney John B. Renick in case 3:05-md-00527RLM -CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/19/10. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:06-cv-00337-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

2108

MOTION for Extension of Time to File PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IN WHICH TO FILE 5-PAGE BRIEFS REQUIRED BY THE COURT'S AUGUST 11, 2010 ORDER by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

2109

Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IN WHICH TO FILE 5-PAGE BRIEFS REQUIRED BY THE COURT'S AUGUST 11, 2010 ORDER by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

2110 MOTION to Remand by Plaintiffs Terrance E Ellison, TEE One Enterprises LLC. (Kim, Soye) (Entered: 08/23/2010)

2111 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2110 MOTION to Remand ﬁled by Terrance E Ellison, TEE One Enterprises LLC. (Kim, Soye) (Entered: 08/23/2010)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

394/498

5/8/2020
08/23/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2112 MOTION to Remand by Plaintiff Theodore Holloway, Jr. (Kim, Soye) (Entered: 08/23/2010)

08/23/2010

2113 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2112 MOTION to Remand ﬁled by Theodore Holloway, Jr. (Kim, Soye) (Entered: 08/23/2010)

08/23/2010

2114 ORDER granting (2108), (2109) Motions for Extension of Time to File in case 3:05-md00527-RLM -CAN. Plaintiffs and defendants shall ﬁle their supplemental briefs on or before 9/24/2010. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 8/23/2010. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 08/24/2010)

08/25/2010

2115 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv00597-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN(Banks, Michael) (Entered: 08/25/2010)

08/26/2010

2116 NOTICE of Appearance by Bryan D LeMoine on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902) (LeMoine, Bryan) (Entered: 08/26/2010)

08/26/2010

2117 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael L Banks on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902) Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN, 3:07-cv-00327-RLM-CAN, 3:09-cv-00002-RLM-CAN, 3:09-cv-00003-RLMCAN(Banks, Michael) (Entered: 08/26/2010)

08/26/2010

2118 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah E Bouchard on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902) Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN et al.(Bouchard, Sarah) (Entered: 08/26/2010)

08/26/2010

2119 ORDER granting (2115) Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorneys Jennifer Rygiel Boyd; Sidney Zonn; Christopher J Moran and Shannon H Paliotta are withdrawn and substituted with the appearance of Michael L Banks. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/26/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00595-RLMCAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 08/30/2010)

08/31/2010 2120 MOTION to Substitute Attorney (in re 3:05-cv-535 RLM-CAN-NJ Capers by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Bruno, Rosemary) (Entered: 08/31/2010)

08/31/2010

2121 NOTICE of Appearance by Patton G Lochridge on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00540-RLMCAN(Lochridge, Patton) (Entered: 08/31/2010)

09/01/2010

2123

ORDER granting (2120) Motion to Substitute Attorney in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN. The appearances of Attorneys Carla D Macaluso and John M Nolan are withdrawn and substituted with the appearance of Attorney Rosemary Joan Bruno. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/1/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00535-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

09/02/2010 2122 MOTION to Substitute Attorney (in Re 3:05-CV-00600-RLM-CAN (TN) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Haltom, William) (Entered: 09/02/2010)

09/07/2010

2124

ORDER granting (2122) Motion to Substitute Attorney in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN. The appearance of Attorney James R Mulroy, II is withdrawn and substituted by Attorney William H Haltom, Jr. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/7/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 09/07/2010)

09/09/2010

2125 **FILING ERROR - THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REFILED - SEE 2127 ** NOTICE OF APPEAL by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Carlene M Craig, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

395/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
O'Brien, Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 9/10/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 09/09/2010)

09/09/2010

2126

Docketing Statement re: 2125 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Sylvia O'Brien, Matthew Cook, Jeff Bramlage, Ronald Perry, Lawrence Liable, Keith Barry, Alan Pacheco, Kent Whistler, Carlene M Craig, Leo Rittenhouse, Neal Bergkamp, Dominic R Lupo, Heidi Law, Mike Moore. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

09/09/2010

2127

NOTICE OF APPEAL by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Carlene M Craig, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

09/09/2010

2128

Docketing Statement re: 2127 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Sylvia O'Brien, Matthew Cook, Jeff Bramlage, Ronald Perry, Lawrence Liable, Keith Barry, Alan Pacheco, Kent Whistler, Carlene M Craig, Leo Rittenhouse, Neal Bergkamp, Dominic R Lupo, Heidi Law, Mike Moore. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

09/10/2010

2129

USCA Appeal Fees received on *9/10/2010* in the amount of $ 455, receipt number 3347383 re 2127 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Sylvia O'Brien, Matthew Cook, Jeff Bramlage, Ronald Perry, Lawrence Liable, Keith Barry, Alan Pacheco, Kent Whistler, Carlene M Craig, Leo Rittenhouse, Neal Bergkamp, Dominic R Lupo, Heidi Law, Mike Moore. The Notice of Appeal ﬁling fee was paid on *9/10/2010*. (ksc) (Entered: 09/10/2010)

09/10/2010

Appeal ﬁling fee received re 2127 Notice of Appeal: $ 455, receipt number 3347833. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 09/10/2010)

09/10/2010

2130

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (2127 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (193 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 8/11/10 Opinion and Order, # 4 Docket Sheet 3:05md527, # 5 Docket Sheet 3:05cv530)(ksc) (Entered: 09/10/2010)

09/10/2010

2131 BRIEF in Opposition to 2112 MOTION to Remand, 2110 MOTION to Remand in Holloway (Maryland) and Ellison (Maryland) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 09/10/2010)

09/10/2010

2132

AMENDED COMPLAINT PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (MONTANA) against FedEx Ground, ﬁled by James Rick Allen, Ken Beck, Manny Bejaran, Kent Belcher, Terri Bibeau, Wes Bird, Mike Callahan, Rob Carlson, Dallas Crnich, James Daly, Todd Edelen, Floyd Hagen, Roscoe Haggerty, Kevin Hauge, Talliesin Dodd Hayden, Charley Johnson, Donna Jones, Wallace Koehmstedt, Gordon Lane, Penny Massa, Erik Olson, Jim Pantojs, Shawn Penrod, James Pitt, Tony Rand, Jeff Rohrer, Junior Schock, Steven Sholey, Monty Smith, Jerry Steward, David Taylor, Fred Walton.(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/10/2010)

09/10/2010

2148

MANDATE of USCA as to 2072 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Jonathan Lee Riches, Dismissing the appeal for failure to pay the required docketing fee pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b) and ordering the appellant to pay the $455 appellate fee. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Final Order)(ksc) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

09/10/2010

2149

USCA Case Number 10-3115 for (2127 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Sylvia O'Brien, Matthew Cook, Jeff Bramlage, Ronald Perry, Lawrence Liable, Keith Barry, Alan Pacheco, Kent Whistler, Carlene M Craig, Leo Rittenhouse, Neal Bergkamp, Dominic R Lupo, Heidi Law, Mike Moore, (193 in 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (ksc) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

396/498

5/8/2020
09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/13/2010 09/14/2010 09/14/2010
09/15/2010 09/15/2010 09/15/2010 09/16/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2133 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Proposed Pretrial Order by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2134 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Fleming (MS) 3:05-cv-593 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2135 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Bunger (SD) 3:05-cv-322 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2136 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Sheehan (MA) 3:05-cv-531 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2137 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Currithers (MI) 3:05-cv-532 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2138 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Magno (CT) 3:07-cv-322 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2139 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Dizinno (CT) 3:07-cv-323 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2140 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Thurston (VT) 3:07-cv-412 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2141 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Flores (CO) 3:07-cv-478 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2142 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Gregory (VA) 3:05-cv-541 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2143 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Gray (MO) 3:06-cv-337 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2144 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Fluegel (IL) 3:05-cv-529 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2145 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Perry (MA) 3:05-cv-796 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2146 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Carlson (MT) 3:06-cv-393 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/13/2010)

2147 NOTICE of Appearance by Carolyn J Kubota on behalf of FedEx Ground (Kubota, Carolyn) (Entered: 09/14/2010)

2150

ORDER granting (2133) Motion for Extension of Time to File in case 3:05-md-00527RLM -CAN. The parties joint proposed pretrial order due on or before 9/15/2010. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/14/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv-00324-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00496-RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-00575RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

2151 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Blanchard (CO) 3:07-cv-496 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

2152 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Urbank (MA) 3:08-cv-575 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

2153 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Catanese (FLSA) 3:07-cv-324 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

2154 NOTICE of Appearance by Steve Dennis PHV on behalf of Fedex Ground Package

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

397/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Systems Inc(Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv3836) (Dennis PHV, Steve) (Entered: 09/16/2010)

09/16/2010 2155 Proposed Pretrial Order CORRECTED (JOINT) Gregory (VA) 3:05-cv-541 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/16/2010)

09/20/2010

2156

CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT pursuant to 2097 Opinion and Order (in re Member Case No. 3:05-CV-530, Craig et al v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc.). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/20/2010: # 2 Clerk's Judgment (CORRECTED)) (ksc). (Entered: 09/20/2010)

09/21/2010 2157 ANSWER to 2132 Amended Complaint,, in Carlson (MT) by FedEx Ground.(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

09/21/2010 2158 Proposed Pretrial Order Supplemental (JOINT) Carlson (MT) 3:06-cv-393 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/21/2010)

09/21/2010

2159

FINAL SUGGESTION OF REMAND to the JPML in accord with Rule 7.6(c)(ii) of the Rules of the Judicial Panel of Multi-District Litigation. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/21/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 09/22/2010)

09/22/2010

2160

OPINION AND ORDER granting (2110, 2112 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) MOTIONS to Remand; SUGGESTING that the panel remand 3:07-cv-190 (Ellison Maryland) and 3:08-cv-87 (Holloway - Maryland). Parties instructed to ﬁle a joint proposed pretrial order in each of these two cases by 10/22/2010. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/22/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv00190-RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-00087-RLM-CAN(ksc) (Entered: 09/22/2010)

09/24/2010

2161 SUPPLEMENT Alabama Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

09/24/2010 2162 SUPPLEMENT Arkansas Plaintiff's Supplemental Statement in Suport of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by David Harris. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

09/24/2010

2163 SUPPLEMENT Arizona Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

09/24/2010

2164

SUPPLEMENT California Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Dean Alexander, Peter Allen, Albert Anaya, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Paul Infantino, Jorge Isla, Eric Jepson, Gupertino Magana, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Joey Rodriguez, Dale Rose, Agostino Scalercio, Dean Wiley, Anthony Ybarra. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

09/24/2010

2165

SUPPLEMENT Florida Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Donald E Carlson, Charles House, David R Mosher(Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1751), Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

09/24/2010

2166

SUPPLEMENT Georgia Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Graylon Anderson, Latif Atanda, Jeff Layﬁeld, Catherine Mack, Hadi Tresna, Marvin Washington, Ernest White, John Whymss. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

398/498

5/8/2020
09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010
09/24/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

2167 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Westcott (Maryland) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2168 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Humphreys (Texas) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2169

SUPPLEMENT Indiana Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2170

SUPPLEMENT Kentucky Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Charlie Bertram, John Coleman, William Cress, Barry Hindman, George Sanders. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2171 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Carlson (Florida) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2172 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Fishler (Utah) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2173

SUPPLEMENT Louisiana Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Clarence Dalcour, Troy Givens. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2174 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Louzau (New York) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2175 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Smith (Tennessee) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2176 SUPPLEMENT Maryland Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2177

SUPPLEMENT Minnesota Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2178 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on White (Georgia) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2179 SUPPLEMENT Nevada Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by Michael Decesare. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2180 SUPPLEMENT New Hampshire Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statemetn in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by Robert Gennell, Jr, Kimball Rice, Donald Swazey, Gary Terrio, Lance Tucker, Shane Tucker. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2181 SUPPLEMENT New Jersey Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by Tariq Baskerville, Jessie Capers, Patrick Ngei, Gitonga Waiguchu. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2182 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Tofaute (New Jersey) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

399/498

5/8/2020
09/24/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010
09/24/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010
09/24/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010

2183

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
SUPPLEMENT New York Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2184 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Tierney (Rhode Island) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2185

SUPPLEMENT North Carolina Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion For Summary Adjudication ﬁled by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2186 SUPPLEMENT Ohio Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by Walter Wallace. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2187 SUPPLEMENT Oregon Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by Jeremy Brinker, Jon Leighter, Dennis McHenry, Edward Slayman, David Spicer. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2188 SUPPLEMENT Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2189

SUPPLEMENT Rhode Island Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2190

SUPPLEMENT South Carolina Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)), Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2191 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Larson (Wisconsin) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2192

SUPPLEMENT Tennessee Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Theire Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, John Lindsey, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2193

SUPPLEMENT Texas Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2194 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum in Lee (Minnesota) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2195 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Coleman (Kentucky) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2196 SUPPLEMENT Utah Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2197 SUPPLEMENT West Virginia Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Thier

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

400/498

5/8/2020
09/24/2010 09/24/2010
09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Motion for Summary Adjudication ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2198 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Boudreaux (Louisiana) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2199

SUPPLEMENT Wisconsin Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Motion for Summary Adjudication and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2200 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Alexander (California) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2201 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Riewe (Indiana) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2202 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Gibson (Arizona) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2203 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Cooke (South Carolina) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2204 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Gennell (New Hampshire) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2205 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Harris (Arkansas) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2206 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Slayman and Leighter (OR) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2207 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Kelly (Ohio) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2208 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Decesare (Nevada) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2209 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Floyd (Alabama) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2210 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Willis (Pennsylvania) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2211 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Asbury (West Virginia) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2212 SUPPLEMENT Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum on Whiteside (North Carolina) Summary Judgment ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Jih, Victor) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

2213

ORDER LIFTING STAY OF CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER. The following cases are REMANDED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407: 3:05cv529 (Fluegel Illinois); 3:05cv531 (Sheehan -Massachusetts); 3:05cv532 (Currithers -Michigan); 3:05cv539 (Bunger -South Dakota); 3:05cv541 (Gregory -Virginia); 3:05cv593 (Fleming -Mississippi); 3:05cv796 (Perry -Massachusetts); 3:06cv337 (Gray -Missouri); 3:06cv393 (Carlson -Montana); 3:07cv322 (Magno -Connecticut); 3:07cv323 (Dizinno Connecticut); 3:07cv324 (Cantanese -FLSA); 3:07cv412 (Thurston -Vermont); 3:07cv478 (Flores -Colorado); 3:07cv496 (Blanchard -Colorado); 3:08cv575 (Urbank Massachusetts). Signed by Jeffery N. Luthi, Clerk of the Panel, on 9/24/10. (Attachments: # 1 Letter re: Order Lifting Stay)(ksc) (Entered: 09/27/2010)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

401/498

5/8/2020
09/27/2010 10/13/2010 10/13/2010 10/14/2010 10/14/2010 10/15/2010 10/15/2010 10/21/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/28/2010 11/01/2010
11/02/2010
11/04/2010 11/05/2010 11/05/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2214 CORRECTED ORDER LIFTING STAY OF CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER. Signed by Jeffery N. Luthi, Clerk of the Panel, on 9/27/10. (ksc) (Entered: 09/27/2010)

2215 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

2216 Docketing Statement re: 2215 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/13/2010)

2217 Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2215 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Conditional Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order of 10/15/2007, # 4 Docket Sheet)(ksc) (Entered: 10/14/2010)

2218 USCA Case Number 10-3401 for 2215 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

2219 USCA Appeal Fees received on *10/15/2010* in the amount of $ 455, receipt number 3347744 re 2215 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. The Notice of Appeal ﬁling fee was paid on *10/15/2010*. (ksc) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

2220 RECEIPT: payment of Appeal Filing Fee ($455, Receipt No. 3347744) re: 2215 Notice of Cross Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

2221 MOTION to Correct the Docket (Unopposed) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 10/21/2010)

2222 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Holloway (MD) 3:08-cv-087 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 10/22/2010)

2223 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Ellison (MD) 3:07-cv-190 by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 10/22/2010)

2224 ORDER granting (2221) Motion to Correct the Docket in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 10/22/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

2226 STIPULATION to Dismiss Voluntary with Prejudice by Plaintiff Tim Ketterhagen. (ksc) (Entered: 11/02/2010)

2225

FINAL SUGGESTION OF REMAND to the JPML in accord with Rule 7.6(c)(ii) of the Rules of the Judicial Panel of Multi-District Litigation. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11/1/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv-00190RLM -CAN, 3:08-cv-00087-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 11/01/2010)

2227

ORDER granting (2226) Stipulation to Dismiss in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN; granting (122) Stipulation to Dismiss in case 3:07-cv-00325-RLM -CAN. This order clariﬁes that ONLY plaintiff Tim Ketterhagen is dismissed from the Vargas action (3:07cv325), and that Mr. Ketterhagens participation in other claims in these MDL cases is not affected by the voluntary dismissal. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11/2/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv-00325-RLM CAN(ksc) (Entered: 11/02/2010)

2228 NOTICE by All FedEx Ground Defendants re 2066 MOTION for Leave to Serve Subpoena -- Notice of Withdrawal of Motion (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 11/04/2010)

2229 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark T Clouatre on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902) (Clouatre, Mark) (Entered: 11/05/2010)

2230 NOTICE of Appearance by Jessica G Simbalenko on behalf of FedEx Ground Package

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

402/498

5/8/2020
11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/11/2010 11/12/2010 11/15/2010 11/24/2010 11/24/2010 12/13/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902) (Simbalenko, Jessica) (Entered: 11/05/2010)

2231 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert J Wierenga on behalf of All FedEx Ground Defendants (Wierenga, Robert) (Entered: 11/10/2010)

2232 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly K Kefalas on behalf of All FedEx Ground Defendants (Kefalas, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/10/2010)

2233 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas W Cranmer on behalf of All FedEx Ground Defendants (Cranmer, Thomas) (Entered: 11/10/2010)

2234 NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly P Corr on behalf of FedEx Ground Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00596-RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv-00328-RLM CAN(Corr, Kelly) (Entered: 11/11/2010)

2235 NOTICE of Appearance by Guy P Michelson on behalf of FedEx Ground Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00596-RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv-00328-RLM CAN(Michelson, Guy) (Entered: 11/12/2010)

2236 NOTICE by All FedEx Ground Defendants re 2205 Supplement Notice of Supplemental Authority in Harris (AR): Kistner v Cupples (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Kistner v Cupples)(Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

2237 NOTICE of Appearance by Stevan E Bunnell on behalf of All FedEx Ground Defendants (Bunnell, Stevan) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

2238 NOTICE of Appearance by Steve Olson on behalf of All FedEx Ground Defendants (Olson, Steve) (Entered: 11/24/2010)

2239

OPINION AND ORDER: (Alabama 3:06cv428) denying 1155 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Alabama 3:07cv191) Remand of case to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (Arizona 3:07cv272) denying 1792 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Arkansas 3:06cv209) denying 1157 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on state law claims only, remand of case to be suggested -joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (California 3:05cv528) denying 1153 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 1225 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand of case to be suggested -joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (California 3:06cv429) granting 1356 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand of case to be suggested -joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (California 3:08cv52) granting 1658 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand of case to be suggested -joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (Florida 3:05cv664) denying 1159 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1235 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Florida 3:09cv356) Remand of case to be suggested -joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (Georgia 3:05cv411) denying 1794 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1818 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Indiana 3:05cv390) denying 1611 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1229 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Kentucky 3:05cv599) granting in part 1165 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting in part 1231 Motion for Summary Judgement, remand of case to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (Louisiana 3:08cv193) denying 1796 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1820 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Maryland 3:06cv485) denying 1167 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1213 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Maryland 3:07cv189) granting 1354 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Minnesota 3:05cv533) denying 1169 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1211

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

403/498

5/8/2020
12/14/2010 12/14/2010 12/14/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Nevada 3:07cv120) granting in part 1800 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (Nevada 3:08cv234) Remand to be suggested joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (New Hampshire 3:05cv601) granting in part 1171 Motion for Summary Judgment to Drivers, granting in part to FedEx, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/3/2011; (New Jersey 3:05-cv-595) denying 1173 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1227 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (New Jersey 3:05cv535) granting in part 1352 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (New Jersey 3:07cv327) Remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (New Jersey 3:09cv2) Remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (New York 3:05cv538) denying 1175 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1219 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (New York 3:05cv537) denying 1347 Motion for Partial Summary Judgement as premature, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (North Carolina 3:07cv326) denying 1798 Motion for Summary Judgment (ERISA claim denied without prejudice) and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Ohio 3:08cv336) denying 1802 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all state law claims, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (Ohio 3:06cv801) Remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (Oregon 3:05cv596) denying 1177 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (Oregon 3:07cv328) denying 1804 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (Pennsylvania 3:05cv597) denying 1179 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Pennsylvania 3:05cv598) Judgment granted in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Pennsylvania 3:09cv3) Remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/10/2011; (Rhode Island 3:05cv599) denying 1181 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1233 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (South Carolina 3:05cv668) denying 1183 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Tennessee 3:05cv600) denying 1185 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1217 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Texas 3:05cv540) denying 1187 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1223 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested for federal claims - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/17/2011; (Texas 3:06cv802) Remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/17/2011; (Utah 3:08cv53) denying 1806 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1822 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Massachusetts 3:07cv325) denying as moot 1870 Motion for Summary Judgment, remand to be suggested - joint proposed pretrial order due 1/17/2011; (West Virginia 3:06cv337) denying 1189 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; (Wisconsin 3:05cv601) denying 1191 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 1221 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims; denying as moot 1962 and 1987 Motions for trial by jury. Status Report due by 12/27/2010. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/13/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
2240 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Floyd). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN, 3:06-cv-00428-RLM -CAN(ksc) Modiﬁed text on 12/14/2010 (ksc). (Entered: 12/14/2010)
2241 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Gibson). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv-00272-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
2242 **JUDGMENT SET ASIDE PURSUANT TO 2460 ORDER** CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Carlson). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

404/498

5/8/2020
12/14/2010 12/14/2010 12/14/2010
12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/16/2010 12/16/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
00664-RLM -CAN(ksc) Modiﬁed on 1/27/2011 (ksc). (Entered: 12/14/2010)
2243 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (White). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN, 3:07-cv-00411-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
2244 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Riewe). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN, 3:05-cv-00390-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
2245 NOTICE of Appearance by Lawrence J Rosenfeld on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145) (Rosenfeld, Lawrence) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
2246 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Lee). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN, 3:05-cv-00533-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2247 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Louzau). (ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2248 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Tofaute). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2249 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Willis). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2250 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Hart). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN, 3:05-cv-00598-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2251 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Tierney). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00599-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2252 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Smith). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN, 3:05-cv-00600-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2253 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Larson). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2254 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Cooke). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2255 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Westcott). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM -CAN, 3:06-cv-00485-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2256 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Asbury). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:06-cv-00826-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2257 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Jones). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN, 3:07-cv-00189-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2258 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Whiteside). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv-00326-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2259 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Fishler). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:08-cv-00053-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2260 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Boudreaux). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM -CAN, 3:08-cv-00193-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2261 NOTICE of Appearance by Wendy M Krincek on behalf of All FedEx Ground Defendants (ksc) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
2262 NOTICE of Appearance by Rick D Roskelley on behalf of All FedEx Ground Defendants (ksc) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

405/498

5/8/2020
12/16/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2263 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick H Hicks on behalf of All FedEx Ground Defendants (ksc) (Entered: 12/17/2010)

12/21/2010

2264 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Blanchard (CO) 3:07cv-496 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2265 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Flores (CO) 3:07-cv478 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2266 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Dizinno (CT) 3:07-cv323 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2267 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Magno (CT) 3:07-cv322 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2268 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Catanese (FLSA) 3:07-cv-324 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2269 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Fluegel (IL) 3:05-cv529 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2270 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Sheehan (MA) 3:05cv-531 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2271 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Urbank (MA) 3:08cv-575 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2272 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Currithers (MI) 3:05cv-532 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2273 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Gray (MO) 3:06-cv337 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2274 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Carlson (MT) 3:06cv-393 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2275 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Bunger (SD) 3:05-cv539 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2276 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Thurston (VT) 3:07cv-412 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010

2277 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Gregory (VA) 3:05cv-541 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/21/2010 2278 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Fleming (MS) 3:05-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

406/498

5/8/2020
12/21/2010 12/22/2010 12/23/2010
12/28/2010 12/28/2010 12/28/2010 12/28/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
cv-593 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

2279 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court - Perry (MA) 3:05-cv796 by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

2280 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Pretrial Orders and Status Report by Defendant All FedEx Ground Defendants. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 12/22/2010)

2323

ORDER in case 3:05-cv-00390-RLM -CAN; granting (2280) Motion for Extension of time to File in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN. Joint Status Report due by 1/18/2011. Proposed pretrial orders due by 1/24/11 for Alabama (Gentle), Arkansas (Harris), California (Alexander, Pedrazzi, Huerta), Florida (Ward), Kentucky (Coleman), Nevada (DeCesare, Campbell), New Hampshire (Gennell). Proposed pretrial orders due by 1/31/11 for New Jersey (Capers, Farrell, Tofaute II), New York (Johnson), Ohio (Kelly, Wallace), Oregon (Slayman, Leighter), Pennsylvania (Mitchell). Proposed pretrial order due by 2/7/11 for Texas (Humphreys, Price), Massachusetts (Varga). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/23/10. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al. (ksc) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/28/2010)

2282 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/28/2010)

2283 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER (DECLARATION OF ROBERT I. HARWOOD) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/28/2010)

2284 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs re 2283 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion, 2282 Memorandum in Support, 2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/28/2010)

2285 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Tina Floyd. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2286 Docketing Statement re: 2285 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Tina Floyd. Docketing Statement (AL) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2287 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2288 Docketing Statement re: 2287 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp, Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen. Docketing Statement (AZ) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2289

NOTICE OF APPEAL by Graylon Anderson, Latif Atanda, Jeff Layﬁeld, Catherine Mack, Hadi Tresna, Marvin Washington, Ernest White, John Whymss. (Faris, Lynn) (Corrected attachment added on 1/5/2011: # 1 Notice of Appeal) (jld). (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2290

Docketing Statement re: 2289 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Ernest White, Hadi Tresna, Marvin Washington, Jeff Layﬁeld, Catherine Mack, John Whymss, Graylon Anderson, Latif Atanda. (Faris, Lynn) (Corrected attachment added on 1/5/2011: # 1 Docketing Statement) (jld). (Entered: 12/30/2010)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

407/498

5/8/2020
12/30/2010 12/30/2010
12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010
12/30/2010
12/30/2010
12/30/2010 12/30/2010
12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010
12/30/2010

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2291 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2292 Docketing Statement re: 2291 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Rodney Owens, Harold Bennett, David Stacy, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton. Docketing Statement (IN) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2293 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2294 Docketing Statement re: 2293 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. Docketing Statement (LA) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2295 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Laron Jones. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2296 Docketing Statement re: 2295 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Laron Jones. Docketing Statement (MD-Jones) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2297 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Thomas Westcott. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2298 Docketing Statement re: 2297 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. Docketing Statement (MD-Westcott) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2299 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2300 Docketing Statement re: 2299 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Sergei Selenskikh, Gerald Pelkey, Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee. Docketing Statement (MN) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2301 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2302 Docketing Statement re: 2301 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Michael B Kilmartin, Frank Cucinotti, David McMahon, Michael Tofaute, Patrick Carrigan, Thomas Mikulski, Francis Dennis Lynch. Docketing Statement (NJ) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2303 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2304 Docketing Statement re: 2303 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Charles Malkin, Larry Louzau, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Nicholas Conte, Daniel Santa. Docketing Statement (NY) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2305 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Derek D Willis. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2306 Docketing Statement re: 2305 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Derek D Willis. Docketing Statement (PA-Willis) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2307 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jeffrey Hart. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2308 Docketing Statement re: 2307 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Jeffrey Hart. Docketing Statement (PA-Hart) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2309 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)
2310 Docketing Statement re: 2309 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Paul Luongo, Ricardo Bacani, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Stephen H McGuinness, Raymond Tierney, Sammy Farland,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

408/498

5/8/2020
12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 12/30/2010 01/04/2011
01/04/2011
01/04/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Wayne F Mills, Jr, Donald J McClafferty. Docketing Statement (RI) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2311 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)), Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2312 Docketing Statement re: 2311 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Gregory Cooke. Docketing Statement (SC) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2313 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, John Lindsey, Terry Rodgers, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2314 Docketing Statement re: 2313 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arthur Smith, John Lindsey, Robert Erbentraut, Terry Rodgers, Buddy D Johnson, Rachella Westbrook. Docketing Statement (TN) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2315 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2316 Docketing Statement re: 2315 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Jesse Ricord, Dan Fishler, Arthur R Rottini. Docketing Statement (UT) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2317 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2318 Docketing Statement re: 2317 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. Docketing Statement (WI) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2319 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2320 Docketing Statement re: 2319 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Roger Davis, Lawrence Asbury. Docketing Statement (WV) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2321 NOTICE OF APPEAL by John Brown, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2322 Docketing Statement re: 2321 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson, John Brown, Sharon B Whiteside. Docketing Statement (NC) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 12/30/2010)

2324

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (113 in 3:07-cv-00411-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2289 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/10, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:07cv411), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

2325

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (122 in 3:07-cv-00272-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2287 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statment, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:07cv272), # 6 MDL Lead Docket Sheet (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

2326

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (2285 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (164 in 3:06-cv-00428-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:06cv428), # 6 MDL Lead Docket Sheet (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

409/498

5/8/2020
01/04/2011 01/04/2011 01/04/2011 01/04/2011 01/05/2011 01/05/2011 01/05/2011 01/05/2011 01/05/2011 01/05/2011

2327

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (195 in 3:05-cv-00390-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2291 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv390), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

2328

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (115 in 3:06-cv-00485-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2297 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:06cv485), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

2329

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (190 in 3:05-cv-00533-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2299 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv533), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/04/2011)

2330

ORDER: Any objections re: (2281 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER to be ﬁled by 1/12/2011. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/4/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) Modiﬁed to correct objection deadline on 1/5/2011 (ksc). (Entered: 01/05/2011)

Reset Deadlines (CORRECTION): Any Objections re: 2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER to be ﬁled by 1/12/2011. (ksc) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

2331

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (186 in 3:05-cv-00538-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2303 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv538), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

2332

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (188 in 3:05-cv-00595-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2301 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statment, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv595), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

2333

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (2305 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (191 in 3:05-cv-00597-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv597), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

2334

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (193 in 3:05-cv-00598-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2307 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv598), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

2335

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (185 in 3:05-cv-00599-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2309 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv599), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

410/498

5/8/2020
01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011
01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 01/06/2011

2336

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (2313 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (188 in 3:05-cv-00600-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv600), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

2337

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (2317 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (186 in 3:05-cv-00601-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv601), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

2338

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (184 in 3:05-cv-00668-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2311 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv668), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

2339

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (2319 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (148 in 3:06-cv-00826-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:06cv826), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

2340

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (113 in 3:07-cv-00189-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2295 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:07cv189), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) Modiﬁed on 1/7/2011 (smp). (Entered: 01/06/2011)

2341

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (2321 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (121 in 3:07-cv-00326-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:07cv326), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

2342

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (2315 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (91 in 3:08-cv-00053-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case 3:08cv53), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

2343

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (73 in 3:08-cv-00193-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2293 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 12/13/2010, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:08cv193), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

2344

**FILING ERRROR - DOCUMENT REFILED SEE 2345 ** USCA Appeal Fees received on *1/6/11* in the amount of $8,645.00, receipt number INN3000445 re 2305 , 2321 , 2319 , 2315 , 2313 , 2317 , 2287 , 2311 , [2297, 2295 , 2289 , 2285 , 2309 , 2293 , 2301 , 2291 , 2299 , 2307 , 2303 Notices of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal ﬁling fees were paid on *1/6/11*. (ksc) Modiﬁed on 1/7/2011 (ksc). (Entered: 01/06/2011)

2345 USCA Appeal Fees received on *1/6/11* in the amount of $ 455, receipt number INN3000445 re Notice of Appeals 2305 , 2321 , 2319 , 2315 , 2313 , 2317 , 2287 , 2311

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

411/498

5/8/2020
01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011
01/07/2011 01/07/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
, 2297 , 2295 , 2289 , 2285 , 2309 , 2293 , 2301 , 2291 , 2299 , 2307 , 2303 . The Notice of Appeal ﬁling fees was paid on *1/6/11*. (ksc) (Entered: 01/06/2011)

2346

USCA Case Number 11-1020 for (2289 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Ernest White, Hadi Tresna, Marvin Washington, Jeff Layﬁeld, Catherine Mack, John Whymss, Graylon Anderson, Latif Atanda, (113 in 3:07-cv-00411-RLM CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2347

USCA Case Number 11-1021 for (2287 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp, Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, (122 in 3:07-cv-00272-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2348 USCA Case Number 11-1022 for (2285 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Tina Floyd, (164 in 3:06-cv-00428-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2349

USCA Case Number 11-1023 for (195 in 3:05-cv-00390-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by All Plaintiffs, (2291 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Rodney Owens, Harold Bennett, David Stacy, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2350 USCA Case Number 11-1025 for (115 in 3:06-cv-00485-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by All Plaintiffs, (2297 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2351

USCA Case Number 11-1026 for (190 in 3:05-cv-00533-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by All Plaintiffs, (2299 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Sergei Selenskikh, Gerald Pelkey, Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2352

USCA Case Number 11-1047 for (188 in 3:05-cv-00595-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by All Plaintiffs, (2301 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Michael B Kilmartin, Frank Cucinotti, David McMahon, Michael Tofaute, Patrick Carrigan, Thomas Mikulski, Francis Dennis Lynch. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2353 USCA Case Number 11-1048 for (2305 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Derek D Willis, (191 in 3:05-cv-00597-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2354 USCA Case Number 11-1049 for (193 in 3:05-cv-00598-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2307 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Jeffrey Hart. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2355

USCA Case Number 11-1050 for (2309 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Paul Luongo, Ricardo Bacani, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Stephen H McGuinness, Raymond Tierney, Sammy Farland, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Donald J McClafferty, (185 in 3:05-cv-00599-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2356

USCA Case Number 11-1051 for (2313 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Arthur Smith, John Lindsey, Robert Erbentraut, Terry Rodgers, Buddy D Johnson, Rachella Westbrook, (188 in 3:05-cv-00600-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2357 USCA Case Number 11-1052 for (2317 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki, (186 in 3:05-cv00601-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

412/498

5/8/2020
01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011
01/07/2011
01/10/2011
01/10/2011 01/12/2011

2358

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
USCA Case Number 11-1053 for (2311 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead, Gregory Cooke, (184 in 3:05-cv-00668-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2359 USCA Case Number 11-1054 for (2319 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Roger Davis, Lawrence Asbury, (148 in 3:06-cv-00826-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2360 USCA Case Number 11-1055 for (2295 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Laron Jones, (113 in 3:07-cv-00189-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2361

USCA Case Number 11-1056 for (121 in 3:07-cv-00326-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2321 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson, John Brown, Sharon B Whiteside. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2362 USCA Case Number 11-1057 for (2315 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Jesse Ricord, Dan Fishler, Arthur R Rottini, (91 in 3:08-cv-00053-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2363 USCA Case Number 11-1058 for (73 in 3:08-cv-00193-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2293 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (ksc) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2364

**FILING ERROR - THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REFILED, SEE 2366 ** MOTION for Reconsideration Florida Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend the Court's Order and Judgment Under FRCP, Rule 59(e) by Plaintiffs Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, David R Mosher, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed on 1/12/2011 (ksc). (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2365

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2366 MOTION for Reconsideration Florida Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend the Court's Order and Judgment Under FRCP, Rule 59(e) MOTION for Reconsideration Florida Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend the Court's Order and Judgment Under FRCP, Rule 59(e) Florida Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration and to Alter or Amend the Judgment ﬁled by Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, David R Mosher(Middle District of Florida (Tampa) 8:05cv1751), Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman. (Faris, Lynn) Modiﬁed to correct link on 1/12/2011 (ksc). (Entered: 01/07/2011)

2366

MOTION for Reconsideration re 2364 MOTION for Reconsideration Florida Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend the Court's Order and Judgment Under FRCP, Rule 59(e) MOTION for Reconsideration Florida Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend the Court's Order and Judgment Under FRCP, Rule 59(e) by Plaintiffs Donald E Carlson, Sherre Harting, Charles House, David R Mosher, Stephen Renberg, Troy Upman. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 01/10/2011)

2367

ORDER OF AMENDMENT: The Opinion and Order of 12/13/2010 2239 is amended on pages 66 and 184 to list 3:05-CV-666 as the cause number for the Kentucky (Coleman) case. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/10/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 01/11/2011)

2368 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER ﬁled by Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck. (Tobin, Matthew) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

413/498

5/8/2020
01/12/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2369 OBJECTION by FedEx Ground to 2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

01/12/2011

2370 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) by Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

01/13/2011

2371 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2372 Docketing Statement re: 2371 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Floyd (Alabama) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2373 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2374 Docketing Statement re: 2373 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Gibson (Arizona) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2375 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2376 Docketing Statement re: 2375 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. White (Georgia) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2377 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2378 Docketing Statement re: 2377 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Riewe (Indiana) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2379 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2380 Docketing Statement re: 2379 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Boudreaux (Louisiana) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2381 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2382 Docketing Statement re: 2381 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Westcott (Maryland) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2383 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2384 Docketing Statement re: 2383 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Lee (Minnesota) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2385 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2386 Docketing Statement re: 2385 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Tofaute (New Jersey) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2387 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2388 Docketing Statement re: 2387 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Louzau (New York) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011

2389 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

414/498

5/8/2020
01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/17/2011
01/18/2011 01/18/2011
01/18/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

2390 Docketing Statement re: 2389 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Whiteside (North Carolina) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2391 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2392 Docketing Statement re: 2391 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Willis (Pennsylvania) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2393 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2394 Docketing Statement re: 2393 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Tierney (Rhode Island) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2395 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2396 Docketing Statement re: 2395 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Cooke (South Carolina) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2397 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2398 Docketing Statement re: 2397 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Smith (Tennessee) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2399 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2400 Docketing Statement re: 2399 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Fishler (Utah) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2401 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2402 Docketing Statement re: 2401 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Asbury (West Virginia) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2403 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2404 Docketing Statement re: 2403 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Larson (Wisconsin) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

2405

MOTION for Leave to File Amended Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Common Beneﬁt Set-Aside Order by Defendant All FedEx Ground Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Redlined version of Proposed Order)(Fox, Alison) (Entered: 01/17/2011)

2406 Joint MOTION to Appoint Counsel as Liaison Counsel by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2407

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2377 Notice of Cross Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross-Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv390), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2408 Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2383 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

415/498

5/8/2020
01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/18/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05-cv-533), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2409

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2387 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv538), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2410

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2385 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statment, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv595), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2411 Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2391 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order date 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv597), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2412

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2393 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv599), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2413

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2397 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv600), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2414

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2403 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv601), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2415

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2395 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:05cv668), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2416

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2371 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:06cv428), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2417

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2381 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No 3:06cv485), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2418

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2401 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:06cv826), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

2419

Short Record (Corrected) Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2373 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 3-25-08, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:07cv272), # 6 Lead MDL Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/18/2011:

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

416/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
# 7 Opinion and Order dated 7-27-09) (ksc). Modiﬁed on 1/18/2011 (ksc). (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011

2420

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2389 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 7-27-09, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:07cv326), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011

2421

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2375 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 7-27-09, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:07cv411), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011

2422

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2399 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 7-27-09, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:08cv53), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011

2423

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 2379 Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Cross Appeal, # 2 Docketing Statement, # 3 Opinion and Order dated 7-27-09, # 4 Judgment, # 5 Docket Sheet (Member Case No. 3:08cv193), # 6 MDL Lead Docket (3:05md527))(ksc) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011 2424 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/18/2011)

01/18/2011

2425

Appeal fees received for the 17 Notice of Cross Appeals ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. on 1/13/2011 ($455 each): receipt numbers 3000557, 3000558, 3000560, 3000561, 3000562, 3000563, 3000564, 3000565, 3000566, 3000567, 3000568, 3000569, 3000570, 3000571, 3000572, 3000573, 3000574. (ksc) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

01/18/2011

2426

ORDER granting (2405) Motion for Leave to File Amended Response in case 3:05-md00527-RLM -CAN. FedEx's Amended Response to be ﬁled by 1/25/2011. Plaintiffs' Reply to be ﬁled within seven (7) days of FedEx's response. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/18/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

01/19/2011

2427

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION: the court hereby CLARIFIES the 12/13/2010 Opinion and Order to deny FedExs motion for jury trial as moot, but without prejudice to FedExs right to renew its motion for jury trial before the transferor courts in Pedrazzi (3:06-CV429), Coleman (3:05-CV-666), DeCesare (3:07-CV-120), Farrell(3:07-CV-327), Johnson (3:05-CV-537), and Kelly (3:08-CV-336). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/19/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

01/19/2011

2428 ORDER granting (2406) Joint Motion to Appoint Liason Counsel in case 3:05-md00527-RLM -CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/19/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 01/19/2011)

01/21/2011

2429 USCA Case Number 11-1128 for 2377 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2430 USCA Case Number 11-1129 for 2383 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2431 USCA Case Number 11-1130 for 2387 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2432 USCA Case Number 11-1131 for 2385 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

417/498

5/8/2020
01/21/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2433 USCA Case Number 11-1132 for 2391 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2434 USCA Case Number 11-1133 for 2393 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2435 USCA Case Number 11-1134 for 2397 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2436 USCA Case Number 11-1135 for 2403 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2437 USCA Case Number 11-1136 for 2395 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2438 USCA Case Number 11-1137 for 2371 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2439 USCA Case Number 11-1138 for 2381 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2440 USCA Case Number 11-1139 for 2401 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2441 USCA Case Number 11-1140 for 2373 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2442 USCA Case Number 11-1141 for 2389 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2443 USCA Case Number 11-1142 for 2375 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2444 USCA Case Number 11-1143 for 2399 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/21/2011

2445 USCA Case Number 11-1144 for 2379 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

01/24/2011

2446

RESPONSE to Motion re 2366 MOTION for Reconsideration re 2364 MOTION for Reconsideration Florida Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend the Court's Order and Judgment Under FRCP, Rule 59(e) MOTION for Reconsideration Florida Plaintiffs' Moti MOTION for Reconsideration re 2364 MOTION for Reconsideration Florida Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend the Court's Order and Judgment Under FRCP, Rule 59(e) MOTION for Reconsideration Florida Plaintiffs' Moti ﬁled by All FedEx Ground Defendants. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/24/2011)

01/24/2011

2447 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Pedrazzi (California) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/24/2011)

01/24/2011

2448 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Harris (Arkansas) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/24/2011)

01/24/2011

2449 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Gennell (New Hampshire) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/24/2011)

01/24/2011

2450 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Alexander (California) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/25/2011

2451 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Coleman (Kentucky) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

418/498

5/8/2020
01/25/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2452 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Gentle (Alabama) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/25/2011

2453 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Campbell (Nevada) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/25/2011

2454 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Ward (Florida) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/25/2011

2455 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Huerta (California) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/25/2011

2456 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) DeCesare (Nevada) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/25/2011

2457

REPLY to Response to Motion re 2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER (re South Dakota Plaintiffs' Opposition) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/25/2011

2458 Proposed Pretrial Order Corrected (JOINT) Gennell (New Hampshire) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/25/2011

2459 OBJECTION by FedEx Ground to 2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER (AMENDED). (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/27/2011

2460

ORDER granting 2366 Motion for Reconsideration. The 2242 Clerks Judgment entered against plaintiffs is SET ASIDE as having been entered in error. The Carlson case will now be included in the courts consideration of FedExs Rule 54(b) motion for entry of partial judgment. Parties to ﬁle a joint proposed pretrial order within 21 days of entry of this order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/27/11. (ksc) (Entered: 01/27/2011)

01/28/2011

2461 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Johnson (New York) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/28/2011)

01/28/2011

2462 STIPULATION to Dismiss FMLA Claims in Kelly (Ohio) by Defendants FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/28/2011)

01/31/2011

2463 BRIEF in Opposition to 2370 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011

2464 STIPULATION to Dismiss Federal Motor Carrier Act claims in Humphreys (Texas) by Defendants FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011

2465 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Slayman (Oregon) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011

2466 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Leighter (Oregon) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011

2467 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Tofaute (New Jersey) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011

2468 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Wallace (OHIO) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011

2469 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Mitchell (Pennsylvania) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

01/31/2011 2470 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Farrell (New Jersey) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

419/498

5/8/2020
01/31/2011 01/31/2011 01/31/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/03/2011 02/03/2011
02/04/2011 02/04/2011
02/07/2011 02/07/2011 02/07/2011 02/07/2011 02/09/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Chris) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

2471 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Capers (New Jersey) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

2472 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgments Pursuant to Rule 60(a) and 62.1(a) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

2473 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2472 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgments Pursuant to Rule 60(a) and 62.1(a) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

2474 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)

2475 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2281 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF COMMON BENEFIT SET-ASIDE ORDER (Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad) ﬁled by FedEx Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)

2476 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by FedEx Plaintiffs re 2474 Reply to Response to Motion, 2475 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)

2477 NOTICE of Change of Address by Robert E DeRose, II Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM -CAN, 3:08-cv-00336-RLM -CAN(DeRose, Robert) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

2478

MOTION for Leave to File Sur-reply in Response to Plaintiffs' Co-lead Counsel and Plaintiffs' Steering Committee's Motion for Entry of Common Beneﬁt Set-Aside Order by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 -- Sur-reply, # 2 Exhibit 2 -Hollinger Declaration)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

2479 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply by Plaintiffs Kimberly A Bunger, Darrell Engbrecht, Jay Heintz, Steve Persing, Chad Viereck. (Tobin, Matthew) (Entered: 02/04/2011)

2480

ORDER re: (2462) and (2464) Stipulations to Dismiss in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN. This order clariﬁes that the court held the class plaintiffs to be independent contractors under the relevant states laws and these stipulations dispose of the outstanding federal claims in cases 3:05cv540 (Humphreys - Texas) and 3:08cv336 (Kelly - Ohio). Accordingly, the court will not suggest remand of these cases. Clerk directed to enter judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims not dismissed in these two cases. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/4/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00540-RLM -CAN, 3:08-cv-00336-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

2481 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00540-RLM -CAN, 3:08-cv-00336-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

2482 CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Member Case Nos. 3:05cv540 and 3:08cv336). (ksc) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

2483 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Price (Texas) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

2484 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Vargas by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

2485 NOTICE by Terrance E Ellison of Withdrawal of Counsel Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv-00190-RLM -CAN(Kim, Soye) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

420/498

5/8/2020
02/09/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2486 NOTICE by Theodore Holloway, Jr of Withdrawal of Counsel Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:08-cv-00087-RLM -CAN(Kim, Soye) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/09/2011

2487 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule 60(a) in Humphreys (TX) and Kelly (OH) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/09/2011

2488 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2487 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule 60(a) in Humphreys (TX) and Kelly (OH) ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 02/09/2011)

02/10/2011

2489 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Soye Kim by Plaintiff Terrance E Ellison. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv-00190-RLM -CAN(Kim, Soye) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/10/2011

2490 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Soye Kim by Plaintiff Theodore Holloway, Jr. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:08-cv-00087-RLM -CAN(Kim, Soye) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/10/2011

2491 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/10/2011

2492 Docketing Statement re: 2491 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Dean Johnson, Robert Velo, Russell Jackson, Kenneth Miner, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Thomas Wenzlick. Docketing Statement (OH) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/10/2011

2493 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)(Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/10/2011

2494 Docketing Statement re: 2493 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Jeffrey Quebe, Tim Mershon, Charles Campbell, David Meredith, John Humphreys. Docketing Statement (TX) (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/10/2011

2495

REPLY to Response to Motion re 2370 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Harris, 3:06-cv-209 (Arkansas), Alexander, 3:05-cv-528 (California), Huerta, 3:08-cv-052 (California), Pedrazzi, 3:06-cv-429 (California), Coleman, 3:05-cv-666 (Kentucky), DeCesare, 3:07-cv-120 (Nevada), Gennell, 3:05-cv-534 (New Hampshire), Kelly, 3:08-cv-336 (Ohio), Leighter, 3:07-cv-328 (Oregon), Slayman, 3:05-cv-596 (Oregon), Humphreys, 3:05-cv-540 (Texas), Carlson, 3:05-cv-664 (Florida), Gentle, 3:07-cv-191 (Alabama), Wallace, 3:06-cv-801 (Ohio) ﬁled by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902). (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/10/2011

2496 Proposed Pretrial Order (JOINT) Carlson (Florida) by FedEx Ground. (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/11/2011

2499

ORDER granting (2489) (2490) Motions to Withdraw as Attorney in case 3:05-md-527RLM-CAN; granting (135) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney in case 3:07-cv-00190RLM -CAN; granting (96) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney in case 3:08-cv-00087-RLM -CAN. The appearance of Attorney Soye Kim is withdrawn. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/11/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/11/2011

2500

OPINION AND ORDER denying (2281) Motion for entry of a common beneﬁt setaside order; denying as unnecessary (2478) and (2479) Motions for Leave to File SurReply in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/11/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

421/498

5/8/2020
02/11/2011 02/14/2011 02/15/2011
02/15/2011
02/16/2011
02/16/2011 02/16/2011 02/18/2011 02/18/2011 02/18/2011 02/18/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

2501

OPINION AND ORDER denying (2370) Motion for Entry of Partial Judgment under Rule 54(b) in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/11/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

2497

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 2472 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgments Pursuant to Rule 60(a) and 62.1(a) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew M. Houston In Support of Memorandum In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Modiﬁcation of Judgment Pursuant to Fed R Civ Proc. 60a and 62.1(a)) (Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

2498

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (2491 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (2493 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal (3:05-CV-540), # 2 Docketing Statement (3:05-CV540), # 3 Notice of Appeal (3:08-CV-336), # 4 Docketing Statement (3:08-CV-336), # 5 Opinion and Order dated 2/4/2011, # 6 Clerk's Judgment, # 7 3:05-CV-540 Docket Sheet, # 8 3:08-CV-336 Docket Sheet, # 9 3:05-MD-527 MDL Lead Docket)(ksc) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

2502

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 2472 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgments Pursuant to Rule 60(a) and 62.1(a) (AMENDED) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Declaration of Matthew M. Houston In Support of Memorandum In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Modiﬁcation of Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(a) and 62.1(a), # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Matthew M. Houston)(Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

2503

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 2472 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgments Pursuant to Rule 60(a) and 62.1(a) (AMENDED) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Declaration of Matthew M. Houston In Support of Memorandum In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Modiﬁcation of Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(a) and 62.1(a), # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Matthew M. Houston) (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

2504 USCA Case Number 11-1379 for (2493 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Jeffrey Quebe, Tim Mershon, Charles Campbell, David Meredith, John Humphreys. (ksc) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

2505 USCA Case Number 11-1378 for (2491 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Dean Johnson, Robert Velo, Russell Jackson, Kenneth Miner, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Thomas Wenzlick. (ksc) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

2506

SUGGESTION OF REMAND to the JPML in accord with the Judicial Panel of MultiDistrict Litigation Rule 10.1(b)(i) (October 2010). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/18/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al. (cc: JPML)(ksc) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

2507

ORDER granting (2472) and (2487) Motions to Amend Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule 60(a) and 62.1(a) in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, but without deciding the dispute over class lists versus notice lists. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/18/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

2508 USCA Appeal Fees received on *2/18/11* in the amount of $ 910.00, receipt number INN3000795 re 2493 Notice of Appeal and 2491 Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal ﬁling fee was paid on *2/18/11*. (ksc) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

2509 USCA Appeal Fees received on *2/18/11* in the amount of $ 910.00, receipt number

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

422/498

5/8/2020
02/24/2011
02/24/2011
03/08/2011 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 03/10/2011
03/14/2011 03/14/2011 03/14/2011 03/14/2011 03/21/2011
03/22/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
INN3000795 re 2491 Notice of Appeal and 2493 Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal ﬁling fee was paid on *2/18/11*. (ksc) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

2510

SUGGESTION OF REMAND of case (Carlson - Florida - 3:05cv664) to its transferor court in accord with Judicial Panel of Multi-District Litigation Rule 10.1(b) (October 2010). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/24/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00664-RLM -CAN(ksc) Modiﬁed on 3/1/2011 (ksc). (cc:JPML) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

2557

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER remanding cases (MD 3:07cv190, MD 3:08cv87) back to the Maryland District Court. Signed by Jeffery N. Luthi, Clerk of the Panel, on 2/24/2011. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:07-cv-00190-RLM -CAN, 3:08-cv-00087-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 05/19/2011)

2511 MOTION for Reconsideration re 2507 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,,, by Defendant All FedEx Ground Defendants. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 03/08/2011)

2512 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

2513 Docketing Statement re: 2512 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Kelly (Ohio) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

2514 NOTICE OF CROSSAPPEAL by FedEx Ground. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

2515 Docketing Statement re: 2514 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. Humphreys (Texas) (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

2516

Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re (2514 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Cross Appeal, (2512 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Cross Appeal (Attachments: # 1 3:05cv540 Notice of Cross-Appeal, # 2 3:05cv540 Docketing Statement, # 3 3:08cv336 Notice of Cross-Appeal, # 4 3:08cv336 Docketing Statement, # 5 Opinion and Order dated 3/25/2008, # 6 3:05cv540 Docket Sheet, # 7 3:08cv336 Docket Sheet, # 8 MDL Lead Docket 3:05md527)(ksc) (Entered: 03/10/2011)

2517 USCA Appeal Fees received on *3/14/2011* in the amount of $ 455, receipt number 3000964 re 2512 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. The Notice of Appeal ﬁling fee was paid on *3/14/2011*. (ksc) (Entered: 03/15/2011)

2518 USCA Case Number 11-1561 for (2514 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 03/15/2011)

2519 USCA Case Number 11-1562 for (2512 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. (ksc) (Entered: 03/15/2011)

2520 USCA Appeal Fees received on *3/14/2011* in the amount of $ 455, receipt number 3000965 re 2514 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. The Notice of Appeal ﬁling fee was paid on *3/14/2011*. (ksc) (Entered: 03/15/2011)

2521

RESPONSE to Motion re 2511 MOTION for Reconsideration re 2507 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,,, Plaintiffs' Non-Opposition to FedEx Ground's Motion to Reconsider the Court's February 18, 2011 Order Providing Indicative Rulings ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Faris, Lynn) (Entered: 03/21/2011)

2522 ORDER granting (2511) Motion for Reconsideration. This Court's 2/18/2011 Order (2507) is AMENDED with respect to cases 3:05cv530 (Craig - Kansas), 3:08cv193 (Boudreaux - Louisiana), and 3:05cv595 (Tofaute - New Jersey) to fully reﬂect the class

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

423/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
deﬁnitions and sub-class deﬁnitions approved by this court. Clerk directed to correct the Clerk's Judgment (2481) with respect to cases 3:05cv540 (Humphreys - Texas) and 3:08cv336 (Kelly - Ohio) as directed in this order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/22/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 03/23/2011)

03/23/2011

2523 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Humphreys - Texas). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00540-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 03/23/2011)

03/23/2011

2524 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Kelly - Ohio). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:08-cv-00336-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 03/23/2011)

03/24/2011

2525 AMENDED - USCA Appeal Fees received on *3/14/11* in the amount of $ 455, receipt number 3000964 re 2512 Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground. The Notice of Appeal ﬁling fee was paid on *3/14/11*. (ksc) (Entered: 03/24/2011)

03/25/2011

2526 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Ellison (Maryland) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Stipulation)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/25/2011

2527 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Holloway (Maryland) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Stipulation) (Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/31/2011

2528

ORDER of USCA (Certiﬁed) as to (2285, 2287, 2289, 2291, 2293, 2295, 2297, 2299, 2301, 2305, 2307, 2309, 2311, 2313, 2315, 2317, 2319, 2321 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM CAN) Notices of Appeal. These appeals are REMANDED pursuant to FRAP 12.1 for proceedings consistent with the district court's orders of 2/18/2011 and 3/22/2011. (ksc) (Entered: 04/01/2011)

04/04/2011

2529

ORDER: Pursuant to the court of appeal's order of remand, the court ORDERS amended judgments be entered in these cases using the class deﬁnitions included in the Appendix to this order. (re: 199 in 3:05-cv-00601-RLM -CAN, 133 in 3:07-cv-00326-RLM -CAN, 86 in 3:08-cv-00193-RLM -CAN, 196 in 3:05-cv-00668-RLM -CAN, 2528 in 3:05-md00527-RLM -CAN, 176 in 3:06-cv-00428-RLM -CAN, 200 in 3:05-cv-00600-RLM CAN, 103 in 3:08-cv-00053-RLM -CAN, 202 in 3:05-cv-00533-RLM -CAN, 207 in 3:05-cv-00390-RLM -CAN, 125 in 3:07-cv-00411-RLM -CAN, 201 in 3:05-cv-00595RLM -CAN, 134 in 3:07-cv-00272-RLM -CAN, 127 in 3:06-cv-00485-RLM -CAN, 197 in 3:05-cv-00599-RLM -CAN, 197 in 3:05-cv-00538-RLM -CAN, 160 in 3:06-cv00826-RLM -CAN, 203 in 3:05-cv-00597-RLM -CAN) USCA Order,. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/4/11. (jld) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

04/05/2011

2530 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Craig - Kansas) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2531 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Floyd - Alabama) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2532 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Gibson - Arizona) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00272-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2533 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (White - Georgia) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2534 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Riewe - Indiana) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011 2535 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Boudreaux - Louisiana) Associated

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

424/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-00193-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2536 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Westcott - Maryland) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00485-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2537 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Lee - Minnesota) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2538 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Whiteside - North Carolina) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00326-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2539 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Tofaute - New Jersey) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2540 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Louzau - New York) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2541 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Willis - Pennsylvania) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2542 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Tierney - Rhode Island) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2543 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Cooke - South Carolina) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2544 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Smith - Tennessee) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-600-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2545 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Larson - Wisconsin) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2546 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Asbury - West Virginia) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00826-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2547 AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Fishler - Utah) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-0053-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/06/2011

2548

NOTICE of Appearance by Anthony L Marchetti on behalf of Ryan Boudreaux, Sharon B Whiteside, All Plaintiffs, David Mitchell, Michael Tofaute, Richard Farrell, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al. (Marchetti, Anthony) (Entered: 04/06/2011)

04/07/2011

2549 SECOND AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (Gibson - Arizona) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00272-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/07/2011)

04/07/2011

2550 SECOND AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (White - Georgia) Associated Cases 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-CAN (jld) (Entered: 04/07/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

425/498

5/8/2020
05/10/2011 05/12/2011 05/17/2011 05/17/2011 05/17/2011 05/19/2011
05/19/2011
05/20/2011 05/23/2011 05/27/2011
06/28/2011 06/30/2011

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

2551 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Price (Texas) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 05/10/2011)

2552 STIPULATION to Dismiss FedEx Corp. and Federal Express Corp. from Coleman (KY), Gennell (NH), and Pedrazzi (CA) by Defendants All FedEx Ground Defendants, All FedEx Ground Defendants. (Schwartz PHV, Robert) (Entered: 05/12/2011)

2553 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Farrell (New Jersey) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

2554 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Mitchell (Pennsylvania) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

2555 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Tofaute (New Jersey) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 05/17/2011)

CASE DISMISSED pursuant 2252 Stipulation to Dismiss and Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure AS TO: FedEx Corporation and Federal Express Corporation ONLY. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00534RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00666-RLM -CAN, 3:06-cv-00429-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 05/19/2011)

2556

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER remanding unopposed cases (IAS 3:05cv652, MA 3:07cv325, NJ 3:07cv327, NJ 3:09cv002, NJ 3:05cv535, NV 3:07cv120, NV 3:08cv520, NYE 3:05cv537, PAE 3:09cv003, TXE 3:06cv802) back to the originating district courts. Signed by Jeffrey N. Luthi, Clerk of the Panel on 3/7/11. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 05/19/2011)

2558 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in DeCesare (Nevada) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

2559 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Johnson (Iowa) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 05/23/2011)

2560

REMAND ORDER remanding cases back to the originating district courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (ALN 3:07cv191, ARE 3:06cv209, CAC 3:08cv52, CAN 3:05cv528, CAN 3:06cv429, FLM 3:05cv664, FLS 3:09cv356, KYW 3:05cv666, NH 3:05cv534, OHN 3:06cv801, OR 3:05cv596, OR 3:07cv328). Signed by John G. Heyburn, II, Chairman, Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on 5/27/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM -CAN et al.(ksc) (Entered: 05/31/2011)

2561

ORDER of USCA as to (2127 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, REMANDING Appeal No. 10-3115 (305cv530 in re: Carlene Craig, et al) pursuant to FRAP 12.1 for proceedings consistent with the district court's orders of 2/18/11, 3/22/11, and 4/4/11.(ksc) (Entered: 06/28/2011)

2562

ORDER directing the clerk to enter a corrected judgment in Craig, 3:05-CV-530, as outlined in this courts April 4, 2011 order (209 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 2529 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/30/11. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 07/01/2011)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

426/498

5/8/2020
07/01/2011

2563

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
AMENDED CLERK'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Second Amended). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM -CAN(ksc) (Entered: 07/01/2011)

07/18/2011

2564 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Campbell (Nevada) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 07/18/2011)

07/21/2011

2565 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Leighter (Oregon) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 07/21/2011)

07/21/2011

2566 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Slayman (Oregon) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 07/21/2011)

09/28/2011

2567 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Gennell (NH) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 09/28/2011)

10/04/2011

2568 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Alexander (California) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 10/04/2011)

11/02/2011

2569 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Coleman (Kentucky) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/02/2011)

11/15/2011

2570 MANDATE of USCA as to 2215 (in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground; dismissing appeal no 11-3401 in accordance with FRAP 42(b). (Attachments: # 1 USCA Final Order)(ksc) (Entered: 11/15/2011)

11/17/2011

2571 CORRECTED STIPULATION of Record to be Transferrred to Transferor Court in Gennell (NH) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/17/2011)

11/28/2011

2572 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Carlson (Florida) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 11/28/2011)

12/19/2011

2573 Letter from 7th Circuit Court of Appeals requesting record on appeal (re: Appeal of Carlene M. Craig, et al - Member Case 3:05-cv-530). (ksc) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/21/2011

2574 Certiﬁed and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals (via email) re (2127 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (193 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM CAN) Notice of Appeal. (ksc) (Entered: 12/21/2011)

12/22/2011

2575 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re (2127 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal, (193 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM -CAN) Notice of Appeal.(ksc) (Entered: 12/22/2011)

12/27/2011

2576 STIPULATION Stipulation and Joint Request to Clerk of Court to Correct Record on Appeal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(E) by Plaintiff Carlene M Craig. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 12/27/2011)

12/28/2011

2577 ORDER granting 2576 Stipulation to correct record on appeal. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/28/11. (jld) (Entered: 12/28/2011)

01/13/2012 2578 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 2127 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Docketing Supplemental Record on Appeal)(jld) (Entered:

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

427/498

5/8/2020
01/23/2012 03/14/2012 10/22/2012 11/08/2012 11/09/2012 11/25/2014 07/30/2015 07/30/2015
07/30/2015 07/30/2015
07/31/2015 08/03/2015

01/17/2012)

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

2579 USCA Certiﬁed Judgment Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus, with costs (Attachments: # 1 Order Denying Writ of Mandamus)(jld) (Entered: 01/25/2012)

2580

ORDER closing case for statistical purposes. The court shall retain jurisdiction and this case will be restored to the active docket upon motion of a party if circumstances change, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. on 3/14/12. (jld) (Entered: 03/15/2012)

2581 STIPULATION of Record to be Transferred to Transferor Court in Pedrazzi (California) by Defendant FedEx Ground. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hollinger, Chris) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

2582 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Jeffrey S. Nestler by Defendant All FedEx Ground Defendants. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM -CAN et al.(Nestler, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/08/2012)

2583

ORDER: GRANTING 2582 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jeffrey S Nestler terminated on behalf of defendants. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11-912. (attorney also termed in member cases) (jld) Modiﬁed on 11/20/2012 to remove speciﬁc case numbers (jld). (Entered: 11/20/2012)

2584 STIPULATION OF RECORD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO TRANSFEROR COURT by Defendant All FedEx Ground Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 11/25/2014)

2585 MOTION to Stay Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Staying Craig Litigation Pending Mediation by Plaintiff Carlene M Craig. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/30/2015)

2586

*** THIS IS A PROPOSED ORDER*** NOTICE by Carlene M Craig re 2585 MOTION to Stay Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Staying Craig Litigation Pending Mediation [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Staying Litigation Pending Mediation (Ross, Beth) Modiﬁed on 8/6/2015 (jld). (Entered: 07/30/2015)

2587 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Carlene M Craig re 2585 MOTION to Stay Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Staying Craig Litigation Pending Mediation, 2586 Notice (Other), (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 07/30/2015)

2588

MANDATE of USCA - The MDL courts denial of the plaintiff drivers motion for summary judgment and its grant of FedExs motion for summary judgment is REVERSED, with costs. The Craig case is REMANDED to the MDL court with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff drivers that they are employees of FedEx for purposes of the KWPA and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, which ultimately may require a remand of the case to the Kansas district court for a determination of damages. Theabove is in accordance with the decision of this court entered on this date. (Attachments: # 1 certiﬁed ﬁnal jgm, # 2 certiﬁed opinion)(kds) (Entered: 08/03/2015)

2589 Appeal Record Returned: 1 CD and 1 DVD consisting of seal documents (kds) (Entered: 08/03/2015)

2590

ORDER GRANTING 2585 MOTION to Stay Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Staying Craig Litigation Pending Mediation by Plaintiff Carlene M Craig and and DIRECTING the parties to ﬁle a status report by 11/6/2015 informing the court of the results of the mediation. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/2015. (lhc) (Entered: 08/04/2015)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

428/498

5/8/2020
08/10/2015
08/24/2015
08/24/2015 08/31/2015
09/16/2015 10/02/2015
10/13/2015 11/06/2015 03/04/2016 03/22/2016

2591

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(WITHDRAWN PER DE 228) MOTION to Vacate 2590 Order,, Set Deadlines,, Terminate Motions, Craig Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate ORder Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Staying Craig Litigation, MOTION to Remand to District of Kansas Transferor Court by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Barton, George) Modiﬁed on 10/13/2015 to show withdrawn (mlc). (Entered: 08/10/2015)

2592

BRIEF in Opposition to (225 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 225 in 3:05-cv-00530RLM-CAN) MOTION to Vacate (224) Order on Motion to Stay Craig Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate ORder Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Staying Craig Litigation MOTION to Remand to District of Kansas Transferor Court CLASS PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO THE BARTON FIRM'S MOTION TO VACATE STAY AND FOR SUGGESTION OF REMAND ﬁled by All FedEx Ground Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Beth Ross, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Ross Declaration)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

2593

RESPONSE to Motion re 2591 MOTION to Vacate 2590 Order,, Set Deadlines,, Terminate Motions, Craig Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate ORder Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Staying Craig Litigation MOTION to Remand to District of Kansas Transferor Court ﬁled by All FedEx Ground Defendants. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

2594

REPLY to Response to Motion re 2591 MOTION to Vacate 2590 Order,, Set Deadlines,, Terminate Motions, Craig Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate ORder Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Staying Craig Litigation MOTION to Remand to District of Kansas Transferor Court ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E, # 2 Exhibit F)(Barton, George) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

2595 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information (Gilreath, R) (Entered: 09/16/2015)

2596

STIPULATION re 2591 MOTION to Vacate 2590 Order,, Set Deadlines,, Terminate Motions, Craig Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate ORder Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Staying Craig Litigation MOTION to Remand to District of Kansas Transferor Court (to Withdraw the Craig Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Order Granting Plaintiffs' "Unopposed" Motion for Order Staying the Craig Litigation and for Suggestion of Remand) by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

2597

ORDER GRANTING 2596 Stipulation to withdraw plaintiff's motion to vacate the 7/30/15 order staying proceedings; WITHDRAWING 2591 Motion to Vacate ; WITHDRAWING 2591 Motion to Remand;. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 10/13/15. (mlc) (Entered: 10/13/2015)

2598 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

2599 STATUS REPORT Supplemental Joint Status Report by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935). (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 03/04/2016)

2600 STATUS REPORT Parties' Joint Case Status Statement and Request for Telephonic Status Conference by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

429/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
1:05cv145). (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 03/22/2016)

03/29/2016

2601

HEARING on procedures for implementing settlement approval held on 3/29/2016 before Judge Robert L Miller, Jr. Pla appeared by attys B. Ross, S. Ellingstad, R. Harwood. FedEx Ground appeared by attys A. Fox, S. Voelz. Parties to ﬁle motion for preliminary approval by 6/15/16. Court to rule in writing without hearing. If 7th Circuit agrees, class notices will be sent and application for fees and costs will be ﬁled by 9/12/16. Objections will be due by 11/14/16. Motion for ﬁnal approval to be ﬁled by 12/15/16. 2 day hearing on Motion for ﬁnal approval and application for fees set for 1/23/2017 09:30 AM (EST) in US District Court - South Bend before Judge Robert L Miller Jr. Parties to submit brieﬁng schedule for motions. (Court Reporter D. Bonk.) (dk) (Entered: 03/29/2016)

04/23/2016

2602 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter D Winebrake on behalf of Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick (Winebrake, Peter) (Entered: 04/23/2016)

05/06/2016

2603

Application for Attorney Jason Wesley Norris to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.. Pro Hac Vice fee of $ 93 has been received, receipt number 0755-2934737 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PA Certiﬁcate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit NJ Certiﬁcate of Good Standing)(Pro Hac Vice Temporary login, ) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/09/2016

2604 ORDER granting 2603 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Jason W Norris PHV for All FedEx Ground Defendants. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 05/09/2016. (mtr) (Entered: 05/10/2016)

05/13/2016 2605 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Regan PHV, Anne) (Entered: 05/13/2016)

05/16/2016

2606

ORDER GRANTING 2605 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by All Plaintiffs. Attorney Anne Regan is WITHDRAWN as counsel for Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs continue to be represented by J. Gordon Rudd, Jr. and David Cialkowski of the ﬁrm Zimmerman Reed, LLP. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/16/16. (cc: All parties listed for paper distribution on NEF). (cer) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

05/24/2016

2607

Application for Attorney James C. English to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.. Pro Hac Vice fee of $ 93 has been received, receipt number 0755-2948352 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certiﬁcate of Good Standing)(Pro Hac Vice Temporary login, ) (Entered: 05/24/2016)

05/26/2016

2608 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Cheryl F Perkins; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward". (cer) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/26/2016

2609 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Charles W Whetstone Jr; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward". (cer) (Entered: 05/26/2016)

05/26/2016

2610 ORDER granting 2607 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney James C English PHV for All FedEx Ground Defendants. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 05/26/2016. (mtr) (Entered: 05/27/2016)

05/27/2016

2611 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Robert E. McDaniel; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward". (lhc) (Entered: 05/27/2016)

05/27/2016 2612 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Joree Brownlow; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

430/498

5/8/2020
05/31/2016 05/31/2016 05/31/2016 05/31/2016 05/31/2016 05/31/2016 06/03/2016 06/15/2016 06/15/2016 06/15/2016
06/15/2016 06/15/2016 06/15/2016 06/15/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
to Forward". (lhc) (Entered: 05/27/2016)

2613 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Aaron Roblan; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward". (cer) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

2614 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Harold L Lichten; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Attempted Not Known, Unable to Forward". (cer) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

2615 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Joseph A Osefchen; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward". (cer) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

2616 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Todd J O'Malley; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward". (cer) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

2617 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Mary D Walsh-Dempsey; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward". (cer) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

2618 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Karen P Kruse PHV; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward". (cer) (Entered: 05/31/2016)

2619 MAIL Returned as Undeliverable (Order dated 5/16/16, DE 2606 ). Mail sent to Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez; envelope marked "Return to Sender, Attempted Not Known, Unable to Forward, No Such Person". (cer) (Entered: 06/03/2016)

2620 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Alabama Settlement) by Plaintiff Tina Floyd. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2621 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2620 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Alabama Settlement) ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2622

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2620 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Alabama Settlement) ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2623 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2620 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Alabama Settlement) by Plaintiff Tina Floyd. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2624 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Arizona Settlement) by Plaintiffs Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2625 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2624 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Arizona Settlement) ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2626 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2624 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Arizona Settlement) ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

431/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2627 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2624 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Arizona Settlement) by Plaintiffs Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016 2628 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Georgia Settlement) by Plaintiff Ernest White. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2629 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2628 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Georgia Settlement) ﬁled by Ernest White. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2630

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2628 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Georgia Settlement) ﬁled by Ernest White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2631 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2628 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Georgia Settlement) by Plaintiff Ernest White. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2632 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Indiana Settlement) by Plaintiffs Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2633 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2632 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Indiana Settlement) ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2634

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2632 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Indiana Settlement) ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2635

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2632 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Indiana Settlement) by Plaintiffs Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2636

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Kansas Settlement) by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2637

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2636 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Kansas Settlement) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016 2638 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2636 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

432/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Preliminary Approval of Kansas Settlement) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 -Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2639

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2636 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Kansas Settlement) by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016 2640 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Maryland Settlement) by Plaintiff Thomas Westcott. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2641 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2640 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Maryland Settlement) ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2642

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2640 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Maryland Settlement) ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2643 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2640 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Maryland Settlement) by Plaintiff Thomas Westcott. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2644 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Minnesota Settlement) by Plaintiffs Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2645

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2644 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Minnesota Settlement) ﬁled by Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2646

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2644 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Minnesota Settlement) ﬁled by Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Settlement Agrement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2647

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2644 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Minnesota Settlement) by Plaintiffs Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2648

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of New York Settlement) by Plaintiffs Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Ellingstad, Susan) Correct member case number is 3:05cv538 Modiﬁed on 7/19/2016 (lpw). (Entered: 06/15/2016)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

433/498

5/8/2020
06/15/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

2649

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2648 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of New York Settlement) ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2650

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2648 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of New York Settlement) ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2651

Joint MOTION re 2648 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of New York Settlement) by Plaintiffs Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2652

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Ohio Settlement) by Plaintiffs Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2653

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2652 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Ohio Settlement) ﬁled by Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2654

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2652 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Ohio Settlement) ﬁled by Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2655

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2652 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Ohio Settlement) by Plaintiffs Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016 2656 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) by Plaintiff Derek D Willis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2657 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2656 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2658

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2656 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2659 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2656 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) by Plaintiff Derek D Willis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

434/498

5/8/2020
06/15/2016 06/15/2016 06/15/2016
06/15/2016 06/15/2016 06/15/2016 06/15/2016
06/15/2016 06/15/2016 06/15/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

2660

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Rhode Island Settlement) by Plaintiffs Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2661

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2660 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Rhode Island Settlement) ﬁled by Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2662

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2660 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Rhode Island Settlement) ﬁled by Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2663

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2660 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Rhode Island Settlement) by Plaintiffs Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2664 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of South Carolina Settlement) by Plaintiffs Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2665

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2664 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of South Carolina Settlement) ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588), Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2666

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2664 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of South Carolina Settlement) ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)), Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2667 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Tennessee Settlement) by Plaintiffs Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, John Lindsey, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2668 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2667 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Tennessee Settlement) ﬁled by Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2669

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2667 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Tennessee Settlement) ﬁled by Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

435/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2670

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2667 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Tennessee Settlement) by Plaintiffs Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2671 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Texas Settlement) by Plaintiffs Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2672

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2671 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Texas Settlement) ﬁled by Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2673

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2664 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of South Carolina Settlement) by Plaintiffs Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2674

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2671 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Texas Settlement) ﬁled by Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Errata 8 - Rust Consulting Letter) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2675

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2671 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Texas Settlement) by Plaintiffs Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2676 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Utah Settlement) by Plaintiffs Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2677 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2676 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Utah Settlement) ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2678

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2676 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Utah Settlement) ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2679 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2676 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Utah Settlement) by Plaintiffs Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2680 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of West Virginia Settlement) by Plaintiffs Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016 2681 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2680 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

436/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Preliminary Approval of West Virginia Settlement) ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2682

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2680 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of West Virginia Settlement) ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2683 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2680 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of West Virginia Settlement) by Plaintiffs Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2684 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Wisconsin Settlement) by Plaintiffs Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2685

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2684 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Wisconsin Settlement) ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki(Western District of Wisconsin). (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2686

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2684 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Wisconsin Settlement) ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2687 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2684 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Wisconsin Settlement) by Plaintiffs Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2688

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of North Carolina Settlement) by Plaintiffs John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2689

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2688 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of North Carolina Settlement) ﬁled by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2690

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2688 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of North Carolina Settlement) ﬁled by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 Class Lists, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Notice, # 5 Exhibit 4 Notice, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Proposed Order, # 7 Exhibit 6 - CAFA Notice, # 8 Exhibit 7 Rust Consulting Costs, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rust Consulting Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan)Correct Member Case Cause is 3:07cv326 Modiﬁed on 7/19/2016 (lpw). (Entered: 06/15/2016)

06/15/2016

2691

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2688 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of North Carolina Settlement) by Plaintiffs John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

437/498

5/8/2020
06/15/2016
06/15/2016 06/20/2016 06/24/2016 06/24/2016 06/24/2016 06/24/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

2692

MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 2628 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Georgia Settlement), 2644 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Minnesota Settlement), 2640 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Maryland Settlement), 2660 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Rhode Island Settlement), 2648 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of New York Settlement), 2671 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Texas Settlement), 2667 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Tennessee Settlement), 2656 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement), 2636 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Kansas Settlement), 2676 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Utah Settlement), 2688 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of North Carolina Settlement), 2632 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Indiana Settlement), 2684 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Wisconsin Settlement), 2680 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of West Virginia Settlement), 2664 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of South Carolina Settlement), 2620 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Alabama Settlement), 2624 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Arizona Settlement), 2652 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Ohio Settlement) (Omnibus Memorandum) by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2693 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (UNOPPOSED) by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/15/2016)

2694

ORDER GRANTING 2693 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (UNOPPOSED) by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. The deadline for ﬁling Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Louisiana and New Jersey Settlements in the above-captioned matters is hereby extended to and including 6/29/2016. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/20/2016. (lhc) (Entered: 06/20/2016)

2695

AMENDED Memorandum of Law (re 2637 ) in Support of Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Kansas Class Action Settlement by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. Amendment to 2637 Memorandum in Support, . (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2016 to reﬂect correct doc title (lhc). (Entered: 06/24/2016)

2696

AMENDED Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel (re 2638 ) in Support of Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement for Kansas by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. Amendment to 2638 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3 - Amended Notice, # 2 Exhibit 4 Amended Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2016 to reﬂect correct doc title (lhc). (Entered: 06/24/2016)

2697

AMENDED Class Action Settlement Agreement (re 2622 ) by Tina Floyd, Bruce Edwin Gentle, Stephanie Sullins Gentle. Amendment to 2622 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion (Amended Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement fully executed). (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2016 to reﬂect correct doc title (lhc). (Entered: 06/24/2016)

2698 AMENDED Class Action Settlement Agreement (re 2690 ) by John Brown, James D

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

438/498

5/8/2020
06/28/2016 06/28/2016 06/28/2016 06/28/2016 06/29/2016 06/29/2016 06/29/2016 06/29/2016 06/30/2016
06/30/2016
07/06/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. Amendment to 2690 Afﬁdavit in Support of Motion (Amended Exhibit A - Settlement Agreement fully executed). (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 7/6/2016 to reﬂect correct doc title (lhc). (Entered: 06/24/2016)

2699 MOTION for Settlement As It Relates to: Boudreaux - Civil No. 3:08-cv-00193-RLMCAN (LA) by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) Modiﬁed on 3/7/2017 (jld). (Entered: 06/28/2016)

2700 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2699 MOTION for Settlement As It Relates to: Boudreaux - Civil No. 3:08-cv-00193-RLM-CAN (LA) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/28/2016)

2701

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2699 MOTION for Settlement As It Relates to: Boudreaux Civil No. 3:08-cv-00193-RLM-CAN (LA) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/28/2016)

2702 Joint MOTION for Settlement Indicative Ruling As It Relates to: Boudreaux - Civil No. 3:08-cv-00193-RLM-CAN (LA) by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/28/2016)

2703 MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval of Proposed New Jersey Class Action Settlement by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

2704 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2703 MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval of Proposed New Jersey Class Action Settlement ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

2705

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2703 MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval of Proposed New Jersey Class Action Settlement Declaration ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8)(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

2706 Joint MOTION for Settlement Indicative Ruling Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed New Jersey Class Action Settlement by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

2707

MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Related to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to be Awarded to Class Attorneys in the Twenty Proposed Class Settlements by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Carlene M Craig, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Barton, George) (Entered: 06/30/2016)

2708

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2707 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Related to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to be Awarded to Class Attorneys in the Twenty Proposed Class Settlements ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Carlene M Craig, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15)(Barton, George) (Entered: 06/30/2016)

2709 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Pay Back All Attorney Expense Reimbursements to the FXG Litigation Fund, or in the Alternative, to Compel Them to

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

439/498

5/8/2020
07/06/2016 07/13/2016 07/14/2016
07/20/2016 07/20/2016 07/21/2016 07/25/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Reimburse All MDL FXG Driver Law Firms for Their Litigaiton Expenses by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Barton, George) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

2710

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2709 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Pay Back All Attorney Expense Reimbursements to the FXG Litigation Fund, or in the Alternative, to Compel Them to Reimburse All MDL FXG Driver Law Firms for Their Litigaiton Expenses ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Barton, George) (Entered: 07/06/2016)

2711 RESPONSE to Motion re (229 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Related to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to be Awarded to Class Attorneys in the Twenty Proposed Class Settlements ﬁled by Carlene M Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert I. Harwood)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05cv-00530-RLM-CAN(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/13/2016)

2712

RESPONSE to Motion re (229 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Related to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to be Awarded to Class Attorneys in the Twenty Proposed Class Settlements, (2707 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Related to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to be Awarded to Class Attorneys in the Twenty Proposed Class Settlements ﬁled by Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv3836). Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 07/14/2016)

2713

RESPONSE to Motion re (231 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Compel CoLead Counsel to Pay Back All Attorney Expense Reimbursements to the FXG Litigation Fund, or in the Alternative, to Compel Them to Reimburse All MDL FXG Driver Law Firms for Their Litigation Expenses ﬁled by Carlene M Craig. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert I. Harwood, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Robert I Harwood)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMCAN(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/20/2016)

2714

REPLY to Response to Motion re 2707 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Related to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to be Awarded to Class Attorneys in the Twenty Proposed Class Settlements ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 07/20/2016)

2715

REPLY to Response to Motion re 2707 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Related to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to be Awarded to Class Attorneys in the Twenty Proposed Class Settlements ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 07/21/2016)

2716

MOTION to Amend/Correct 2710 Memorandum in Support, Corrected Exhibit 1 by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Stacy Burrows)(Barton PHV, George) Modiﬁed on 8/9/2016 (dk). (Entered: 07/25/2016)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

440/498

5/8/2020
07/25/2016

2717

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
REPLY to Response to Motion re 2709 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Pay Back All Attorney Expense Reimbursements to the FXG Litigation Fund, or in the Alternative, to Compel Them to Reimburse All MDL FXG Driver Law Firms for Their Litigaiton Expenses ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Stacy Burrows)(Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 07/25/2016)

08/03/2016

2718

ORDER: GRANTING 2623 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Alabama Class Action Settlement in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17, with other deadlines as set forth in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN(jld)(cc: counsel of record, USCA) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/03/2016

2719

ORDER: GRANTING 2627 Motion Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Arizona Class Action Settlement in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00272-RLM-CAN(jld) (cc: counsel of record, USCA) (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/03/2016

2720

ORDER granting 2631 Motion Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Georgia Class Action Settlement. in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN, 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/03/2016

2721

ORDER: GRANTING 2635 Motion Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Indiana Class Action Settlement. in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/03/2016 2722 ORDER: GRANTING 2639 Motion Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

441/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Kansas Class Action Settlement. in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/03/2016

2723

ORDER: GRANTING 2643 Motion Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Maryland Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00485-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/03/2016

2724

ORDER: GRANTING 2647 Motion Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Minnesota Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/03/2016

2725

ORDER: GRANTING 2651 Motion Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed New York Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/03/2016

2726

ORDER: GRANTING 2655 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Ohio Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

442/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-00336-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/03/2016

2727

ORDER: GRANTING 2659 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Pennsylvania Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/04/2016)

08/03/2016

2728

ORDER: GRANTING 2663 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Rhode Island Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN(jld)cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/03/2016

2729

ORDER: GRANTING 2673 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed South Carolina Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA Modiﬁed (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/03/2016

2730

ORDER: GRANTING 2670 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Tennessee Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/03/2016

2731

ORDER: GRANTING 2675 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Texas Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

443/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/03/2016

2732

ORDER: GRANTING 2679 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Utah Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-00053-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/03/2016

2733

ORDER: GRANTING 2683 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed West Virginia Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:06-cv-00826-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/03/2016

2734

ORDER: GRANTING 2687 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Wisconsin Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/03/2016

2735

ORDER: GRANTING 2691 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed North Carolina Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:07-cv-00326-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/03/2016 2736 ORDER: GRANTING 2702 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Louisiana Class Action

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

444/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:08-cv-00193-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/03/2016

2737

ORDER: GRANTING 2706 Joint Motion for Indicative Ruling, Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed New Jersey Class Action Settlement. If this case is remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals, this Court will grant the parties joint motion pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter the order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement as set forth in the order, and appoint Rust Consulting Inc as the Settlement Administrator. A Fairness Hearing will be held on 1/23-24/17 in South Bend, with other deadlines as set forth in the order in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/16. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN(jld) cc: counsel of record, USCA (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/09/2016

2738 Application for Attorney Benjamin J. Ferron to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.. Pro Hac Vice fee of $ 93 has been received, receipt number 0755-3012817(Pro Hac Vice Temporary login, ) (Entered: 08/09/2016)

08/10/2016

2739

ORDER granting 2738 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Benjamin J Ferron PHV for All FedEx Ground Defendants. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 08/10/2016. (mtr) (Main Document 2739 replaced on 8/10/2016) (mtr). Modiﬁed by replacing main document to adjust for banners on 8/10/2016 (mtr). (Entered: 08/10/2016)

08/10/2016

2740

ORDER of USCA GRANTING motion for a limited remand. In light of the district court's indication that it is inclined to preliminarily approve the class settlements, these appeals are REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with the district court's orders of August 3 and 4, 2016. [as to (2385 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2305 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2321 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (115 in 3:06-cv-00485-RLM-CAN); (2315 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (186 in 3:05-cv00538-RLM-CAN); (2377 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2371 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN); (2399 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2383 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN); (113 in 3:07-cv-00189-RLM-CAN); (191 in 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN); (2397 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2389 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2373 in 3:05md-00527-RLM-CAN); (122 in 3:07-cv-00272-RLM-CAN); (2514 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN); (91 in 3:08-cv-00053-RLM-CAN); (2393 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (185 in 3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN); (2375 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (113 in 3:07cv-00411-RLM-CAN); (2395 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2303 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN); (184 in 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-CAN); (2491 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN); (2401 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (121 in 3:07-cv-00326-RLM-CAN); (190 in 3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN); (73 in 3:08-cv-00193-RLM-CAN); (2319 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN); (2493 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2313 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN); (2317 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2287 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN); (2311 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (195 in 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN); (2297 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2403 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (148 in 3:06-cv-00826-RLM-CAN); (2295 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2512 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN); (186 in 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN); (2381 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN); (193 in 3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN); (188 in 3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN);

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

445/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(2387 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2289 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2379 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2285 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2391 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-CAN); (164 in 3:06-cv-00428-RLM-CAN); (2293 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-CAN); (188 in 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN); (2301 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMCAN); (2291 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2299 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN); (2307 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN)]. (jld) (Entered: 08/12/2016)

08/10/2016

2764

MOTION HEARING held on 8/10/2016 before Judge Robert L Miller, Jr. MDL Pla appeared by attys R. Harwood, S. Ellingstad, B. Ross. FedEx appeared by attys B. Ferron, A. Fox re 2709 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Pay Back All Attorney Expense Reimbursements to the FXG Litigation Fund, or in the Alternative, to Compel Them to Reimburse All MDL FXG Driver Law Firms for Their Litigaiton Expenses ﬁled by Sylvia O'Brien, Matthew Cook, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Keith Barry, Kent Whistler, Leo Rittenhouse, Neal Bergkamp, Mike Moore, Heidi Law, 2707 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Related to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to be Awarded to Class Attorneys in the Twenty Proposed Class Settlements ﬁled by Sylvia O'Brien, Matthew Cook, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Keith Barry, Kent Whistler, Carlene M Craig, Leo Rittenhouse, Neal Bergkamp, Heidi Law, Mike Moore, Motions terminated: 2709 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Pay Back All Attorney Expense Reimbursements to the FXG Litigation Fund, or in the Alternative, to Compel Them to Reimburse All MDL FXG Driver Law Firms for Their Litigaiton Expenses ﬁled by Sylvia O'Brien, Matthew Cook, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Keith Barry, Kent Whistler, Leo Rittenhouse, Neal Bergkamp, Heidi Law, Mike Moore, 2707 MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Related to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to be Awarded to Class Attorneys in the Twenty Proposed Class Settlements ﬁled by Sylvia O'Brien, Matthew Cook, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Keith Barry, Kent Whistler, Carlene M Craig, Leo Rittenhouse, Neal Bergkamp, Heidi Law, Mike Moore. Arguments heard. For reasons stated, 2707 motion to compel and 2709 motion to compel are DENIED as premature. (Court Reporter D. Bonk.) (dk) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

08/16/2016

2741 Application for Attorney Joseph P. Milcoff to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of FedEx Ground. Pro Hac Vice fee of $ 93 has been received, receipt number 0755-3017988(Pro Hac Vice Temporary login, ) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

08/17/2016

2742

ORDER : The Court VACATES the referral to Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein and REFERS this matter to Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr to determine any pretrial matters and to conduct such proceedings as are required and, when appropriate, to enter into the record proposed ﬁndings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 72-1. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (cer) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

2743

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED NEW YORK ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2648) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (jld) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

2744

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED KANSAS ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2636) Motion for preliminary approval in

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

446/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (jld) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

2745

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED MINNESOTA ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2648) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (jld) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

2746

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED WEST VIRGINIA ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2680) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16.(cer) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

2747

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED WISCONSIN ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2684) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16.(cer) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

2748

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED INDIANA ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING 2632 Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 2324, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/2016. (lhc) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

2749

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED TEXAS ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2671) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (jld) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

2750

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SOUTH CAROLINA ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2664) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16.(cer) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

08/17/2016

2751

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED NEW JERSEY ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING 2703 Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 2324, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/2016. (lhc) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

447/498

5/8/2020
08/17/2016 08/17/2016 08/17/2016 08/17/2016 08/17/2016 08/17/2016
08/17/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

2752

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED UTAH ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2676) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (jld) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

2753

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED GEORGIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2628) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16.(cer) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

2754

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ARIZONA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2624) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (lhc) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

2755

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED TENNESSEE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2667) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16.(cer) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

2756

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED MARYLAND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2640) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16.(cer) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

2757

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED NORTH CAROLINA ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2688) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16.(lhc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/17/2016: # 1 Correct Order) (lhc). (Entered: 08/17/2016)

2758

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ALABAMA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2620) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16.(cer) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

448/498

5/8/2020
08/17/2016
08/17/2016
08/17/2016
08/17/2016
08/17/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016
09/12/2016 09/12/2016

2759

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PENNSYLVANIA ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2656) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (jld) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

2760

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RHODE ISLAND ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2660) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (jld) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

2761

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED OHIO ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2652) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (jld) (Entered: 08/17/2016)

2762

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LOUISIANA ACTION SETTLEMENT, To Approve the Form, Content and Plan for Distribution of Notice to Settlement Class, Appoint a Settlement Administrator, and to Schedule a Hearing on Final Approval; GRANTING (2699) Motion for preliminary approval in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. A Fairness Hearing has previously been set for January 23-24, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (kjp) Modiﬁed on 3/7/2017 to correct motion number (jld). (Entered: 08/18/2016)

2763 ORDER granting 2741 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Joseph P Milcoff PHV for FedEx Ground Packaging System, Inc. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/17/16. (ksc) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

2765 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments by Plaintiff Tina Floyd. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2766 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2765 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2767

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2765 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (JOINT DECLARATION) ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2768 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2765 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2769 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments by Plaintiffs Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

449/498

5/8/2020
09/12/2016 09/12/2016
09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016
09/12/2016
09/12/2016

2770

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MEMORANDUM in Support of 2769 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2771

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2769 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 George)(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2772

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2769 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2773

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2774 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments by Plaintiff Ernest White. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2775

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2773 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs ﬁled by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2776 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2774 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments ﬁled by Ernest White. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2777

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2773 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2778

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2774 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Ernest White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 MDL Fees, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2779

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2773 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

450/498

5/8/2020
09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016
09/12/2016
09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016

2780

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2774 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Ernest White. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2781 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (INDIANA) by Plaintiffs Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2782

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (New Jersey) by Plaintiffs Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2783 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2781 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (INDIANA) ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2784

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2782 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (New Jersey) ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin(District of New Jersey 3:05cv2028), Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2785

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2781 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (INDIANA) (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2786

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2782 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (New Jersey) (JOINT DECLARATION OF COLEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin(District of New Jersey 3:05cv2028), Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2787

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2781 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (INDIANA) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2788

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2782 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (New Jersey) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2789 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (KANSAS) by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

451/498

5/8/2020
09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016
09/12/2016
09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2790 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (New York) by Plaintiffs Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2791

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2790 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (New York) ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2792

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2789 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (KANSAS) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2793

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2790 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (New York) (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDl Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2794

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2789 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (KANSAS) (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2795

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2790 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (New York) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2796

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2789 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (KANSAS) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2797

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (Ohio) by Plaintiffs Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2798

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2797 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (Ohio) ﬁled by Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

452/498

5/8/2020
09/12/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2799 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (MARYLAND) by Plaintiff Thomas Westcott. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2800 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2799 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (MARYLAND) ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2801

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2797 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (Ohio) (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2802

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2797 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (Ohio) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2803

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2799 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (MARYLAND) (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2804 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2799 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (MARYLAND) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2805

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (South Carolina) by Plaintiffs Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 218 in case 3:05cv668(jld). (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2806 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (MINNESOTA) by Plaintiffs Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2807

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2805 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (South Carolina) ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)), Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2808

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2806 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (MINNESOTA) ﬁled by Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2809 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2805 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (South Carolina) (JOINT DECLARATION OF COLEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

453/498

5/8/2020
09/12/2016 09/12/2016
09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016
09/12/2016 09/12/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Columbia)), Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2810

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2805 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (South Carolina) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia) 3:05cv2588), Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2811 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2806 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (MINNESOTA) (JOINT DECLARATION OF COLEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2812

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2806 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (MINNESOTA) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2813

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (TEXAS) by Plaintiffs Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Ross, Beth) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 219 in case 3:05cv540 (jld). (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2814 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2813 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (TEXAS) ﬁled by Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2815

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2813 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (TEXAS) (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2816

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (PENNSYLVANIA) by Plaintiff Derek D Willis. (Ross, Beth) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 223 in case 3:05cv597(jld). (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2817

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2816 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (PENNSYLVANIA) (JOINT DECLARATION OF COLEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

454/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
- Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2818 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2816 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (PENNSYLVANIA) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2819 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (LOUISIANA) by Plaintiffs Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2820 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2819 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (LOUISIANA) ﬁled by Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2821

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2819 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (LOUISIANA) (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George) (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2822

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2819 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (LOUISIANA) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2823

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Rhode Island) by Plaintiffs Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2824

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2823 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Rhode Island) ﬁled by Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2825

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2823 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Rhode Island) (JOINT DECLARATION OF COLEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2826

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2823 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Rhode Island) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016 2827 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Tennessee) by Plaintiffs Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, Arthur Smith, Rachella

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

455/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 227 in case 3:05cv600 (jld). (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2828 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2827 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Tennessee) ﬁled by Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2829

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2827 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Tennessee) (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2830

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2827 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Tennessee) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2831

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Utah) by Plaintiffs Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 120 in case 3:08cv53 (jld). (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2832 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2831 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Utah) ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2833

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2831 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Utah) (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 George)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2834

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2831 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Utah) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2835

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (West Virginia) by Plaintiffs Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 175 in case 3:06cv826 (jld). (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2836 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2835 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (West Virginia) ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

09/12/2016

2837

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2835 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (West Virginia) (JOINT DECLARATION OF COLEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 - HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 -

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

456/498

5/8/2020
09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016
09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/12/2016 10/06/2016
10/11/2016 10/17/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 - MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2838

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2835 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (West Virginia) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2839

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Wisconsin) by Plaintiffs Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 216 in case 3:05cv601 (jld). (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2840

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2839 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Wisconsin) ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki(Western District of Wisconsin). (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2841

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2839 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Wisconsin) (JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL) ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki(Western District of Wisconsin). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - LGN Firm Resume, # 2 Exhibit 2 HF Firm Resume, # 3 Exhibit 3 - LC Firm Resume, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Time Keeping Memo, # 5 Exhibit 5 - MDL Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 6 - MDL Expenses, # 7 Exhibit 7 MDL Fees Collected, # 8 Exhibit 8 - MDL Litigation Fund, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Mansﬁeld, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Smith, # 11 Exhibit 11 - George)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2842

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2839 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (Wisconsin) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Darren Zabrocki(Western District of Wisconsin). (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2843 MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2844

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2813 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (TEXAS) (DECLARATION OF BRIAN T. FITZPATRICK) ﬁled by Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2845 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2816 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Class Representative Service Payments (PENNSYLVANIA) ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)

2846

ORDER GRANTING 2843 MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE AWARDS ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. This Court enters this indicative ruling that it will accept a limited remand from the USCA for the Seventh Circuit for the purpose of considering and deciding Plaintiffs' Motions for Attorney's Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 10/6/16. (cc: USCA)(jld) (Entered: 10/07/2016)

2847 OBJECTION to the amount of settlement by Jack E Ryan. (jld) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

2848 OBJECTION by Randy Brock re: settlement. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Envelope)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

457/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(jld) (Entered: 10/21/2016)

11/04/2016

2849 MOTION to Amend/Correct Orders Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlements (Unopposed) by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/09/2016

2850 ORDER granting 2849 Motion to Amend/Correct Orders. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11/9/2016. (dk) (Entered: 11/09/2016)

11/10/2016

2851

Application for Attorney Greg M. Kohn to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Michael Tofaute, Francis Dennis Lynch, Thomas Mikulski, David McMahon, Pat Carrigan, Michael B. Kilmartin, and Frank Cucinotti. (MDL-PHV Temporary Login, ) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/15/2016

2852

ORDER granting 2851 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Greg M Kohn PHV for Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, and Michael Tofaute. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11/15/16. (mtr) (Entered: 11/16/2016)

11/18/2016

2853 Letter from Al Jernign objecting to settlement. (Note: The signature line is illegible, the last name may be different) (jld) (Entered: 11/22/2016)

12/15/2016 2854 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Alabama Settlement) by Plaintiff Tina Floyd. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2855 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2854 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Alabama Settlement) by Plaintiff Tina Floyd. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2856 MOTION for Settlement (Uopposed Motion for Final Approval of Arizona Settlement) by Plaintiffs Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2857 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2856 MOTION for Settlement (Uopposed Motion for Final Approval of Arizona Settlement) by Plaintiffs Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 2858 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Georgia Settlement) by Plaintiff Ernest White. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2859 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2858 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Georgia Settlement) by Plaintiff Ernest White. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2860 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Indiana Settlement) by Plaintiffs Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2861

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2860 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Indiana Settlement) by Plaintiffs Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2862

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Kansas Settlement) by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 2863 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Louisiana Settlement) by Plaintiffs Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (Ellingstad, Susan)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

458/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2864 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2863 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Louisiana Settlement) by Plaintiffs Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 2865 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Maryland Settlement) by Plaintiff Thomas Westcott. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2866 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2865 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Maryland Settlement) by Plaintiff Thomas Westcott. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2867 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Minnesota Settlement) by Plaintiffs Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2868

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2867 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Minnesota Settlement) by Plaintiffs Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2869

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) by Plaintiffs Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 257 in case 3:05cv595 (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2870

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2869 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) by Plaintiffs Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 3/16/2017 (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2871 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of New York Settlement) by Plaintiffs Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2872

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2871 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of New York Settlement) by Plaintiffs Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2873

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of North Carolina Settlement) by Plaintiffs John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2874

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2873 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of North Carolina Settlement) by Plaintiffs John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2875 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Ohio Settlement) by Plaintiffs Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 2876 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2875 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Ohio Settlement) by Plaintiffs Russell Jackson, Dean

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

459/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2877 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) by Plaintiff Derek D Willis. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2878 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2877 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) by Plaintiff Derek D Willis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2879

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Rhode Island Settlement) by Plaintiffs Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2880

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2879 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Rhode Island Settlement) by Plaintiffs Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2881

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of South Carolina Settlement) by Plaintiffs Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 218 in case 3:05cv668 (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2882

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2881 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of South Carolina Settlement) by Plaintiffs Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke, Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2883

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Tennesses Settlement) by Plaintiffs Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 227 in case 3:05cv600 (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2884

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2883 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Tennesses Settlement) by Plaintiffs Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, John Lindsey, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2885

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Texas Settlement) by Plaintiffs Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 219 in case 3:05cv540 (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2886

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2885 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Texas Settlement) by Plaintiffs Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2887

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Utah Settlement) by Plaintiffs Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 120 in case 3:08cv53 (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 2888 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2887 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Utah Settlement) by Plaintiffs Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

460/498

5/8/2020
12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2889

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of West Virginia Settlement) by Plaintiffs Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 175 in case 3:006cv826 (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2890 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2889 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of West Virginia Settlement) by Plaintiffs Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2891

MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Wisconsin Settlement) by Plaintiffs Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. (Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 6/2/2017 to term as a pending motion pursuant to DE 216 in case 3:05cv601 (jld). (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2892 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2891 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Wisconsin Settlement) by Plaintiffs Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2893 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2856 MOTION for Settlement (Uopposed Motion for Final Approval of Arizona Settlement) ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2894

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2856 MOTION for Settlement (Uopposed Motion for Final Approval of Arizona Settlement) ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2895 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2856 MOTION for Settlement (Uopposed Motion for Final Approval of Arizona Settlement) ﬁled by Margaret Gibson, Don Olsen, Solomon Rachmin, Joe Shipp. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2896 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2858 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Georgia Settlement) ﬁled by Ernest White. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2897

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2858 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Georgia Settlement) (Declaration of Melissa Padal) ﬁled by Ernest White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B - Class Notice and Correction Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2898 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2858 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Georgia Settlement) ﬁled by Ernest White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2899 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2860 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Indiana Settlement) ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2900

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2860 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Indiana Settlement) (Declaration of Melissa Padal) ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2901 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2860 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Indiana Settlement) ﬁled by Harold Bennett, Rodney Owens, Roger Riewe, Jeffrey Shelton, David Stacy. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

461/498

5/8/2020
12/15/2016

2902

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MEMORANDUM in Support of 2863 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Louisiana Settlement) ﬁled by Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2903

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2863 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Louisiana Settlement) (Declaration of Amanda Myette) ﬁled by Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2904 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2863 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Louisiana Settlement) ﬁled by Timothy Bellow, Ryan Boudreaux. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2905

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2875 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Ohio Settlement) ﬁled by Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2906

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2875 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Ohio Settlement) (Declaration of Jessica Jenkins) ﬁled by Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B - Class Notice and Correction Letter) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2907

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2875 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Ohio Settlement) ﬁled by Russell Jackson, Dean Johnson, Paul Kelly, Adelbert Lawrence, Kenneth Miner, Robert Velo, Thomas Wenzlick. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Objection)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2908 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2889 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of West Virginia Settlement) ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2909

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2889 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of West Virginia Settlement) (Declaration of Melissa Padal) ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2910 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2889 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of West Virginia Settlement) ﬁled by Lawrence Asbury, Roger Davis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2911 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2867 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Minnesota Settlement) ﬁled by Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2912

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2867 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Minnesota Settlement) (Declaration of Melissa Padal) ﬁled by Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B - Class Notice and Correction Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2913

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2867 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Minnesota Settlement) ﬁled by Magnus B Conroy, Katrina Lee, Gary Miyazaki, Gerald Pelkey, Sergei Selenskikh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Objection) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 2914 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2879 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Rhode Island Settlement) ﬁled by Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

462/498

5/8/2020
12/15/2016
12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2915

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2879 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Rhode Island Settlement) (Declaration of Amanda Myette) ﬁled by Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2916

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2879 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Rhode Island Settlement) ﬁled by Ricardo Bacani, Sammy Farland, Alan Ginet, Roland Guillet, Paul Luongo, Donald J McClafferty, Stephen H McGuinness, Wayne F Mills, Jr, Raymond Tierney. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2917 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2865 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Maryland Settlement) ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2918

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2865 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Maryland Settlement) (Declaration of Melissa Padal) ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2919 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2865 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Maryland Settlement) ﬁled by Thomas Westcott. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2920

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2871 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of New York Settlement) ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2921

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2871 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of New York Settlement) (Declaration of Amanda Myette) ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2922

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2871 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of New York Settlement) ﬁled by Nicholas Conte, George Hammer, Damian Ivanov, Larry Louzau, Charles Malkin, Daniel Santa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2923 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) (Corrected) by Plaintiff Derek D Willis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2924 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2923 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) (Corrected) by Plaintiff Derek D Willis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2925 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2885 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Texas Settlement) ﬁled by Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2926 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2885 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Texas Settlement) (Declaration of Amanda Myette) ﬁled by Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe.

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

463/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B - Class Notice and Correction Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2927

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2885 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Texas Settlement) ﬁled by Charles Campbell, John Humphreys, David Meredith, Tim Mershon, Jeffrey Quebe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2928 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2887 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Utah Settlement) ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2929

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2887 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Utah Settlement) (Declaration of Melissa Padal) ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2930 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2887 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Utah Settlement) ﬁled by Dan Fishler, Jesse Ricord, Arthur R Rottini. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2931

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2891 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Wisconsin Settlement) ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki(Western District of Wisconsin). (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2932

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2891 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Wisconsin Settlement) (Declaration of Melissa Padal) ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki(Western District of Wisconsin). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2933 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2891 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Wisconsin Settlement) ﬁled by Gary Lee Larson, Dominic R Lupo, Darren Zabrocki(Western District of Wisconsin). (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2934

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2881 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of South Carolina Settlement) ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)), Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2935

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2881 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of South Carolina Settlement) (Declaration of Amanda Myette) ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)), Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2936

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2881 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of South Carolina Settlement) ﬁled by Darryl M Brown, Gregory Cooke(District of South Carolina (Columbia)), Harvey Samuel, Bridgette Whitehead. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2937

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2862 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Kansas Settlement) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 2938 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2862 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Kansas Settlement) (Declaration of Jessica Jenkins) ﬁled by Keith Barry,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

464/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B - Class Notice and Correction Letter)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2939

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2862 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Kansas Settlement) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2940 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2923 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) (Corrected) ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2941

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2923 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) (Corrected) (Declaration of Jessica Jenkins) ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2942

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2923 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of Pennsylvania Settlement) (Corrected) ﬁled by Derek D Willis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2943

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2873 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of North Carolina Settlement) ﬁled by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2944

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2873 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of North Carolina Settlement) (Declaration of Jessica Jenkins) ﬁled by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2945

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2873 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of North Carolina Settlement) ﬁled by John Brown, James D Coates, Darrell Jenkins, Louis Wallace, Daniel Wells, Sharon B Whiteside, Lawrence Aubrey Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2946

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2883 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Tennesses Settlement) ﬁled by Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, John Lindsey, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2947

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2883 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Tennesses Settlement) (Declaration of Melissa Padal) ﬁled by Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, John Lindsey, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2948

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2883 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Tennesses Settlement) ﬁled by Robert Erbentraut, Buddy D Johnson, John Lindsey, Arthur Smith, Rachella Westbrook. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016

2949 MEMORANDUM in Support of 2854 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Alabama Settlement) ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 2950 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2854 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

465/498

5/8/2020
12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016
12/15/2016 12/22/2016 01/09/2017
01/09/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Approval of Alabama Settlement) (Declaration of Amanda Myette) ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2951 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2854 MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Alabama Settlement) ﬁled by Tina Floyd. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2952

MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected) by Plaintiffs Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2953

Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2952 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected) by Plaintiffs Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2954

MEMORANDUM in Support of 2952 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected) ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2955

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2952 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected) (Declaration of Amanda Myette) ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin(District of New Jersey 3:05cv2028), Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2956

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2952 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected) ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin(District of New Jersey 3:05cv2028), Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

2957

NOTICE of Hearing: There will be an organizational meeting on 1/12/2017 at 1:30 PM (EST) in US District Court - South Bend before Judge Robert L Miller Jr. regarding the Jan. 23 and 24 Fairness Hearing.(jld) Modiﬁed on 12/22/2016 to correct hearing date (jld). (Entered: 12/22/2016)

2958

MOTION to Compel Settling Parties to Re-Draft and Re-Send the Settlement Notice and to Adjourn the Fairness Hearing by Plaintiffs Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion, # 2 Certiﬁcate of Service, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Declaration of Ernest Neal, # 5 Declaration of Michael Tofaute, # 6 Declaration of David McMahon)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

2959

RESPONSE to Motion re (2952 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected) ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David McMahon, # 2 Declaration of Michael Tofaute, # 3 Declaration of Ernest Neal, # 4 Certiﬁcate of Service)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

466/498

5/8/2020
01/09/2017 01/09/2017 01/09/2017 01/09/2017 01/09/2017 01/10/2017 01/10/2017 01/11/2017
01/11/2017
01/11/2017
01/12/2017 01/12/2017

2961

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Mail Returned from Joree Brownlow as Undeliverable - 2957 Notice of Hearing/Deadlines,. (Not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward) (jld) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

2962 Mail Returned from Todd J O'Malley as Undeliverable - 2957 Notice of Hearing/Deadlines,. (Not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward) (jld) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

2963 Mail Returned from Cheryl F Perkins as Undeliverable - 2957 Notice of Hearing/Deadlines,. (Not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward) (jld) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

2964 Mail Returned from Aaron Roblan as Undeliverable - 2957 Notice of Hearing/Deadlines,. (Not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward) (jld) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

2965 Mail Returned from Richard Tanenbaum as Undeliverable - 2957 Notice of Hearing/Deadlines,. (Attempted Not Known, unable to forward) (jld) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

2960

STATEMENT from New Jersey Class Representatives re organizational meeting on January 12, 2017 regarding (2957 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) Notice of Hearing/Deadlines,. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595RLM-CAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 01/10/2017)

2969 Mail Returned from Joseph A Osefchen as Undeliverable - 2957 Notice of Hearing/Deadlines,. (Not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward) (jld) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

2966

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2952 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected), 2953 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2952 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected) Declaration of J. Gordan Rudd ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

2967

** INCORRECT DOCUMENT ATTACHED; RE-FILED AT DE #2968 ** AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2952 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected), 2953 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2952 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected) Declaration of Beth A. Ross ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ross, Beth) Modiﬁed on 1/12/2017 to add text (ksp). (Entered: 01/11/2017)

2968

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2952 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected), 2953 Joint MOTION for Indicative Ruling re 2952 MOTION for Settlement (Unnopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) (Corrected) Declaration of Beth A. Ross ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 01/11/2017)

2970 NOTICE: At the request of plaintiffs' lead counsel, Susan Ellingstad, the time for 1/12/17 hearing has been changed from 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm (EST) before Judge Robert L Miller Jr. (dk) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

2971 HEARING held on 1/12/2017 before Judge Robert L Miller, Jr. Pla appeared by attys S. Ellingstad, R. Harwood, B. Ross. Dft appeared by attys J. English, A. Fox, J. Milcoff, J.

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

467/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Norris, B. Ferron. Attys G. Kohn, D. DiSabato appeared for New Jersey plaintiffs. Parties present proposed schedule for Jan 23-24 fairness hearing; court identiﬁes procedure to be followed re: objections to settlement in 3:05cv595. Written order to follow. (Court Reporter D. Bonk.) (dk) (Entered: 01/12/2017)

01/13/2017

2972 Mail Returned from Kevin M Costello as Undeliverable - 2957 Notice of Hearing/Deadlines,. (forwarded to new address 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800, Mt Laurel, NJ 08054) (jld) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/13/2017 2973 STIPULATION Regarding Scheduling of Fairness Hearing by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2017)

01/16/2017

2974

STATEMENT from New Jersey Class Representatives re (2973 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG) STIPULATION Regarding Scheduling of Fairness Hearing ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG, 3:09-cv-00002-RLM-CAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 01/16/2017)

01/17/2017

2975

ORDER: The Court GRANTS 2973 STIPULATION Regarding Scheduling of Fairness Hearing. The court VACATES the Fairness Hearing currently set for January 23-24, 2017 and RESETS it for March 13 and 14, 2017 at 9:00 AM (E.D.T.) US District Court South Bend before Judge Robert L Miller Jr.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/17/17. (jld) (Entered: 01/17/2017)

01/17/2017

2976

STIPULATION regarding Re-Notice of the New Jersey Class by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1a - Amended Class Notice, # 2 Exhibit 1b - Redlined Amended Class Notice, # 3 Exhibit 2a - Amended Opt-out Class Notice, # 4 Exhibit 2b Redlined Amended Opt-out Class Notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/17/2017)

01/17/2017

2980 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - 2957 Notice of Hearing/Deadlines,. (Not deliverable as addressed, return to sender) (jld) (Entered: 01/20/2017)

01/18/2017

2977

STATEMENT from New Jersey Class Representatives re (2976 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG) STIPULATION regarding Re-Notice of the New Jersey Class ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

01/18/2017

2978

RESPONSE to Motion re (221 in 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN) MOTION to Compel Settling Parties to Re-Draft and Re-Send the Settlement Notice and to Adjourn the Fairness Hearing ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

01/19/2017

2979

ORDER: DENYING AS MOOT 2958 New Jersey Plaintiffs' MOTION to Compel Settling Parties to Re-Draft and Re-Send the Settlement Notice and to Adjourn the Fairness Hearing (Doc. No. 2973 & 2976 ); DENYING 2977 request to modify the amended settlement notice; GRANTING 2976 STIPULATION regarding Re-Notice of the New Jersey Class with deadlines as set forth in the order; and DIRECTING the named plaintiffs in Tofaute et al v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., Cause No. 3:05-CV-595, to ﬁle a proffer by 2/3/2017 settingforth the facts and the law that they believe support their objection to the validity of the settlement agreement; and GIVING Class Counsel and the defendant until 2/13/2017 to ﬁle any response. A hearing will be set on or before 3/1/2017, if necessary, after brieﬁng is completed. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/19/17. (jld) (Entered: 01/19/2017)

01/23/2017 2981 Mail Returned from Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez as Undeliverable - 2957 Notice of Hearing/Deadlines,. (Refused, Unable to Forward) (jld) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

468/498

5/8/2020
01/23/2017 01/27/2017 01/27/2017
01/30/2017
01/30/2017 01/30/2017 01/30/2017 01/31/2017 01/31/2017
01/31/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/03/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
2982 Mail Returned from Salvatore G Gangemi as Undeliverable - 2975 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Terminate Hearings,, Set Hearings,. (Not deliverable as addressed) (jld) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

2983

STATEMENT the New Jersey Class Representatives regarding (2979 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG, 2979 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 2979 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) Order,,,, Terminate Motions,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG, 3:09-cv-00002-RLM-CAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

2984

MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel and Anthony Marchetti, Esq. to Produce Documents and Appear for Depositions by Plaintiffs Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion, # 2 Declaration of Greg M. Kohn, Esq., # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certiﬁcate of Service)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595-RLMCAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

2985

STATEMENT of Compliance and Response to Objectors' January 27, 2017 Filings re 2984 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel and Anthony Marchetti, Esq. to Produce Documents and Appear for Depositions, 2983 Statement, ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Amanda Myette)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

2986 Mail Returned from Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez as Undeliverable - 2975 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Terminate Hearings,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

2987 Mail Returned from Todd J O'Malley as Undeliverable - 2975 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Terminate Hearings,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

2988 Mail Returned from Aaron Roblan as Undeliverable - 2975 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Terminate Hearings,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

2989 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - 2975 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Terminate Hearings,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

2990

STATEMENT from New Jersey Class Representatives regarding (2984 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG) MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel and Anthony Marchetti, Esq. to Produce Documents and Appear for Depositions ﬁled by Michael B Kilmartin, Frank Cucinotti, David McMahon, Michael Tofaute, Patrick Carrigan, Thomas Mikulski, Francis Dennis Lynch, (2979 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 2979 in 3:05md-00527-RLM-MGG, 2979 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) Order,,,, Terminate Motions,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:09-cv-00002-RLM-CAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

2991

ORDER Following discussion at the 1/12/2017 scheduling conference and by agreement of the parties, the court adopts the attached schedule for the class action fairness hearings on March 13 and 14, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/31/17. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(jld) (Entered: 01/31/2017)

2992 Mail Returned from Richard Tanenbaum as Undeliverable - 2975 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Terminate Hearings,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

2993 Mail Returned from Joree Brownlow as Undeliverable - 2975 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Terminate Hearings,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

2994 MOTION Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Injunction, Corrective Notice and Order to Show Cause by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

469/498

5/8/2020
02/03/2017 02/03/2017
02/03/2017
02/03/2017
02/07/2017
02/07/2017 02/09/2017 02/13/2017 02/13/2017 02/14/2017
02/14/2017 02/21/2017 02/21/2017 02/21/2017

2995

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
MEMORANDUM in Support of 2994 MOTION Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Injunction, Corrective Notice and Order to Show Cause ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

2996

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2994 MOTION Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Injunction, Corrective Notice and Order to Show Cause (Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-2)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

2997

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 2994 MOTION Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Injunction, Corrective Notice and Order to Show Cause (Declaration of Sherri L. Juell) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

2998

Sealed Document re (2979 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 2979 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG, 2979 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) Order,,,, Terminate Motions,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Frank Cucinotti, # 2 Declaration of Michael Tofaute, # 3 Declaration of David McMahon, # 4 Certiﬁcate of Service)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:09-cv-00002-RLMCAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 02/03/2017)

2999

NOTICE OF JOINDER by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Colorado 1:07cv902) regarding 2994 MOTION Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Injunction, Corrective Notice and Order to Show Cause (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

3000 NOTICE REGARDING FAIRNESS HEARINGS; All times listed on the 2991 scheduling order for the March 13-14, 2017 fairness hearings are Eastern Daylight Time. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al. (dk) (Entered: 02/07/2017)

3001 OPINION AND ORDER The 2994 Motion for an Emergency Injunction, Corrective Notice, and Order to Show Cause is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/9/17. (jld) (Entered: 02/09/2017)

3002 Sealed Document re 2984 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel and Anthony Marchetti, Esq. to Produce Documents and Appear for Depositions, 2998 Sealed Document,. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/13/2017)

3003 Sealed Document re 3002 Sealed Document. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/13/2017)

3004

OPINION AND ORDER The court holds that the settlement agreement is valid, DENIES the class representatives motion to compel (3:05-cv-595, Doc. No. 227 ) (3:05md-527, Doc. No. 2984 ), and declines to direct any discovery as to whether the agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/14/17. (jld) Modiﬁed on 2/14/2017 (jld). (Entered: 02/14/2017)

3005 Mail Returned from Salvatore Gangemi as Undeliverable - 3000 Notice (Other). (marked Not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward) (jld) (Entered: 02/14/2017)

3006 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - 3000 Notice (Other). (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

3007 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - 3001 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

3008 Mail Returned from Todd J O'Malley as Undeliverable - 3000 Notice (Other). (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

470/498

5/8/2020
02/21/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
3009 Mail Returned from Todd J O'Malley as Undeliverable - 3001 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/21/2017 3010 Mail Returned from Joseph A Osefchen as Undeliverable - 3000 Notice (Other). (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/21/2017

3011 Mail Returned from Joseph A Osefchen as Undeliverable - 3001 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/21/2017 3012 Mail Returned from Cheryl F Perkins as Undeliverable - 3000 Notice (Other). (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/21/2017 3013 Mail Returned from Cheryl F Perkins as Undeliverable - 3001 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/21/2017 3014 Mail Returned from Richard Tanenbaum as Undeliverable - 3000 Notice (Other). (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/21/2017 3015 Mail Returned from Richard Tanenbaum as Undeliverable - 3001 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/21/2017 3016 Mail Returned from Charles W Whetstone as Undeliverable - (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/21/2017 3017 Mail Returned from Charles W Whetstone as Undeliverable - 3001 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017 3018 Mail Returned from Aaron Roblan as Undeliverable - (resent to new address) (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/23/2017 3019 Mail Returned from Aaron Roblan as Undeliverable - 3001 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (resent to new address) (jld) (Entered: 02/23/2017)

02/24/2017

3020 Mail Returned from Joree Brownlow as Undeliverable - 3001 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (note: handwritten note on envelope states "Moved to Crudova TN 4 or 5 years ago) (jld) (Entered: 02/27/2017)

03/01/2017

3021

OBJECTION by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute to (2784 in 3:05md-00527-RLM-MGG) Memorandum in Support, (2782 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMMGG) MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (New Jersey), (2869 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) MOTION for Settlement (Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of New Jersey Settlement) . (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:09-cv-00002-RLM-CAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 03/01/2017)

03/02/2017 3022 Mail Returned from Salvatore Gangemi as Undeliverable - 3001 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (jld) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/03/2017

3023

STATEMENT from New Jersey Class Representatives regarding (3021 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG) Objection,, ﬁled by Michael B Kilmartin, Frank Cucinotti, David McMahon, Michael Tofaute, Patrick Carrigan, Thomas Mikulski, Francis Dennis Lynch. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-MGG(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/07/2017

3024

***FILING ERROR, WRONG DOCUMENT ATTACHED. SEE DE 3025 FOR CORRECT ENTRY*** BRIEF re 3021 Objection,, KANSAS CLASS REPRESENTATIVES OPPOSITION TO NEW JERSEY CLASS REPRESENTATIVES OBJECTION TO CO-LEAD COUNSELS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES. (Barton PHV, George) Modiﬁed on 3/8/2017 (jld). (Entered: 03/07/2017)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

471/498

5/8/2020
03/07/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

3025

BRIEF re 3021 Objection,, KANSAS CLASS REPRESENTATIVES OPPOSITION TO NEW JERSEY CLASS REPRESENTATIVES OBJECTION TO CO-LEAD COUNSELS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Afﬁdavit of George A Barton)(Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/07/2017 3026 RESPONSE by All Plaintiffs to 3021 Objection,, (Additional Objection by New Jersey Class Representatives). (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/07/2017 3027 AFFIDAVIT of Co-Lead Counsel re 3026 Response/Reply by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6-8)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/08/2017

3028

OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL IN THE GEORGIA, NORTH CAROLINA, PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS AND WEST VIRGINIA CASES TO THE NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVES' ADDITIONAL OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES by All Plaintiffs . (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/08/2017 3029 RESPONSE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc to 3021 Objection,, . (Norris PHV, Jason) Modiﬁed on 3/8/2017 (jld). (Entered: 03/08/2017)

03/09/2017

3030

Application for Attorney Harold Lichten to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Derek D. Willis. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Certiﬁcate of Good Standing)(MDLPHV Temporary Login, ) (Main Document 3030 replaced on 3/9/2017) (mtr). (Entered: 03/09/2017)

03/10/2017

3031 ORDER granting 3030 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Harold L Lichten PHV for Derek D Willis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr on 03/10/2017. (mtr) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017

3032

STATEMENT from New Jersey Class Representatives re (3026 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG) Response/Reply ﬁled by Patrick Carrigan, Frank Cucinotti, Michael B Kilmartin, Francis Dennis Lynch, David McMahon, Thomas Mikulski, Michael Tofaute. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁcate of Service)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:09-cv-00002-RLM-CAN(Kohn PHV, Greg) (Entered: 03/10/2017)

03/10/2017 3033 Mail Returned from Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez as Undeliverable - 3000 Notice (Other). (Moved, unable to forward) (jld) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/10/2017 3034 Mail Returned from Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez as Undeliverable - 3001 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (RTS) (jld) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/13/2017

3035

MOTION HEARING held on 3/13/2017 before Judge Robert L Miller, Jr. Plaintiffs appeared by attys S. Ellingstad, R. Harwood, B. Ross, G. Rudd, A. Marchetti. FedEx appeared by attys J. Milcoff, S. Voelz, A. Fox, J. English, J. Norris, B. Ferron, J. Norris. Attys P. Freeman, M. Peters, C. Whetstone appeared in 3:07cv411, atty S. Burrows appeared in 3:05cv530, class participant A. Rhoads appeared in 3:05cv390, attys M. Frischhertz, N. Nazareth appeared in 3:08cv193, atty D. Taylor appeared in 3:05cv540, atty H. Lichten appeared in 3:05cv597, attys P. Freeman, J. Lore appeared in 3:07cv326, and attys P. Freeman, C. Whetstone appeared in 3:05cv668 re 2973 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG) STIPULATION Regarding Scheduling of Fairness Hearing ﬁled by All Plaintiffs; The court hears settlement details on the record for AL, AZ, IN, WI, TX, KS, UT, GA, MD, NC, PA, RI, SC, WV, LA. Matters taken under advisement. Written order to follow. (Court Reporter D. Bonk.) Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al. (dk) (Entered: 03/13/2017)

03/14/2017

3036 MOTION HEARING held on 3/14/2017 before Judge Robert L Miller, Jr. Plaintiffs appeared by attys S. Ellingstad, R. Harwood, B. Ross, G. Rudd, A. Marchetti, M. Houston. FedEx Ground appeared by attys J. Milcoff, S. Voelz, A. Fox, J. English, J.

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

472/498

5/8/2020
03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Norris, B. Ferron, J. Norris. Attys P. Winbrake, P. DeRose appeared in 3:08cv336, class participant K. Patterson appeared by phone in 3:05cv600, attys G. Kohn, L. Bouckenooghe, D. DiSabato appeared in 3:05cv595 re (2973 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMMGG) STIPULATION Regarding Scheduling of Fairness Hearing ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. The court hears settlement details on the record for TN, MN, OH, NY, NJ. Matters taken under advisement. Written order to follow. (Court Reporter D. Bonk.) Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al. (dk) (Entered: 03/14/2017)

3037

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF INDIANA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00390-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3038

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF MINNESOTA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00533-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3039

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF ALABAMA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:06-cv-00428-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3040

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF ARIZONA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:07-cv-00272-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3041

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF GEORGIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3042

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF LOUISIANA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:08-cv-00193-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3043

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF NEW YORK CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3044

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF MARYLAND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:06-cv-00485-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3045 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

473/498

5/8/2020
03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017 03/15/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PENNSYLVANIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00597-RLMMGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3046

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF OHIO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:08-cv-00336-RLM-CAN (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3047

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF NORTH CAROLINA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:07-cv-00326-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3048

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF RHODE ISLAND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00599-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3049

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3050

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF TENNESSEE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00600-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3051

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF TEXAS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00540-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3052

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF UTAH CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:08-cv-00053-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3053

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF WISCONSIN CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

3054 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF WEST VIRGINIA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

474/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
3/15/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:06-cv-00826-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/15/2017)

03/16/2017

3055

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF NEW JERSEY CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/16/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/16/2017)

03/20/2017 3056 Mail Returned from Salvatore G Gangemi as Undeliverable - 3055 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 03/21/2017)

03/22/2017

3057

ORDER of USCA: It is ORDERED that the parties' motion for a limited remand pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 is GRANTED. In light of the district court's statement that it is inclined to enter ﬁnal approval of the proposed class settlement, these appeals are REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with the district court's orders of March 15 and 16, 2017. The parties shall ﬁle a status report with this court by May 22, 2017, or within seven days of an order by the district court resolving proceedings in the limited remand.(jld) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017

3058 Mail Returned from Todd J O'Malley as Undeliverable - 3045 , 3047 3044 3042 , 3037 , 3050 , 3053 , 3048 , 3052 , 3041 , 3040 , 3054 , 3038 , 3046 , 3043 , 3051 , 3049 , 3039 Orders Granting Joint Motion for Indicative Rulings. (jld) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/24/2017 3059 Mail Returned from Todd J O'Malley as Undeliverable - 3055 Order. (jld) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

03/27/2017 3060 Mail Returned from Joree Brownlow as Undeliverable - 3055 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

03/27/2017 3061 Mail Returned from Joseph Osefchen as Undeliverable - 3055 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

04/03/2017

3062 Mail Returned from Joseph A Osefchen as Undeliverable - 3045 , 3047 , 3044 , 3042 , 3037 , 3050 , 3053 , 3048 , 3052 , 3041 , 3040 , 3054 , 3038 , 3046 , 3043 , 3051 , 3049 , 3039 Orders Granting Joint Motion for Indicative Rulings. (jld) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/03/2017 3063 Mail Returned from Richard Tanenbaum as Undeliverable - 3055 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/04/2017

3064 Mail Returned from Richard Tanenbaum as Undeliverable - 3045, 3047, 3044, 3042, 3037, 3050, 3053, 3048, 3052, 3041, 3040, 3054, 3038, 3046, 3043, 3051, 3049, 3039 Orders Granting Joint Motion for Indicative Rulings. (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

04/05/2017

3065 Mail Returned from Joree Brownlow as Undeliverable - 3045, 3047, 3044, 3042, 3037, 3050, 3053, 3048, 3052, 3041, 3040, 3054, 3038, 3046, 3043, 3051, 3049, 3039 Orders Granting Joint Motion for Indicative Rulings (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

04/06/2017 3066 Mail Returned from B James Fitzpatrick as Undeliverable - 3055 Order. (jld) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

04/13/2017 3067 Mail Returned from Charles W Whetstone as Undeliverable - 3055 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/17/2017 3068 Mail Returned from Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez as Undeliverable - 3055 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017

3069 Mail Returned from Salvatore Gangemi as Undeliverable - 3045 , 3047 , 3044 , 3042 , 3037 , 3050 , 3053 , 3048 , 3052 , 3041 , 3040 , 3054 , 3038 , 3046 , 3043 , 3051 , 3049 , 3039 Orders Granting Joint Motion for Indicative Rulings (jld) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

475/498

5/8/2020
04/28/2017
05/01/2017 05/01/2017 05/01/2017 05/01/2017 05/01/2017 05/01/2017 05/02/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

3070

OPINIONS AND ORDERS GRANTING motions for ﬁnal approval of settlement 2854 , 2856 , 2858 , 2860 , 2863 , 2865 , 2867 , 2871 , 2873 , 2875 , 2879 , 2923 and 2952 and GRANTING IN PART motions for attorneys fees and costs 2765 , 2769 , 2773 , 2774 , 2781 , 2782 , 2790 , 2797 , 2799 , 2806 , 2816 , 2819 , and 2823 in 3:06cv428 (AL), 3:07cv272 (AZ), 3:07cv411 (GA), 3:05cv390 (IN), 3:08cv193 (LA), 3:06cv485 (MD), 3:05cv533 (MN), 3:05cv595 (NJ), 3:05cv538 (NY), 3:07cv326 (NC), 3:08cv336 (OH), 3:05cv597 (PA), and 3:05cv599 (RI). (See individual cases for copies of each opinion and order). Approved by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/28/2017. (dk) (Entered: 04/28/2017)

3181

OPINION AND ORDER The court OVERRULES Kevin Pattersons objection to the proposed settlement in 3:05cv600, Doc. 218 ; GRANTS IN PART the plaintiffs unopposed 2883 motion for ﬁnal approval of the Tennessee class action settlement calling for payment of $12,250,000 to the plaintiffs; GRANTS IN PART the plaintiffs 2827 motion for attorneys fees and costs; and DISMISSES with prejudice this action, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees, except as provided in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/1/17. (jld) (Entered: 01/17/2018)

3182

OPINION AND ORDER The court OVERRULES the objections by Randall Brock and Charles Hughes, (Doc. Nos. 206 and 208 in 3:05-cv-668); GRANTS the plaintiffs unopposed 2881 motion for ﬁnal approval of the South Carolina class action settlement calling for payment of $3,100,000 to the plaintiffs; GRANTS IN PART the plaintiffs 2805 motion for attorneys fees and costs; and DISMISSES with prejudice this action with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees, except as provided in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/1/17. (jld) (Entered: 01/17/2018)

3183

OPINION AND ORDER The court GRANTS the plaintiffs unopposed 2885 motion for ﬁnal approval of the Texas class action settlement calling for payment of $8,900,000 to the plaintiffs; DENIES Derick Allen Jordan's request to opt out of the settlement; GRANTS IN PART the plaintiffs 2813 motion for attorneys fees and costs; and DISMISSES with prejudice this action, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees, except as provided in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/1/17. (jld) (Entered: 01/17/2018)

3184

OPINION AND ORDER The court GRANTS the plaintiffs unopposed 2887 motion for ﬁnal approval of the Utah class action settlement calling for payment of $2,400,000 to the plaintiffs; GRANTS IN PART the plaintiffs 2831 motion for attorneys fees and costs; and DISMISSES with prejudice this action, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees, except as provided in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/1/17. (jld) (Entered: 01/17/2018)

3185

OPINION AND ORDER The court GRANTS the plaintiffs unopposed 2889 motion for ﬁnal approval of the West Virginia class action settlement calling for payment of $3,575,000 to the plaintiffs; GRANTS IN PART the plaintiffs 2835 motion for attorneys fees and costs; and DISMISSES with prejudice this action, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees, except as provided in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/1/17. (jld) (Entered: 01/17/2018)

3186

OPINION AND ORDER The court GRANTS the plaintiffs unopposed 2891 motion for ﬁnal approval of the Wisconsin class action settlement calling for payment of $5,500,000 to the plaintiffs; GRANTS IN PART the plaintiffs 2839 motion for attorneys fees and costs; and DISMISSES with prejudice this action, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees, except as provided in the order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/1/17. (jld) (Entered: 01/17/2018)

3071 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - 3055 Order on Motion for

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

476/498

5/8/2020
05/05/2017 05/22/2017 06/07/2017
06/12/2017 06/16/2017
06/19/2017 06/19/2017
06/21/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 05/02/2017)

3072 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - 3045 , 3047 , 3044 , 3042 , 3037 , 3050 , 3053 , 3048 , 3052 , 3041 , 3040 , 3054 , 3038 , 3046 , 3043 , 3051 , 3049 , & 3039 Orders on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 05/09/2017)

3073 ORDER: The court GRANTS the class representatives motion for a stay. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/22/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-MGG(dk) (Entered: 05/22/2017)

3074

MANDATE of USCA as to Notices of Cross Appeal ﬁled by FedEx Ground # 2381 , 2397 , 2399 , 2391 , 2377 , 2403 , 2387 , 2389 , 2395 , 2383 , 2379 , 2401 , 2375 , 2371 , 2373 , 2393 ; and Notices of Appeal ﬁled by Plaintiffs, # 2315 , 2289 , 2493 , 2313 , 2127 , 2311 , 2297 , 2295 , 2317 , 2307 , 2491 , 2321 , 2309 , 2299 , 2305 , 2301 , 2285 , 2291 , 2303 , 2287 , 2319 . All of the pending appeals except Tofaute v. FedEx Ground, No. 11-1131, are voluntarily DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b); It is further ORDERED that the parties shall ﬁle a further status report in appeal No. 11-1131 by 8/15/17 or within ten days of any district court order affecting the status of the appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁed Final Order)(jld) (Entered: 06/09/2017)

3075

OPINION AND ORDER: The class representatives motion for attorney fees and costs ﬁled in cause no. 3:05cv595 Tofaute et al. v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc [Doc. No. 259] is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/12/2017. (dk) Modiﬁed on 6/12/2017 (dk). Modiﬁed on 6/12/2017 (dk). (Entered: 06/12/2017)

3076

Joint STIPULATION and Proposed Order Regarding Settlement of ERISA Claims, ﬁling of Fifth Amended Complaint, and Entry of Partial Final Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 54(B) regarding Settlement of Non ERISA Claims by Plaintiffs Neal Bergkamp, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Mike Moore, Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry, Keith Barry, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Fifth Amend Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B - Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMMGG(Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 06/16/2017)

3077

ORDER: GRANTING 3076 Stipulation to amend the complaint in case 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG; DIRECTING the Clerk to show the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint FILED as of the date of this order; and SETTING this matter for a telephonic scheduling conference on Monday 7/10/2017 at 1:00 PM (EDT) with the court to initiate the call. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/19/17. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

3078

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 2862 Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for ﬁnal approval of the Kansas class action settlement calling for payment of $15,900,000 to the plaintiffs; GRANTING IN PART the 2789 motion for attorney's fees and costs; and DISMISSING all claims, except the ERISA claim, with prejudice, speciﬁcally including the Released Claims with each party to bear its own costs and attorney's fees except as provided in the Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/19/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

3079

MOTION to Allow the Firm of Lichten & Liss-Riordan to Participate in the Telephonic Scheduling Conference Related to the Proposed ERISA Settlement re (3077 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG) Order on Stipulation, by Plaintiffs Ronald Perry, Alan Pacheco. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(LissRiordan, Shannon) (Entered: 06/21/2017)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

477/498

5/8/2020
06/22/2017 06/26/2017
06/27/2017 06/28/2017 06/30/2017
07/06/2017

3080

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ORDER: GRANTING ( 3079 in 3:05md527 & 255 in 3:05cv530) Motion to participate in the July 10 telephonic scheduling conference. Counsel must provide the court with conctact information at least two business days before the conference. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/22/17. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 06/22/2017)

3081

MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Relevant to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to the MDL State Class Attorneys by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum In Support of Motion to Compel, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 18)(Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 06/26/2017)

3082

ORDER: The list of the Kansas class members, Exhibit A to the Opinion and Order entered on June 19, 2017 is attached and incorporated by reference to that order (Doc. No. 253 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, and Doc. No. 3078 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMMGG). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 6/27/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

3083

MOTION to Stay re 3081 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Relevant to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to the MDL State Class Attorneys by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

3084

RESPONSE to Motion re 3083 MOTION to Stay re 3081 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Relevant to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to the MDL State Class Attorneys MDL State Class Attorneys' Memorandum in Opposition to Co-Lead Counsel's Motion to Stay Proceedings on the Motion to Compel ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 06/30/2017)

3085

TRANSCRIPT of FAIRNESS HEARING held on MARCH 13, 2017, before Judge ROBERT L. MILLER, JR.. Court Reporter DEBRA J. BONK, Telephone number 574 246 8039/debra_bonk@innd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

IMPORTANT: Notice is hereby given that an ofﬁcial transcript of a proceeding has been ﬁled by the court reporter in the above matter. The parties have 7 calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the ﬁling of the transcript, a Redaction Request Transcript shall be e-ﬁled with the Court. Access to this request will be restricted to the Court and attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Redaction Request are ﬁled, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the Court Reporter. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identiﬁers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

478/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

07/06/2017

Notice of Intent to Redact due 7/17/2017. Redaction Request due 7/27/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/7/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/4/2017. (db) (Main Document 3085 replaced on 7/6/2017) (ksc). (Entered: 07/06/2017)

3086

TRANSCRIPT of FAIRNESS HEARING held on MARCH 14, 2017, before Judge ROBERT L. MILLER, JR. Court Reporter DEBRA J. BONK, Telephone number 574 246 8039/debra_bonk@innd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

IMPORTANT: Notice is hereby given that an ofﬁcial transcript of a proceeding has been ﬁled by the court reporter in the above matter. The parties have 7 calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the ﬁling of the transcript, a Redaction Request Transcript shall be e-ﬁled with the Court. Access to this request will be restricted to the Court and attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Redaction Request are ﬁled, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the Court Reporter. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identiﬁers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

07/06/2017 07/07/2017

Notice of Intent to Redact due 7/17/2017. Redaction Request due 7/27/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/7/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/4/2017. (db) (Entered: 07/06/2017)

3088

ORDER: GRANTING 3083 Motion to Stay proceedings on the pending Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Proceedings on the motion to compel production 3081 will be STAYED until 7/28/2017. The parties are directed to meet and confer on the modiﬁed request for production by 7/21/2017; to resolve the matter without court action, if possible; and to ﬁle a status report by 7/28/2017 identify what issues, if any, remain. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 7/6/17. (jld) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

3087

TRANSCRIPT of HEARING held on JANUARY 12, 2017, before Judge ROBERT L. MILLER, JR.. Court Reporter DEBRA J. BONK, Telephone number 574 220 6474 / debra_bonk@innd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

IMPORTANT: Notice is hereby given that an ofﬁcial transcript of a proceeding has been ﬁled by the court reporter in the above matter. The parties have 7 calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the ﬁling of the transcript, a Redaction Request Transcript shall be e-ﬁled with the Court. Access to this request will be restricted to the Court and attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Redaction Request are ﬁled, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the Court Reporter. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

479/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
redacting these personal identiﬁers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

Notice of Intent to Redact due 7/18/2017. Redaction Request due 7/28/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/7/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/5/2017. (db) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

07/10/2017

3089

TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE held on 7/10/2017 before Judge Robert L Miller, Jr. Pla appeared by attys B. Ross, M. Houston, S. Ellingstad, S. Burrows. FedEx appeared by attys J. Milcoff, J. English, J. Norris, S. Voelz. Following discussion, the court instructed the parties to ﬁle stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval in Craig et al v. FedEx Grd, 3:05cv530, by 8/11/2017; outline of objections to be submitted by 8/25/2017, not to exceed 5 pages; and response to outline to be ﬁled by 8/29/2017, not to exceed 5 pages. (Court Reporter D. Bonk.) (dk) Modiﬁed on 7/11/2017 (dk). (Entered: 07/10/2017)

07/11/2017

3090 REPORT by All Plaintiffs of Proposed Allocation of the Attorney's Fees. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/11/2017)

07/11/2017

3091 AFFIDAVIT of Susan E. Ellingstad re 3090 Report (Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel) by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-5)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/11/2017)

07/12/2017

3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 07/12/2017)

07/14/2017 3093 NOTICE by Derek D Willis regarding Motion to Compel (Lichten PHV, Harold) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

07/20/2017

Set Deadlines per 3089 status conference: Stipulation of Settlement due by 8/11/2017; Outline of objections to be ﬁled by 8/25/2017; Response to outline to be ﬁled by 8/29/2017. (dk) (Entered: 07/20/2017)

07/25/2017

3094

MOTION to Stay re 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof MDL State Class Attorneys' Motion to Stay Proceedings on Co-Lead Counsel's Motion for Approval of the Proposed Allocation of Attorney's Fees by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

07/26/2017

3095 Application for Attorney Peter N Wasylyk to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Raymond Tierney; Thomas Westcott. (MDL-PHV Temporary Login, ) (Entered: 07/26/2017)

07/27/2017

3096

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 3081 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Relevant to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to the MDL State Class Attorneys, 3094 MOTION to Stay re 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof MDL State Class Attorneys' Motion to Stay Proceedings on Co-Lead Counsel's Motion for Approval of the Proposed Allocation of Attorney's F ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/27/2017)

07/27/2017

3097

AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 3081 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Relevant to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to the MDL State Class Attorneys, 3094 MOTION to Stay re 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof MDL State Class Attorneys' Motion to Stay

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

480/498

5/8/2020
07/28/2017 07/28/2017
07/31/2017 08/01/2017 08/01/2017 08/01/2017
08/02/2017 08/02/2017 08/02/2017 08/02/2017 08/02/2017 08/02/2017 08/02/2017 08/03/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Proceedings on Co-Lead Counsel's Motion for Approval of the Proposed Allocation of Attorney's F ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/27/2017)

3098 Application for Attorney Palmer Freeman to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Whetstone Perkins & Fulda. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Cert of Good Standing) (MDL-PHV Temporary Login, ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

3099

STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report on the MDL State Class Attorneys' Motion to Compel Production and Motion to Stay by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 07/28/2017)

3100 Application for Attorney Tina L. Morin to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Carlson et al. (MDL-PHV Temporary Login, ) (Entered: 07/31/2017)

3101 Application for Attorney Donald R. Taylor to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of John Humphreys, et al.. (MDL-PHV Temporary Login, ) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

3102 Application for Attorney Jennifer Tatum Lee to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of John Humphreys, et al.. (MDL-PHV Temporary Login, ) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

3103

MOTION for Extension of Time to File MDL State Class Attorneys' Reply Memorandum in Further Support of their Motion to Compel and in Further Support of their Motion to Stay Proceedings by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

3104 ORDER granting 3100 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Tina L Morin PHV for David E Carlson, Donald E Carlson and Rob Carlson. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/2/17. (mtr) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

3105 ORDER granting 3101 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Donald R Taylor PHV for John Humphreys. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/2/17. (mtr) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

3106 ORDER granting 3102 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Jennifer Tatum Lee PHV for John Humphreys. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/2/17. (mtr) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

3107 ORDER granting 3095 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Peter N Wasylyk PHV for Raymond Tierney, and Thomas Westcott. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/2/17. (mtr) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

3108 MOTION Arbitration by Petitioner Whetstone Perkins & Fulda. (Attachments: # 1 Memoranda in Support, # 2 Exhibit Agreement)(Freeman PHV, Palmer) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

3109 MOTION Arbitration by Petitioner Whetstone Perkins & Fulda. (Attachments: # 1 Memoranda in Support, # 2 Exhibit Agreement)(Freeman PHV, Palmer) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

3110 ORDER granting 3098 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Palmer Freeman PHV for Palmer Freeman. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/2/17. (mtr) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

3111 ORDER granting 3103 Motion for Extension of Time to File; Reply Memorandum to be

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

481/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ﬁled by 8/10/2017. Approved by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/3/2017. (dk) (Entered: 08/03/2017)

08/07/2017

3112 Application for Attorney Mary Donne Peters to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Georgia Plaintiffs. (MDL-PHV Temporary Login, ) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/07/2017

3113 Application for Attorney Michael J. Gorby to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Georgia Plaintiffs. (MDL-PHV Temporary Login, ) (Entered: 08/07/2017)

08/07/2017

3115 ORDER A hearing on the state class attorneys' motion to compel production and motion to stay is set for Wednesday 8/16/2017 at 10:00 AM (EDT) in US District Court - South Bend before Judge Robert L Miller Jr.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/7/17. (jld) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

08/09/2017

3114 MEMORANDUM in Support of 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof ﬁled by Palmer Freeman, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Allocation chart, # 2 Exhibit Afﬁdavit from California Fed Ex)(Freeman PHV, Palmer) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/10/2017

3116 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3094 MOTION to Stay re 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof MDL State Class Attorneys' Motion to Stay Proceedings on Co-Lead Counsel's Motion for Approval of the Proposed Allocation of Attorney's F Reply Memorandum in Further Support of MDL State Class Attorneys' Motion to Stay Proceedings on Co-Lead Counsel's Motion for Approval of the Proposed Allocation of Attorneys' Fees ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Janie L Foster, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

08/10/2017

3117 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3081 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Relevant to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to the MDL State Class Attorneys MDL State Class Attorneys' Reply Memorandum in Further Support of their Motion to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Carlene M Craig, Janie L Foster, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6)(Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

08/11/2017

3118 MOTION for Extension of Time to File the ERISA Stipulation of Settlement and Motion for Preliminary Approval by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMMGG(Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/11/2017

3119 NOTICE by Lawrence Asbury Withdrawing Objection to Motion to Compel (Ellis PHV, Damon) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/11/2017

3120 MOTION to appoint Special Master by Miscellaneous Party Palmer Freeman, Jr. (Freeman PHV, Palmer) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/11/2017

3121 MEMORANDUM in Support of 3120 MOTION to appoint Special Master ﬁled by Palmer Freeman, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Freeman PHV, Palmer) (Entered: 08/11/2017)

08/14/2017

3122 ORDER granting 3112 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Mary Donne Peters PHV for Georgia Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/14/17. (mtr) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

08/14/2017 3123 ORDER granting 3113 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Michael J Gorby PHV for Georgia Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/14/17. (mtr)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

482/498

5/8/2020
08/14/2017 08/15/2017
08/15/2017
08/16/2017 08/16/2017 08/16/2017 08/16/2017 08/16/2017
08/18/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
(Entered: 08/14/2017)

3124 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply to State Attorneys' Motion to Compel Production by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 08/14/2017)

3125

ORDER: DENYING 3124 Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply in case 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG. Any additional responsive arguments can be made at the hearing on 8/16/16. (Also Denying DE 264 in case 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG; DE 226 in case 3:05-cv-00540-RLM-MGG; DE 225 in case 3:05-cv-00668-RLM-MGG; DE 157 in case 3:07-cv-00326-RLM-MGG; and DE 153 in case 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-MGG ). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/15/17. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(jld) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

3126

ORDER granting 3118 Motion for Extension of Time in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMMGG (DE 263 in case 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG ). Plaintiff given to/including 9/8/2017 to ﬁle the ERISA stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval; Plaintiffs Perry and Pacheco shall have until 9/22/2017 to ﬁle their outline of objections, and the remaining named ERISA plaintiffs shall have until 9/29/2017 to ﬁle any reply to those objections. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/15/17. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

3127 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 3108 MOTION Arbitration , 3109 MOTION Arbitration ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

3128 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 3108 MOTION Arbitration , 3109 MOTION Arbitration (Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

3129 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 3108 MOTION Arbitration , 3109 MOTION Arbitration (Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr.) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-E) (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

3130 RESPONSE to Motion re 3108 MOTION Arbitration , 3109 MOTION Arbitration in North Carolina and South Carolina ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Marchetti, Anthony) (Entered: 08/16/2017)

3132

MOTION HEARING held on 8/16/2017 before Judge Robert L Miller, Jr. Pla appeared by attys Ross, Ellingstad, Harwood, Rudd. State class appeared by attys Barton, Burrows, Whetstone, Peters, Tatum-Lee. FedEx appeared telephonically by atty B. Ferron re 3081 MOTION to Compel Co-Lead Counsel to Produce Documents and Information Relevant to the Appropriate Allocation of Attorneys' Fees to the MDL State Class Attorneys, 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ; the Proposed Allocation thereof MDL State Class Attorneys' Motion to Stay Proceedings on Co-Lead Counsel's Motion for Approval of the Proposed Allocation of Attorney's. Arguments heard. For the reasons stated in open court, the state class attorneys' motion to compel production 3081 is DENIED, and their motion to stay proceedings 3094 is GRANTED, in part. Proceedings on the motion to approve proposed allocation of fees Doc. No. 3092 are STAYED until 9/6/2017; the moving parties in Craig 3:05cv530 (KS), Humphreys, 3:05cv540 (TX), and White, 3:07cv411 (GA) shall have to and including 8/30/2017 to ﬁle any objections to that motion; and Co-Lead Counsel and the PSC shall have until 9/6/2017 to ﬁle their reply. A hearing will be set, if necessary, after brieﬁng is complete. (Court Reporter D. Bonk.) (dk) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

3131 TRANSCRIPT of HEARING held on AUGUST 16, 2017, before Judge ROBERT L. MILLER, JR. Court Reporter DEBRA J. BONK, Telephone number

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

483/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
debra_bonk@innd.uscourts.gov/574.246.8039. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

IMPORTANT: Notice is hereby given that an ofﬁcial transcript of a proceeding has been ﬁled by the court reporter in the above matter. The parties have 7 calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the ﬁling of the transcript, a Redaction Request Transcript shall be e-ﬁled with the Court. Access to this request will be restricted to the Court and attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Redaction Request are ﬁled, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the Court Reporter. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identiﬁers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

08/21/2017 08/21/2017 08/23/2017 08/23/2017 08/25/2017 08/25/2017
08/28/2017
08/28/2017 08/28/2017 08/28/2017

Notice of Intent to Redact due 8/29/2017. Redaction Request due 9/8/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/18/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/16/2017. (db) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

3133 Mail Returned from Salvatore G Gangemi as Undeliverable - 3115 ORDER,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

3134 Mail Returned from Richard Tanenbaum as Undeliverable - 3115 ORDER,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

3135 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3108 MOTION Arbitration , 3109 MOTION Arbitration ﬁled by Palmer Freeman, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit)(Freeman PHV, Palmer) (Entered: 08/23/2017)

3138 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - 3115 ORDER,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

3136 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 3132 Motion Hearing,,,,, Report of Proposed Allocation of the Attorney's Fees by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

3137

RESPONSE to Motion re (152 in 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-MGG) MOTION to appoint Special Master Revised ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMMGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-MGG(Houston, Matthew) (Entered: 08/25/2017)

3139

ORDER granting (3136) Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. Reply to be ﬁled by 9/11/2017 to the objections to the proposed allocation of attorney's fees (in case 3:05md-00527-RLM-MGG ). Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/28/17. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00540-RLMMGG, 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 08/28/2017)

3140 Mail Returned from B James Fitzpatrick as Undeliverable - 3115 ORDER,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

3141 Mail Returned from Todd J O'Malley as Undeliverable - 3115 ORDER,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

3142 Mail Returned from Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez as Undeliverable - 3115 ORDER,,

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

484/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/29/2017

Set Deadlines: Reply to the objections to the proposed allocation of attorney's fees to be ﬁled by 9/11/2017. (per entry 3136 in 3:05md527) Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00540-RLM-MGG, 3:07-cv-00411RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

08/30/2017

3143

Whetstone Perkins & Fulda, LLC's OBJECTIONS to co-lead Counsel's Proposed Fee and Expense Allocation by Palmer Freeman, Jr to 3090 Report . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit: Declaration of John P. Freeman Regarding Aspects of MDL Counsel's Treatment of Certain State Law Firms)(Freeman PHV, Palmer) Modiﬁed on 8/31/2017 to correct docket text (nae). (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/30/2017

3144

OBJECTIONS of Counsel Lore and Freeman, State Counsel for North and South Carolina, to the Proposed Allocation of Attorney's Fees by Co-lead MDL Counsel by Palmer Freeman, Jr to 3090 Report . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of John P. Freeman, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of R. James Lore)(Freeman PHV, Palmer) Modiﬁed on 8/31/2017 to correct docket text (nae). (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/30/2017

3145

OBJECTION by Law Ofﬁces of George A. Barton to 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10)(Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 08/30/2017)

08/30/2017 3147 Mail Returned from Karen P Kruse (Not at this address, moved out) as Undeliverable 3115 ORDER,, Set Hearings,. (jld) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

08/31/2017

3148 First MOTION to Withdraw 3146 Response to Motion, Gorby Peters & Associates LLC's Objections to Co-Lead Counsel's Proposed Fee and Expense Allocation by Plaintiff Ernest White. (Gorby PHV, Michael) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

08/31/2017

3149

RESPONSE to Motion re 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof Co-Lead Counsel's Proposed Fee and Expense Allocation ﬁled by Ernest White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Mary Donne Peters, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of John Freeman)(Gorby PHV, Michael) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

09/01/2017

3150 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3120 MOTION to appoint Special Master and 3137 MDL Class Counsels' Response ﬁled by Ernest White. (Gorby PHV, Michael) (Entered: 09/01/2017)

09/05/2017

3151

ORDER granting 3148 Motion to Withdraw in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG. The Clerk is directed to show the response [Doc. No. 3146] withdrawn. The redacted response ﬁled on August 31 [Doc. No. 3149] is deemed to be timely ﬁled. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/5/2017. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:07-cv-00411-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 09/07/2017)

09/08/2017

3152 MOTION for Settlement : Preliminary Approval of the Proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017

3153

MEMORANDUM in Support of (269 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, 3152 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG) MOTION for Settlement : Preliminary Approval of the Proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

09/08/2017 3154 AFFIDAVIT in Support re (269 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, 3152 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG) MOTION for Settlement : Preliminary Approval of the Proposed ERISA

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

485/498

5/8/2020
09/11/2017 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 09/12/2017 09/12/2017 09/18/2017

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Class Action Settlement (JOINT DECLARATION) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Joint Decl. In Support of Motion - Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Exh A - Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Exh A - Settlement Agreement, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Exh A - Settlement Agreement, # 5 Exhibit 4 to Exh A - Settlement Agreement, # 6 Exhibit 5 to Exh A - Settlement Agreement, # 7 Exhibit 6 to Exh A Settlement Agreement, # 8 Exhibit 7 to Exh A - Settlement Agreement, # 9 Exhibit 8 to Exh A - Settlement Agreement, # 10 Exhibit 9 to Exh A - Settlement Agreement, # 11 Exhibit 10 to Exh A - Settlement Agreement, # 12 Exhibit B to Joint Decl. In Support of Motion - Claim Rejection Letters, # 13 Exhibit C to Joint Decl. In Support of Motion Plan Amendments)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530RLM-MGG(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

3155 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof and in Response to Gorby Peters' Objections ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

3156 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof and in Response to Barton's Objections ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

3157 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof in Response to Whetstone and Lore's Objections ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

3158 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof and in Response to Whetstone's Objections ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

3159 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3092 MOTION for Attorney Fees ;the Proposed Allocation thereof and in Response to Taylor Dunham's Objections (TX Doc. No. 233) ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

3160

***WITHDRAWN PER ORDER 3165 ON 9/18/2017*** Sealed Document re 3158 Reply to Response to Motion, 3156 Reply to Response to Motion, 3155 Reply to Response to Motion, 3159 Reply to Response to Motion, 3157 Reply to Response to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-16)(Ellingstad, Susan) Modiﬁed on 9/18/2017 (jld). (Entered: 09/11/2017)

3161

Sealed Document re 3158 Reply to Response to Motion, 3156 Reply to Response to Motion, 3155 Reply to Response to Motion, 3159 Reply to Response to Motion, 3157 Reply to Response to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

3162

Sealed Document re 3158 Reply to Response to Motion, 3156 Reply to Response to Motion, 3155 Reply to Response to Motion, 3159 Reply to Response to Motion, 3157 Reply to Response to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/11/2017)

3163 MOTION for Leave to File Corrected Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad and Exhibits 1-16 by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2017)

3164 Sealed Document re 3163 MOTION for Leave to File Corrected Declaration of Susan E. Ellingstad and Exhibits 1-16. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-16)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/12/2017)

3165 ORDER RE: CO-LEAD COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CORRECTED DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS: GRANTING 3163 Motion for Leave to File a Corrected Declaration. The un-redacted declaration and exhibits ﬁled on 9/11/2017 (DE

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

486/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
3160 ) are WITHDRAWN and the Clerk is instructed to mark the docket accordingly; The request to maintain the Corrected Declaration of Susan E Ellingstad and Exhibits 116 (DE 3164 ) under seal pursuant to the protective order entered in January 2006 (DE 101 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/18/17. (jld) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

09/22/2017

3166

OBJECTION by Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry to (3153 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) Memorandum in Support, (3152 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) MOTION for Settlement : Preliminary Approval of the Proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement . (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Afﬁdavit of Ronald Perry, # 2 Afﬁdavit Afﬁdavit of Alan Pacheco)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMMGG(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/29/2017

3167 Sealed Document re (272 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, 3166 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMMGG) Objection,. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530RLM-MGG(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

09/29/2017

3168

Sealed Document re (273 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, 3167 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMMGG) Sealed Document, (272 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, 3166 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG) Objection,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Houston Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B to Houston Declaration)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05cv-00530-RLM-MGG(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

09/30/2017 3169 Sealed Document. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 09/30/2017)

10/03/2017

3170 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Objection by Plaintiffs Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Reply)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLMMGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 10/03/2017)

10/05/2017

3171

ORDER in case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG; granting (275) Motion for Leave to File in case 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 10/5/17. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(ksp) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/05/2017 3172 Plaintiff-Objectors Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco's Reply in Support of Objection to Proposed Settlement of ERISA Claims. (ksp) (Entered: 10/05/2017)

10/06/2017

3173

MOTION for Leave to File by Plaintiffs Mike Callahan, Rob Carlson, Penny Massa, Michael Wise. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Objection to Costs, # 2 Exhibit Harwood Letters, # 3 Exhibit T&E Reports, # 4 Exhibit Lynn Faris Email)(Morin PHV, Tina) (Entered: 10/06/2017)

10/10/2017 3174 RESPONSE to Motion re 3173 MOTION for Leave to File ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

10/16/2017

3175

MANDATE of USCA as to (269 Notice of Appeal, ﬁled by Michael B Kilmartin, David McMahon, Michael Tofaute, Patrick Carrigan, Thomas Mikulski, Francis Dennis Lynch, 201 USCA Order, in case 3:05-cv-595): Upon consideration of the UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 42(b), ﬁled on October 13, 2017, by counsel for the appellants, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁed Order)(nae) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

10/18/2017

3176 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3173 MOTION for Leave to File ﬁled by Mike Callahan, Rob Carlson, Penny Massa, Michael Wise. (Morin PHV, Tina) (Entered: 10/18/2017)

10/18/2017 3177 MANDATE of USCA The appeal of FedEx Ground Package System Inc is DISMISSED

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

487/498

5/8/2020
11/20/2017 12/14/2017 12/18/2017
02/21/2018 02/28/2018
03/02/2018 03/02/2018 03/12/2018 03/15/2018

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). (Attachments: # 1 Certiﬁed Final Order)(jld) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

3178 Mail Returned from Joree Brownlow as Undeliverable - 3115 ORDER,, Set Hearings,. (marked not deliverable as addressed) (jld) (Entered: 11/22/2017)

3179

Joint MOTION For An Extension Of Time For Second Round Distribution Of Settlement Payments And To Submit List Of Class Members And Authorization To Use Reserve Funds To Compensate An Investigator by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/14/2017)

3180

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SECOND ROUND DISTRIGUTION OF SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS AND TO SUBMIT FINAL LIST OF CLASS MEMBERS AND AUTHORIZATION TO USE RESERVE FUNDS TO COMPENSATE AN INVESTIGATOR re: 3179 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG. The time for the Settlement Administrator to distribute funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund and Reserve Fund to eligible class members who cashed their ﬁrst-round settlement payments is extended to 4/30/2018. FedEx Ground to submit additional class members eligible for Reserve Fund claims is 3/16/2018. Additionally co-lead counsel are authorized to pay reasonable compensation for an investigator of their choice to assist in locating missing class members from the Reserve Funds established in the applicable constituent case. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/18/17. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(jld) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

3187

MOTION Extension of Time for Second Round Distribution of Settlement Payments, to Submit List of Class Members and Authorization to Use Reserve Funds to Compensate an Investigator by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595-RLMMGG(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 02/21/2018)

3188

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SECOND ROUND DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS AND TO SUBMIT LIST OF CLASS MEMBERS AND AUTHORIZATION TO USE RESERVE FUNDS TO COMPENSATE AN INVESTIGATOR in case 3:05-md-00527-RLMMGG. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 2/28/2018. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00595-RLM-MGG(dk) (Entered: 02/28/2018)

3189

SUPPLEMENT Supplemental Statement In Support of The Law Ofﬁces of George A Barton, P.C.'s Objections to Co-Lead Counsel's Proposed Fee and Expense Allocation ﬁled by Law Ofﬁces of George A. Barton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4)(Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 03/02/2018)

3190

CO-LEAD COUNSELS RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON, P.C.S OBJECTIONS TO CO-LEAD COUNSELS PROPOSED FEE AND EXPENSE ALLOCATION by All Plaintiffs to 3189 Supplement, . (Ross, Beth) (Entered: 03/02/2018)

3191 Mail Returned from Salvatore Gangemi as Undeliverable - 3188 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 03/12/2018)

3192 STATEMENT in Support of Gorby Peters & Associates, LLC Objections to Co-lead Counsel's Proposed Fee And Expense Allocation regarding (3189 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG) Supplement, ﬁled by Law Ofﬁces of George A. Barton. (Attachments: # 1

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

488/498

5/8/2020
03/15/2018 03/15/2018 03/16/2018
03/19/2018 03/26/2018 03/30/2018
04/05/2018 04/10/2018 04/12/2018 04/16/2018 04/16/2018 04/17/2018 04/20/2018 04/24/2018 04/30/2018 05/07/2018

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Exhibit A)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(Peters PHV, Mary) (Entered: 03/15/2018)

3193 Mail Returned from Richard Tanenbaum as Undeliverable - 3188 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

3195 Mail Returned from Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez as Undeliverable - 3188 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

3194

NOTICE by All FedEx Ground Defendants (Defendant FedEx Ground's Notice Of Filing Of Supplemental Class Member Lists) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A, # 2 Attachment B, # 3 Attachment C, # 4 Attachment D, # 5 Attachment E, # 6 Attachment F, # 7 Attachment G, # 8 Attachment H, # 9 Attachment I, # 10 Attachment J, # 11 Attachment K, # 12 Attachment L, # 13 Attachment M, # 14 Attachment N, # 15 Proposed Order)(Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

3196 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - 3188 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. (jld) (Entered: 03/21/2018)

3197 Receipt of Letter from Halunen Law (jld) (Entered: 03/27/2018)

3198

ORDER: Plaintiffs Co-Lead Counsel, Robert Harwood ﬁled identical motions forapproval of the proposed allocation of attorneys fees in the master case [Doc. No. 3092] and each of the cases listed in attached Exhibit A. To avoid unnecessary duplication, the court consolidates the motions with Doc. No. 3092, and directs the Clerk to term the motions listed on Exhibit A. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/30/18. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(dk) (Entered: 03/30/2018)

3199 ORDER: Individuals to be included as members of speciﬁc settlement classes as detailed in the attached order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/5/2018. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al. (dk) (Entered: 04/05/2018)

3200 Mail Returned from Karen P Kruse as Undeliverable - 3198 Order,. (jld) (Entered: 04/11/2018)

3201 Mail Returned from Todd J. O'Malley (attempted not known) as Undeliverable - 3198 Order,. (jld) (Entered: 04/12/2018)

3202 Mail Returned from Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez as Undeliverable - 3198 Order,. (jld) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

3203 Mail Returned from B James Fitzpatrick as Undeliverable - 3198 Order,. (jld) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

3204 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - 3198 Order,. (jld) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

3206 Mail Returned from Salvatore Gangemi as Undeliverable - Not Deliverable as Addressed re: 3199 Order. (nae) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

3205 Mail Returned from Richard Tanenbaum as Undeliverable - Unable to Forward, not deliverable as addressed re: 3199 Order. (nae) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

3207 Mail Returned from Joree Brownlow as Undeliverable - 3198 Order,. (jld) (Entered: 05/01/2018)

3208

ORDER The Court GRANTS IN PART the plaintiffs 3092 motion for approval of the proposed allocation of attorneys fees in the uncontested cases and DIRECTING that allocation to the participating law ﬁrms in those cases be made as set forth in the Allocation Report (Doc. No. 3090 ); DEFERRING ruling on the motion for approval of

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

489/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
the proposed allocation of fees in the contested cases: Craig v. FedEx Ground Pkg. Systems, Inc., 3:05cv530 (KS); Humphreys v. FedEx Ground Pkg. Systems, Inc., 3:05cv540 (TX); Cooke v. FedEx Ground Pkg. Systems, Inc., 3:05cv668 (SC); Whiteside et al v. FedEx Ground Pkg. Systems, Inc., 3:07cv326 (NC); White v. FedEx Ground Pkg. Systems, Inc., 3:07cv411 (GA); DENYING the motion for leave to ﬁle objections regarding the proposed allocation of fees in Carlson v. FedEx Ground Pkg. Systems, Inc., 3:06cv393, (Doc. No. 3173 ); DENYING the motions to arbitrate (Doc. Nos. 3108 , 3109 , and 222 in 3:05-cv-540]; and GRANTING the motion to appoint a special master (Doc. No. 3120 ), and affording co-lead parties and the objecting law ﬁrms until May 21, 2018 to agree on a special master or to suggest alternatives to the court's nominee. Absent such an agreement or persuasive suggestion Hon. James Rosenbaum, retired U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota, to serve as the special master. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/7/18. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(jld (Entered: 05/07/2018)

05/07/2018 3209 Mail Returned from Todd J O'Malley as Undeliverable - Not Deliverable as Addressed, unable to forward re: 3199 Order. (nae) (Entered: 05/08/2018)

05/09/2018 3210 Mail Returned from Robert McDaniel as Undeliverable - Not Deliverable as Addressed, unable to Forward re: 3199 Order. (nae) (Entered: 05/09/2018)

05/14/2018

3211 Mail Returned from David Duddleston as Undeliverable - 3208 ORDER (Not deliverable as addressed). (jld) (Entered: 05/16/2018)

05/16/2018 3213 Mail Returned from Karen Kruse as Undeliverable - 3208 ORDER. (jld) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/17/2018

3212

NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re (3208 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3208 in 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG) ORDER,,,,,, Terminate Motions,,,,, of Acceptance of Referral of Fee Allocation Disputes to the Honorable James Rosenbaum by Co-Lead Counsel and All Objecting Counsel Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(Ross, Beth) (Entered: 05/17/2018)

05/17/2018 3214 Mail Returned from Todd O'Malley as Undeliverable - 3208 ORDER. (jld) Modiﬁed on 5/23/2018 to correct ﬁled on date (jld). (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018

3215

ORDER , Hon. James Rosenbaum is appointed Special Master as set forth in the Order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/18/18. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG et al.(jld)(cc: Hon. James Rosenbaum, jrosenbaum@jamsadr.com) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

05/18/2018 3217 Mail Returned from Maureen H Kanter as Undeliverable - 3208 ORDER. (jld) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/21/2018 3216 Mail Returned from Salvatore G Gangemi as Undeliverable - 3208 ORDER. (jld) (Entered: 05/22/2018)

05/23/2018

3218 ORDER Order MODIFYING Paragraph 5 of the 5/18/2018 order appointing the special master to add provision as set forth in the Order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/23/18. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(jld) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018 3219 Mail Returned from Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez as Undeliverable - 3208 ORDER. (jld) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/23/2018 3220 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - 3208 ORDER. (jld) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

05/24/2018 3221 Mail Returned from Richard Tanenbaum as Undeliverable - 3208 ORDER. (jld) (Entered: 05/25/2018)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

490/498

5/8/2020
06/26/2018

3222

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
SPECIAL MASTER ORDER NO. 1 . Signed by James M. Rosenbaum, Special Master on 6/26/18. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(dk) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

07/05/2018 3223 Mail Returned from Karen Kruse as Undeliverable - 3222 ORDER. (jld) (Entered: 07/05/2018)

07/06/2018 3224 MOTION Mediation by Miscellaneous Party Palmer Freeman, Jr. (Freeman PHV, Palmer) (Entered: 07/06/2018)

07/09/2018 3225 Mail Returned from Salvatore Gangemi as Undeliverable - Not deliverable as addressed re 3222 ORDER. (jld) (Entered: 07/09/2018)

07/10/2018

3226

(ATTY LOGIN AND SIGNATURE DO NOT MATCH, SEE DE 3236 FOR CORRECTION)Preliminary MOTION for Attorney Fees Response to Doc 3222-1 order by Miscellaneous Party Palmer Freeman, Jr. (Freeman PHV, Palmer) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2018 to edit text (mlc). (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 3227 Proposed MOTION for Attorney Fees Response to Doc 3222-1 order by Miscellaneous Party Palmer Freeman, Jr. (Freeman PHV, Palmer) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 3228 Mail Returned from Robert E McDaniel as Undeliverable - Not deliverable as addressed, unable to Forward re: 3222 ORDER. (nae) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 3229 Mail Returned from Todd J O'Malley as Undeliverable - Not Deliverable as Addressed Unable to forward Re: 3222 ORDER. (nae) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 3230 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 3222 ORDER (Special Master Order No. 1) by Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018

3231

MEMORANDUM by Law Ofﬁces of George A. Barton to (286 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLMMGG) ORDER FROM SPECIAL MASTER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018 3232 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 3222 ORDER by John Humphreys. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Taylor PHV, Donald) (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/10/2018

3233

(ATTY LOGIN AND SIGNATURE DO NOT MATCH, SEE DE 3235 FOR CORRECTION)MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 3222 ORDER Gorby, Peters & Associates, LLC by Ernest White. (Peters PHV, Mary) Modiﬁed on 7/11/2018 to edit text (mlc). (Entered: 07/10/2018)

07/11/2018

3234 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 3215 ORDER,, Add and Terminate Parties, by All Plaintiffs. (Marchetti, Anthony) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/11/2018

3235 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 3222 ORDER Gorby, Peters & Associates, LLC by Ernest White. (Gorby PHV, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/13/2018 3236 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Miscellaneous Party Palmer Freeman, Jr. (Freeman PHV, Palmer) Modiﬁed on 7/13/2018 to edit text(mlc). (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/13/2018

3237 Mail Returned from David Duddleston as Undeliverable - Return to Sender, Undeliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward - 3222 ORDER. (rmc) (Entered: 07/13/2018)

07/16/2018 3238 Mail Returned from Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez as Undeliverable - No Such Name re: 3222 ORDER. (nae) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

08/23/2018 3239 ORDER The Special Master recommends that the Court enter an order approving the proposed fee allocations in these cases, as modiﬁed by the mutually agreed-upon

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

491/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
settlement terms. Signed by James M. Rosenbaum (ret), Special Master on 8/23/18. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(jld) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

08/28/2018

3240

ORDER GRANTING MODIFIED ALLOCATION OF ATTORNEYS' FEES Based on the Special Master's report that the settlement terms are fair and reasonable (DE 3239 ), the Court APPROVES the proposed allocation of attorney's fees, as modiﬁed. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/28/18. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG et al.(jld) (Entered: 08/28/2018)

09/05/2018

3241

OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed ERISA class action settlement ( 3152 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 269 in 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG) is GRANTED as set forth in the Opinion and Order. A Fairness Hearing is set for 3/11/2019 at 9:30 AM (EDT) in South Bend. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/5/18. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

09/20/2018

3242 ORDER Order correcting paragraph 8 in Section III of the September 5 order granting preliminary approval of the ERISA settlement (DE 3241 ) as set forth in this order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/20/18. (jld) (Entered: 09/21/2018)

10/19/2018

3243

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval for Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018

3244

MEMORANDUM in Support of 3243 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval for Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/19/2018

3245

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 3243 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval for Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs (Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

11/26/2018

3258 Letter requesting to opt-out from the Nationwide ERISA Class ﬁled by Edward C Nelson. (originally ﬁled in 3:05cv539) (jld) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

12/04/2018 3246 Letter from Patrick Wercinski objection to the nationwide ERISA Class Settlement. (jld) (Entered: 12/05/2018)

12/07/2018 3253 Letter requesting to opt-out from the Nationwide ERISA Class ﬁled by Floyd Hagen. (originally ﬁled in 3:05cv538) (jld) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

12/10/2018 3254 Letter requesting to opt-out from the Nationwide ERISA Class ﬁled by Gary Knott. (originally ﬁled in 3:05cv538) (jld) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

12/11/2018

3247

MOTION for Issuance of Supplemental Settlement Notice (Unopposed) by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/11/2018

3248

MEMORANDUM in Support of 3247 MOTION for Issuance of Supplemental Settlement Notice (Unopposed) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

492/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

12/11/2018

3249

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 3247 MOTION for Issuance of Supplemental Settlement Notice (Unopposed) (Declaration of Robert I. Harwood) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - proposed supplement settlement notice)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 12/11/2018)

12/11/2018

3250 ORDER GRANTING ISSUANCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT NOTICE . Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/11/18. Associated Cases: 3:05md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

01/02/2019 3255 Letter requesting to opt-out from the Nationwide ERISA Class ﬁled by Douglas M Bembenic. (originally ﬁled in 3:05cv538)(jld) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/03/2019 3259 Letter requesting to opt-out from the Nationwide ERISA Class ﬁled by Marilyn Halverson. (originally ﬁled in 3:05cv539) (jld) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/04/2019 3251 OBJECTION by Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry to Settlement and Notice of Intention to Appear at Fairness Hearing. (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019 3252 MEMORANDUM OF LAW re 3251 Objection to Final Settlement Approval by Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry. (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 01/04/2019)

01/04/2019 3256 Letter requesting to opt-out from the Nationwide ERISA Class ﬁled by Clayton Schwan. (originally ﬁled in 3:05cv538) (jld) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/07/2019 3257 Letter requesting to opt-out from the Nationwide ERISA Class ﬁled by Daniel Roberts. (originally ﬁled in 3:05cv538)(jld) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/10/2019

3260

ORDER: The court GRANTS the request for extension of time to consult with an attorney regarding the proposed settlement, and gives Mrs. Halverson to/including 1/31/2019 to ﬁle any objections she may have to the proposed settlement. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/10/19. (Copy mailed to pro se party)Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 01/11/2019)

01/11/2019

3261 OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT AND NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR AT FAIRNESS HEARING by Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Cover Letter)(jld) (Entered: 01/14/2019)

02/04/2019

3262

MOTION for Settlement (ERISA Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval) by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

02/04/2019

3263

MEMORANDUM in Support of 3262 MOTION for Settlement (ERISA Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

02/04/2019

3264

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 3262 MOTION for Settlement (ERISA Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval) Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

02/04/2019

3265 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 3262 MOTION for Settlement (ERISA Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval) Declaration of Abigail Schwartz ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

493/498

5/8/2020
02/18/2019 02/25/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019 03/08/2019 03/08/2019
03/11/2019
03/13/2019

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

3266 BRIEF in Opposition to 3262 MOTION for Settlement (ERISA Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval) ﬁled by Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry. (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 02/18/2019)

3267 BRIEF re (3266 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv00530-RLM-MGG(Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 02/25/2019)

3268

RESPONSE by FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), FedEx Ground Package System Inc to (3252 in 3:05-md-00527-RLMMGG) Memorandum of Law (Other), (3261 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) Objection . Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(Voelz, Scott) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

3269

ERISA PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ERISA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler to 3257 Objection, 3246 Letter, 3254 Objection, 3255 Objection, 3261 Objection, 3251 Objection . (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

3270

AFFIDAVIT of Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel re 3269 Response/Reply, by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

3271 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically at Fairenss Hearing by Plaintiffs Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530RLM-MGG(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

3272

ORDER granting 3271 Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonically: Pursuant to the proposed settlement agreement and the court's September 5, 2018 order, class members who ﬁled a timely objection and notice of intent to appear at the fairness hearing may appear either in person or telephonically. Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco have met those requirements, and have indicated that they wish to appear by phone, through their attorney, Shannon Liss-Riordan [Doc. No. 3261 and 3271]. The request to appear by phone at March 11 fairness hearing [Doc. No. 3271] is therefore GRANTED. Counsel must call 574-246-8471 ﬁfteen minutes before the start of the hearing (by 9:15 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time) to participate, and is advised that use of a cell phone is prohibited and that speaker functions must be disabled to avoid technical issues in recording the proceedings. Failure to comply will constitute a waiver of appearance. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/8/19. (dk) (Entered: 03/08/2019)

3273

MOTION HEARING held on 3/11/2019 before Judge Robert L Miller, Jr. Pla appeared by attys Ross, Harwood, Ellingstad. Dft appeared by attys Voelz, Ferron re 3262 MOTION for Settlement (ERISA) Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval, and 3243 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs and Approval for Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs; Arguments heard. For reasons stated, court FINDS proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, but DEFERS entry of ﬁnal order for one week to allow parties to submit comprehensive list of opt outs. At plaintiffs' request, a special master will be appointed to resolve disputes re: allocation of attorneys fees. (Court Reporter D. Bonk.) (dk) (Entered: 03/12/2019)

3274 TRANSCRIPT of FAIRNESS HEARING held on MARCH 11, 2019, before Judge ROBERT L. MILLER, JR. Court Reporter DEBRA J. BONK, Telephone number 574

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

494/498

5/8/2020

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
246 8039 / debra_bonk@innd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

IMPORTANT: Notice is hereby given that an ofﬁcial transcript of a proceeding has been ﬁled by the court reporter in the above matter. The parties have 7 calendar days to ﬁle with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the ﬁling of the transcript, a Redaction Request Transcript shall be e-ﬁled with the Court. Access to this request will be restricted to the Court and attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Redaction Request are ﬁled, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the Court Reporter. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identiﬁers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule.

03/19/2019 03/20/2019 03/20/2019 03/22/2019 03/22/2019

Notice of Intent to Redact due 3/22/2019. Redaction Request due 4/3/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/15/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/11/2019. (db) (Entered: 03/13/2019)

3275

ORDER: The court has modiﬁed the proposed order submitted by Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel granting ﬁnal approval of the proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement (copy attached), and affords the parties three days, to and including March 22, 2019, to object to the modiﬁcations. The class member lists submitted by the parties will be appended as Exhibits A and B, when the ﬁnal order is entered. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/19/19. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/19/2019)

3276

ERISA PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF ERISA CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler to 3275 Order,, . (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

3277

ORDER: Pursuant to Section VII(A) of the ERISA Class Action Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel shall have to and including April 12, 2019 to ﬁle a proposed allocation of the attorneys' fees awarded by the court and a motion to approve the allocation. Any objections to the proposed allocation must be ﬁled by April 26, 2019, together with a memorandum in support, with any reply to be ﬁled by May 3, 2019. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/20/19. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

3278

ORDER: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, Hon. James Rosenbaum, retired U.S.District Judge for the District of Minnesota, is re-appointed Special Master for the purpose of considering and proposing resolution of the proposed allocation of attorney fees in the ERISA Class Action Settlement and the objections to that proposed allocation. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/22/19. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

3279

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 3262 Motion for Settlement in case 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG and 3243 Motion for Attorney Fees. Pursuant to Section I(B) of the Settlement, the ERISA Class certiﬁed on October 15, 2007 [MDL Doc. No. 906] is AMENDED. The parties request for the appointment of Kansas Legal Services as the cy

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

495/498

5/8/2020
03/26/2019 03/28/2019 03/28/2019 04/12/2019 04/12/2019 04/12/2019
04/18/2019 04/25/2019 04/26/2019 05/01/2019 05/01/2019

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
pres beneﬁciary, is APPROVED. The Court APPROVES the Service Awards of $5,000 to Named Plaintiffs Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia OBrien, Neal Bergkamp, Dominic Lupo, Alan Pacheco and Ronald Perry, and payment of $7,500 to Kent Whistler. The Court directs payment of that amount from the Class Settlement Fund to each of them, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court hereby DISMISSES this action with prejudice, speciﬁcally including the Released Claims, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees, except as set out in this order. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 3/22/19. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(mlc) Modiﬁed on 3/25/2019 (dk). (Entered: 03/22/2019)

3280 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 3279 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,,,,, Order on Motion for Settlement,,,,, ﬁled by Plaintiffs Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0755-3847183. (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 03/26/2019)

3281 Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals re 3280 Notice of Appeal. Appeal ﬁling fees paid in the amount of $505 - Receipt # 0755-3848129. (jss) (Entered: 03/28/2019)

3282 USCA Case Number 19-1561 for 3280 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Ronald Perry, Alan Pacheco. (jld) (Entered: 03/29/2019)

3283

MOTION for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

3284

MEMORANDUM in Support of 3283 MOTION for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

3285

AFFIDAVIT re 3283 MOTION for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees , 3284 Memorandum in Support, (Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel) by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-4)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 04/12/2019)

3286 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Objections to Co-Lead Counsel's Proposed Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees by Miscellaneous Party Law Ofﬁces of George A. Barton. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

3287 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.'s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Proposed Fee Allocation) by Plaintiffs Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry. (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 04/25/2019)

3288 OBJECTION by Alan Pacheco, Ronald Perry to (3283 in 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG) MOTION for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees . Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG et al.(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Entered: 04/26/2019)

3289 OBJECTION by Law Ofﬁces of George A. Barton to 3284 Memorandum in Support, Proposed Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees. (Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

3290

REPLY to Response to Motion re 3283 MOTION for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

496/498

5/8/2020
05/01/2019

3291

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB
ORDER The court DENIES Ms. Liss-Riordan's 3287 motion for extension of time; GRANTS Mr. Barton's 3286 motion for an extension; and ORDERS that any memorandum in support of his objection be ﬁled by 9:00 a.m. (E.D.T.) on May 3, 2019. Any reply should be ﬁled by May 10. No further place-holder papers will be allowed. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/1/19. (jld) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

05/02/2019

3292

RESPONSE to Motion re 3283 MOTION for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON, P.C.S OBJECTIONS TO THE CO-LEAD COUNSELS PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF THE CRAIG ERISA ATTORNEYS FEE AWARD ﬁled by Law Ofﬁces of George A. Barton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 05/02/2019)

05/10/2019

3293

REPLY to Response to Motion re 3283 MOTION for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees and in Response to Barton Objections (Doc. 3292) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/10/2019

3294

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 3283 MOTION for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees and in Response to Barton's Objections (Doc. 3292) ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

06/24/2019 3295 ORDER OF SPECIAL MASTER. Signed by Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Special Master on 6/21/19. (dk) (Entered: 06/24/2019)

07/01/2019

3296

SUPPLEMENT to 3292 Response to Motion, BARTON FIRM'S MAY 2, 2019 OBJECTIONS TO CO-LEAD COUNSEL'S PROPOSED FEE ALLOCATION ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(Barton PHV, George) (Entered: 07/01/2019)

07/08/2019

3297

CO-LEAD COUNSEL'S REPLY TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON ON ALLOCATION OF ERISA ATTORNEY'S FEES by Co-Lead Counsel to 3296 Supplement, . (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/08/2019)

07/08/2019 3298 AFFIDAVIT of SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT DECLARATION OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL re 3297 Response/Reply by Co-Lead Counsel. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/08/2019)

07/08/2019

3299 CO-LEAD COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC'S ON ALLOCATION OF ERISA ATTORNEY'S FEES by Co-Lead Counsel to 3295 Order . (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 07/08/2019)

09/25/2019

3300

ORDER Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel is given to and including 10/16/2019 to ﬁle an amended motion for allocation of ERISA attorneys' fees and supporting documentation. Any objections to the proposed allocation as amended must be ﬁled by 10/30/2019, together with a memorandum in support. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/25/19. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLMMGG(jld) (Entered: 09/26/2019)

09/26/2019

3301

Special Master's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re ( 3283 in 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG) MOTION for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees. Signed by James M. Rosenbaum (Ret.) Special Master on 9/26/2019. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG(jld) (Entered: 09/27/2019)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

497/498

5/8/2020
10/16/2019 10/16/2019
10/16/2019
10/17/2019

CM/ECF USDC-INND Version 6.2.3 Live DB

3302

MOTION to Amend/Correct 3300 ORDER, Motion for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees by Plaintiffs Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

3303

MEMORANDUM in Support of 3302 MOTION to Amend/Correct 3300 ORDER, Motion for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

3304

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 3302 MOTION to Amend/Correct 3300 ORDER, Motion for Allocation of ERISA Attorney's Fees Supplemental Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel ﬁled by Keith Barry, Neal Bergkamp, Jeff Bramlage, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Lawrence Liable, Dominic R Lupo, Mike Moore, Sylvia O'Brien, Leo Rittenhouse, Kent Whistler. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ellingstad, Susan) (Entered: 10/16/2019)

3305

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED MOTION FOR ALLOCATION OF ERISA ATTORNEY'S FEES : The court APPROVES the amended proposed allocation of attorneys fees. With nothing remaining to be done in this multidistrict litigation docket, the court will notify the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that MDL-1700 can be closed. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 10/17/19. Associated Cases: 3:05-md00527-RLM-MGG, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-MGG (dk) (Entered: 10/17/2019)

https://ecf.innd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?120089860363945-L_1_1-1

498/498

 
 FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEAN ALEXANDER; PETER ALLEN; ALBERT ANAYA; SUZANNE ANDRADE; JARRETT HENDERSON; ELY INES; JORGE ISLA; PAUL INFANTINO; ERIK JEPPSON; GUPERTINO MAGANA; BERNARD MENDOZA; JESSE PADILLA; JOEY RODRIGUEZ; DALE ROSE; ALLAN ROSS; AGOSTINO SCALERCIO; DEAN WILEY; ANTHONY YBARRA, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

No. 12-17458
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00038-
EMC

v.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., DBA FedEx Home Delivery,
Defendant-Appellee.

DEAN ALEXANDER; PETER ALLEN; ALBERT ANAYA; SUZANNE ANDRADE; JARRETT HENDERSON; ELY INES; JORGE ISLA; PAUL INFANTINO; ERIK JEPPSON; GUPERTINO MAGANA; BERNARD MENDOZA; JESSE PADILLA; JOEY

No. 12-17509
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00038-
EMC

2

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

RODRIGUEZ; DALE ROSE; ALLAN ROSS; AGOSTINO SCALERCIO; DEAN WILEY; ANTHONY YBARRA, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., DBA FedEx Home Delivery,
Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 6, 2014—Portland, Oregon
Filed August 27, 2014
Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Stephen S. Trott, and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher; Concurrence by Judge Trott

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

3

SUMMARY*

California Law
The panel reversed the Multidistrict Litigation Court’s grant of summary judgment entered in favor of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., and its denial of a plaintiff class of FedEx drivers’ motion for partial summary judgment in a class action alleging that FedEx drivers in California were employees rather than independent contractors.
The panel held that the plaintiff FedEx drivers were employees as a matter of law under California’s right-tocontrol test. The panel remanded to the district court with instructions to enter summary judgment for plaintiffs on the question of employment status.
Judge Trott, joined by Judge Goodwin, concurred. Judge Trott wrote that FedEx’s labeling of the drivers as “independent contractors” in its Operating Agreement did not conclusively make them so.

COUNSEL
Beth A. Ross (argued), Aaron D. Kaufmann, and Elizabeth C. Morris, Leonard Cardner, LLP, Oakland, California; and Ellen Lake, Oakland, California, for PlaintiffsAppellants/Cross-Appellees.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

4

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

Jonathan Hacker (argued), O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.; Anton Metlitsky, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, New York; Chris Hollinger, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, California; Carolyn Kubota and Robert Swerdlow, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Richard Pianka, Arlington, Virginia, for Amici Curiae American Trucking Associations, Inc., and California Trucking Association.

OPINION
W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
As a central part of its business, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FedEx”), contracts with drivers to deliver packages to its customers. The drivers must wear FedEx uniforms, drive FedEx-approved vehicles, and groom themselves according to FedEx’s appearance standards. FedEx tells its drivers what packages to deliver, on what days, and at what times. Although drivers may operate multiple delivery routes and hire third parties to help perform their work, they may do so only with FedEx’s consent.
FedEx contends its drivers are independent contractors under California law. Plaintiffs, a class of FedEx drivers in California, contend they are employees. We agree with plaintiffs.

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

5

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Named plaintiffs represent a class comprising approximately 2300 individuals who were full-time delivery drivers for FedEx in California between 2000 and 2007. Plaintiff class members worked for FedEx’s two operating divisions, FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery. FedEx Ground deals primarily with business-to-business deliveries, while FedEx Home Delivery deals primarily with residential deliveries. The differences between the two divisions do not matter to this appeal.

FedEx characterizes its drivers as independent contractors. FedEx’s Operating Agreement (“OA”) governs its relationship with the drivers. The OA’s “Background Statement” provides:

[T]his Agreement will set forth the mutual business objectives of the two parties . . . but the manner and means of reaching these results are within the discretion of the [driver], and no officer or employee of FedEx . . . shall have the authority to impose any term or condition on [the driver] . . . which is contrary to this understanding.

A provision of the OA titled “Discretion of Contractor to Determine Method and Means of Meeting Business Objectives,” states:

[N]o officer, agent or employee of FedEx . . . shall have the authority to direct [the driver]

6

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

as to the manner or means employed . . . . For example, no officer, agent or employee of FedEx . . . shall have the authority to prescribe hours of work, whether or when the [driver] is to take breaks, what route the [driver] is to follow, or other details of performance.

FedEx’s relationship with its drivers also is governed by various policies and procedures prescribed by FedEx.

1. Job Requirements

The OA requires FedEx drivers to pick up and deliver packages within their assigned “Primary Service Area[s].” Drivers must deliver packages every day that FedEx is open for business, and must deliver every package they are assigned each day. They must deliver each package within a specific window of time negotiated between FedEx and its customers. After each delivery, drivers must use an electronic scanner to send data about the delivery to FedEx. FedEx does not require drivers to follow specific delivery routes. However, FedEx tells its managers to design and recommend to its drivers routes that will “reduce travel time” and “minimize expenses and maximize earnings and service.”

FedEx does not expressly dictate working hours, but it structures drivers’ workloads to ensure that they work between 9.5 and 11 hours every working day. If a driver’s manager determines that the driver has more work than he or she “can reasonably be expected to handle” in a 9.5 to 11hour day, the manager may reassign part of the driver’s workload to other drivers. Drivers are compensated according to a somewhat complex formula that includes perday and per-stop components. Drivers are expected to arrive

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

7

at their delivery terminals each morning, and they are not supposed to leave the terminal until all of their packages are available for pick-up. FedEx instructs managers to make sure that drivers properly fill out their paperwork and prepare their packages for delivery. Each terminal sets a time by which all drivers must return at the end of the day. If drivers want their trucks loaded by FedEx’s package-handlers, they must leave their trucks at the terminal overnight.

The OA gives FedEx the authority to “reconfigure” a driver’s service area upon five days’ written notice. Drivers have the right to propose a plan to avoid reconfiguration, “using means satisfactory to FedEx.” FedEx “may, in its sole discretion,” reject a plan that does not “provide reasonable means to continue” the driver’s service area. Should a driver’s service area be reconfigured in such a way that the driver gains customers, FedEx may reduce that driver’s pay to compensate other drivers who lost customers in the reconfiguration.

FedEx trains its drivers on how best to perform their job and to interact with customers. The OA provides that, during the first 30 days of the contract term, FedEx “shall . . . familiarize [drivers] with various quality service procedures developed by FedEx.” The OA requires drivers to conduct themselves “with integrity and honesty, in a professional manner, and with proper decorum at all times.” They must “[f]oster the professional image and good reputation of FedEx.”

A driver’s managers may conduct up to four ride-along performance evaluations each year, “to verify that [the driver] is meeting the standards of customer service” required by the OA. Managers are supposed to observe and record small

8

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

details about each step of a delivery, including whether a driver uses a “dolly or cart” to move packages, demonstrates a “sense of urgency,” and “[p]laces [his or her] keys on [the] pinky finger of [his or her] non-writing hand” after locking the delivery vehicle. After finishing a ride-along evaluation, managers are supposed to give immediate feedback to drivers about the quality of their work. FedEx contends in this litigation that this feedback constitutes mere recommendations that drivers are free either to follow or disregard.

Drivers must follow FedEx’s “Safe Driving Standards.” These standards prohibit many illegal acts, such as “[d]riving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs” and “[u]sing a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony.” They also forbid some legal conduct, including “[d]riving a motor vehicle in a speed exhibition, contest or drag race” and “[c]arrying passengers not authorized by FedEx.”

The OA allows drivers to operate more than one vehicle and route, but only “with the consent of FedEx” and only if “consistent with the capacity of the [driver’s] terminal.” Drivers may also hire third parties to help perform their work. Third-party helpers must be “qualified pursuant to applicable federal, state and municipal safety standards and [FedEx’s] Safe Driving Standards.” They must be “fully trained” and must “conform fully” with the OA. Drivers “in good standing” under the OA may assign their rights and obligations to replacement drivers, but any such replacement must be “acceptable to FedEx.”

Drivers enter into the OA for an initial term of one, two, or three years. At the end of the initial term, the OA provides for automatic renewal for successive one-year terms if neither

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

9

party provides notice of their intent not to renew. The OA may be terminated (1) by the parties’ mutual agreement; (2) for cause, including a breach of any provision of the OA; (3) if FedEx stops doing business or reduces operations in all or part of the driver’s service area; or (4) upon thirty days’ written notice by the driver. The OA requires drivers to submit claims for wrongful termination to arbitration.

2. Equipment and Appearance Requirements

FedEx requires its drivers to provide their own vehicles. Vehicles must not only meet “all applicable federal, state and municipal laws and regulations,” but also must be specifically approved by FedEx. The OA allows FedEx to dictate the “identifying colors, logos, numbers, marks and insignia” of the vehicles. All vehicles must be painted “FedEx white,” a specific shade of Sherwin-Williams paint, or its equivalent. They must be marked with the FedEx logo, and “maintained in a clean and presentable fashion free of body damage and extraneous markings.” FedEx requires vehicles to have specific dimensions, and all vehicles must also contain shelves with specific dimensions. FedEx requires that a “typical package van” have

two [shelves] per side, full length of the body. They should be 24" (-1", +3") deep with a 1" to 2" pitch and a front lip not to exceed 2" height. Top shelf to bottom of roof or roof bow should be 24" minimum. The lower shelf lip to the bottom of the top shelf should be 24" (+/- 3/4"). Aluminum is the preferred material, however marine grade plywood is acceptable.

10

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

Managers may refuse to let drivers work if their vehicles do not meet these requirements.

Drivers must provide maintenance at their own expense and must “bear all costs and expenses incidental to operation” of the vehicle. Drivers authorize FedEx to pay for vehicle licensing, taxes, and fees, and to deduct these costs from the drivers’ pay. The OA gives FedEx

such exclusive possession, use, and control of the [vehicle as] required by . . . applicable regulations, but [FedEx] shall have no right or authority . . . to operate the [vehicle] for any purpose (except for incidental yard movement and positioning) unless the [vehicle] is driven either by [the driver] or by an operator engaged by [the driver].

The OA requires that while vehicles are “in the service of FedEx,” they must be used “exclusively for the carriage of the goods of FedEx . . . and for no other purpose.” Drivers may use their vehicles “for other commercial or personal purposes when [they are] not in the service of FedEx,” but only if all “identifying numbers, marks, logos and insignia” are removed or covered up.

FedEx offers a “Business Support Package,” which provides drivers with uniforms, scanners, and other necessary equipment. FedEx deducts the cost of the equipment from drivers’ pay. Purchase of the package is ostensibly optional, but more than 99 percent of drivers purchase it. The scanners that drivers must use to send delivery information to FedEx are not readily available from any other source.

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

11

The OA requires drivers to comply with personalappearance standards and wear a FedEx uniform “maintained in good condition.” The required uniform includes a uniform shirt with the FedEx logo, uniform pants or shorts, dark shoes and socks, and, if the driver chooses to wear a jacket or cap, a uniform jacket and cap with the FedEx logo. Drivers must keep their “personal appearance consistent with reasonable standards of good order as . . . promulgated from time to time by FedEx.” Drivers must be “clean shaven, hair neat and trimmed, free of body odor.” Managers may refuse to let drivers work if they are improperly dressed or groomed.

B. Procedural History

This appeal involves a class action originally filed in the California Superior Court in December 2005 on behalf of a class of California FedEx drivers, asserting claims for employment expenses and unpaid wages under the California Labor Code on the ground that FedEx had improperly classified the drivers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs also brought claims under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), which similarly turned on the drivers’ employment status. FedEx removed to the Northern District of California based on diversity.

Between 2003 and 2009, similar cases were filed against FedEx in approximately forty states. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these FedEx cases for multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceedings in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (“the MDL Court”). Plaintiffs moved for class certification. They represented to the MDL Court that their claims would rely only on “common proof applicable to members of the class as whole.” The MDL Court certified a class for plaintiffs’ claims under

12

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

California law. It declined to certify plaintiffs’ proposed national FMLA class.

Plaintiffs in all the MDL cases moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to establish their status as employees as a matter of law. In most cases, including this one, FedEx cross-moved for summary judgment. The MDL Court denied nearly all of the MDL plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and granted nearly all of FedEx’s motions, holding that plaintiffs were independent contractors as a matter of law in each state where employment status is governed by common-law agency principles.

The MDL Court remanded this case to the district court to resolve the drivers’ claims under the FMLA. Those claims were settled, and the district court entered final judgment. Plaintiffs timely appealed, challenging the MDL Court’s grant of summary judgment to FedEx on the employment status issue. FedEx conditionally cross-appealed, arguing that if we reverse the MDL Court’s grant of summary judgment to FedEx, we should also reverse the MDL Court’s class certification decision.

II. Standard of Review

We review de novo the district court’s decision whether to grant summary judgment, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Fichman v. Media Ctr., 512 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008). “A grant of summary judgment is appropriate when ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

13

III. Discussion

A. Summary Judgment on Employment Status

The MDL Court granted summary judgment to FedEx, holding that plaintiffs are independent contractors as a matter of law. To reach that conclusion, the MDL Court purported to apply the common law test from S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989), but ultimately focused on the entrepreneurial opportunities FedEx afforded to plaintiffs. The MDL Court explained: “the right to control, though a primary consideration, isn’t dispositive; what is dispositive here is the drivers’ class-wide ability to own and operate distinct businesses, own multiple routes, and profit accordingly.” Plaintiffs argue that, at a minimum, summary judgment for FedEx was inappropriate. They argue further that the district court should have granted their motion for summary judgment because they are employees as a matter of law. We agree that plaintiffs are employees as a matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse the MDL Court and remand to the district court with instructions to enter summary judgment for plaintiffs on the question of employment status.

The parties agree that California law controls this dispute. The parties further agree that determinations of employment status under California law are governed by the multi-factor test set forth in Borello. “Even if one or two of the individual factors might suggest an [independent contractor] relationship, summary judgment is nevertheless proper when . . . all the factors weighed and considered as a whole establish . . . an [employment] and not an [independent contractor relationship.]” Arnold v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 213, 221 (Ct. App. 2011).

14

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

We conclude that summary judgment for plaintiffs is appropriate in this case. The facts are largely undisputed. FedEx and plaintiffs agree that their working relationship is controlled by the OA and FedEx’s policies and procedures. They dispute only the extent to which those documents give FedEx the right to control its drivers. In California, the meaning of a contract such as the OA is a question of law, unless it is ambiguous and there is “conflicting extrinsic evidence” from which a jury could resolve the ambiguity in favor of either party. Scheenstra v. Cal. Dairies, Inc., 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21, 38–39 (Ct. App. 2013). Here, much of the OA is not ambiguous. To the extent it is ambiguous, the extrinsic evidence supports a conclusion that FedEx has the right to control its drivers. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to FedEx, we conclude that plaintiffs are employees.

B. Right-to-Control Test

California’s right-to-control test requires courts to weigh a number of factors: “The principal test of an employment relationship is whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired.” Borello, 769 P.2d at 404 (quoting Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd., 471 P.2d 975, 977 (Cal. 1970) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). California courts also consider “several ‘secondary’ indicia of the nature of a service relationship.” Id. The right to terminate at will, without cause, is “[s]trong evidence in support of an employment relationship.” Id. (quoting Tieberg, 471 P.2d at 979 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Additional factors include:

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

15

(a) whether the one performing services is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (b) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision; (c) the skill required in the particular occupation; (d) whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; (e) the length of time for which the services are to be performed; (f) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; (g) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal; and (h) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relationship of employeremployee.

Id. These factors “[g]enerally . . . cannot be applied mechanically as separate tests; they are intertwined and their weight depends often on particular combinations.” Id. at 404 (quoting Germann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 176 Cal. Rptr. 868, 871 (Ct. App. 1981) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

1. “Manner and Means”

FedEx argues that the OA creates an independentcontractor relationship. California law is clear that “[t]he label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced.” Id. at 403. What matters is what the contract, in actual effect, allows or requires. See, e.g., Empire Star Mines Co. v. Cal.

16

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

Emp’t Comm’n, 168 P.2d 686, 692 (Cal. 1946) (“If the employer has the authority to exercise . . . control, whether or not that right is exercised with respect to all details, an employer-employee relationship exists.”), overruled on other grounds by People v. Sims, 651 P.2d 321 (Cal. 1982). The OA and FedEx’s policies and procedures unambiguously allow FedEx to exercise a great deal of control over the manner in which its drivers do their jobs. Therefore, this factor strongly favors plaintiffs.

First, FedEx can and does control the appearance of its drivers and their vehicles. FedEx controls its drivers’ clothing from their hats down to their shoes and socks. It requires drivers to be “clean shaven, hair neat and trimmed, [and] free of body odor.” FedEx’s detailed appearance requirements clearly constitute control over its drivers. See Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., No. 12-56589, 2014 WL 2695534, at *7 (9th Cir. June 16, 2014) (finding right to control under California law where a delivery company controlled “‘every exquisite detail’ of the drivers’ appearance, including the ‘color of their socks’ and ‘the style of their hair’”); cf. Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 592 F.3d 853, 859 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding, under Missouri law, that FedEx’s appearance requirements “show the extent of FedEx’s control” over drivers’ work).

FedEx requires drivers to paint their vehicles a specific shade of white, mark them with the distinctive FedEx logo, and to keep their vehicles “clean and presentable [and] free of body damage and extraneous markings.” These requirements go well beyond those imposed by federal regulations. See 49 C.F.R. § 390.21. FedEx dictates the vehicles’ dimensions, including the dimensions of their “package shelves” and the materials from which the shelves are made. Managers may

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

17

prevent drivers from working if they are improperly dressed or groomed, or if their vehicles do not meet specifications.

Second, FedEx can and does control the times its drivers can work. Although the OA does not allow FedEx to set specific working hours down to the last minute, it is clear from the OA that FedEx has a great deal of control over drivers’ hours. FedEx structures drivers’ workloads so that they have to work 9.5 to 11 hours every working day. FedEx argues that, because drivers can hire helpers to do their work for them, they are free to complete a full day’s work in less than 9.5 hours. But managers may adjust drivers’ workloads to ensure that they never have more or less work than can be done in 9.5 to 11 hours. Drivers are not supposed to leave their terminals in the morning until all of their packages are available, and they must return to the terminals no later than a specified time. If drivers want their vehicles loaded, they must leave them at the terminal overnight. The combined effect of these requirements is substantially to define and constrain the hours that FedEx’s drivers can work.

Third, FedEx can and does control aspects of how and when drivers deliver their packages. It assigns each driver a specific service area, which it “may, in its sole discretion, reconfigure.” It tells drivers what packages they must deliver and when. It negotiates the delivery window for packages directly with its customers. The OA requires drivers to comply with “standards of service,” including requirements to “[f]oster the professional image and good reputation of FedEx” and to “conduct all business activities with . . . proper decorum at all times.”

FedEx notes that there are details of its drivers’ work that it does not control. For instance, it does not require drivers to

18

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

follow specific routes or to deliver packages in a specific order. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to FedEx, it does not require drivers to follow managers’ recommendations after ride-along evaluations. But the rightto-control test does not require absolute control. Employee status may still be found where “[a] certain amount of . . . freedom is inherent in the work.” Air Couriers Int’l v. Emp’t Dev. Dep’t, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 37, 44 (Ct. App. 2007); see also id. at 47 (upholding trial court’s finding that there was “no inconsistency between employee status and the driver’s discretion on when to take breaks or vacation”). FedEx’s lack of control over some parts of its drivers’ jobs does not counteract the extensive control it does exercise.

FedEx argues that it controls its drivers only with respect to the results it seeks, not the manner and means in which drivers achieve those results. See Millsap v. Fed. Express Corp., 277 Cal. Rptr. 807, 811 (Ct. App. 1991) (“If control may be exercised only as to the result of the work and not the means by which it is accomplished, an independent contractor relationship is established.”). We agree with FedEx that “results,” reasonably understood, refers in this context to timely and professional delivery of packages. Some but not all of FedEx’s requirements go to the “results” of its drivers’ work so understood. Most obviously, no reasonable jury could find that the “results” sought by FedEx includes detailed specifications as to the delivery driver’s fashion choices and grooming. See Ruiz, 2014 WL 2695534, at *7 & n.5. And no reasonable jury could find that the “results” FedEx seeks include having all of its vehicles containing shelves built to exactly the same specifications. Other aspects of FedEx’s control—such as limiting drivers to a specific service area with specific delivery locations—also are not merely control of results under California law.

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

19

Notably, in Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327 (Ct. App. 2007), the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s determination, following a bench trial, that a class of FedEx drivers, working under the same OA as plaintiffs in this case during an overlapping time period, were employees based on “FedEx’s control over every exquisite detail of the drivers’ performance.” Id. at 336. FedEx attempts to distinguish Estrada on two grounds. First, the trial court in Estrada specifically excluded multiple-route drivers from the class, deciding the question of employment status only with respect to single-route drivers, whereas here, while limited to drivers who personally drive full time for FedEx, the class includes a number of drivers who operate more than one route. Second, FedEx contends that “Estrada involved a fundamentally different evidentiary record.” However, the OA grants FedEx identical rights to control both single-route and multiple-route drivers. And while Estrada’s reliance on specific factual findings by the trial court means that Estrada is not dispositive here, the Estrada court’s reasoning is nonetheless apposite.

FedEx argues that the OA gives drivers “flexibility and entrepreneurial opportunities that no ‘employee’ has.” However, in Borello, the California Supreme Court reasoned that “[a] business entity may not avoid its statutory obligations by carving up its production process into minute steps, then asserting that it lacks ‘control’ over the exact means by which one such step is performed by the responsible workers.” 769 P.2d at 408. There, S.G. Borello & Sons, a commercial produce grower, hired agricultural laborers under written “sharefarmer” agreements. The agreements recited that the parties deemed themselves

20

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

“principal and independent contractor rather than employer and employee.” Id. at 401.

The sharefarmers agreed to harvest the crop, assisted by members of their families. They could “contract for the amount of land they wish[ed] to harvest on a first-come, firstserved basis.” Id. at 402. The sharefarmers were “totally responsible for the care of the plants in their assigned plots during the harvest period.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). They were required to furnish their own tools and their own transportation to and from the field. “The method and manner of accomplishing” the harvest was left solely to the sharefarmers, though they agreed to “utilize accepted agricultural practices in order to provide for the maximum harvest.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

The sharefarmers set their own hours. They were free to decide when to pick the crop in order to maximize the profit. “Profit incentive [was] the only guaranty of performance and quality control.” Id. Borello had “no right to discharge a sharefarmer or his workers during the harvest, and no recourse if the harvesters abandon[ed] the field.” Id. Although the sharefarmers had significant autonomy over the harvest itself, the California Supreme Court reasoned that Borello retained “all necessary control over the harvest portion of its operations,” and held that the sharefarmers were employees as a matter of law. Id. at 408, 410 (emphasis in original).

California courts have since applied Borello’s “all necessary control” test and found employee status in several cases involving delivery drivers. For example, in JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 563, 568 (Ct. App. 2006), drivers, who had

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

21

acknowledged their independent contractor status in writing prior to their engagement with JKH, performed courier work, using their own vehicles to pick up items from JKH’s customers and delivering the packages to designated locations.

Other than to satisfy the general assurances given by JKH to its customers that their packages w[ould] reach the appropriate local destination within two to four hours from pick-up, the . . . drivers [were] not governed by particular rules and they d[id] not receive direction from JKH about how to perform the delivery task or what driving routes to take.

Id. at 569. The California Court of Appeal found that, because “JKH retained all necessary control” over the drivers, substantial evidence supported a finding of an employee relationship. Id. at 579. Similarly, in Air Couriers, the Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s finding of employee status based on its conclusion that an employer retained all necessary control over courier drivers. 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 41–42.

FedEx argues that JKH Enterprises and Air Couriers are distinguishable on the ground that those cases involved California’s workers’ compensation laws and thus involved a statutory presumption of employee status that does not apply here. But California courts have recognized that “the burden of proof is on the party attacking the employment relationship,” Bemis v. People, 240 P.2d 638, 644 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1952), in a range of cases outside of the workers’ compensation context. See, e.g., Robinson v. George,

22

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

105 P.2d 914, 916 (Cal. 1940); Faigin v. Signature Grp. Holdings, Inc., 150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 123, 133 n.4 (Ct. App. 2012); Lujan v. Minagar, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 861, 868 (Ct. App. 2004); see also Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that once drivers had established a prima facie case of employment status by coming forward with evidence that they provided services for the company, the burden shifted to the company to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the drivers were independent contractors).

The Borello court noted that the “‘control-of-workdetails’ test for determining [employee status] must be applied with deference to the purposes of the protective legislation.” 769 P.2d at 406. But the California Supreme Court does not read Borello to apply only in the context of workers’ compensation claims. In fact, in Borello itself, the court stated that its ruling in that case had implications beyond workers’ compensation laws. Id. at 400. Recently, in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 327 P.3d 165 (Cal. 2014), the California Supreme Court recognized the applicability of Borello’s “all necessary control” test in a determination of employment status in a suit for wage and hour protections. Id. at 171. And in Ruiz, we applied Borello’s “all necessary control” test where a plaintiff raised a number of claims unrelated to workers’ compensation, including claims for failure to pay sick leave, vacation, holiday, and severance wages. 2014 WL 2695534, at *1.

In contrast to the facts in JKH Enterprises and Air Couriers, in Arnold an insurance company’s nonexclusive insurance agent “used her own judgment in determining whom she would solicit for applications for [the company]’s products, the time, place, and manner in which she would

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

23

solicit, and the amount of time she spent soliciting for [the company]’s products.” 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 220 The California Court of Appeal held on these facts that the agent was an independent contractor. Id. at 220–21. Similarly, the California Court of Appeal held in State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Brown, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 98 (Ct. App. 1995), that truck drivers were independent contractors where they had “complete control over their working conditions and the manner in which a load is transported (including whether or not to hire assistants), and [were] entirely free to accept or reject an assignment without reprisal.” Id. at 105; see also Millsap, 277 Cal. Rptr. at 811 (holding that a driver was an independent contractor where he used his own car to deliver packages, was paid on a “per route” basis, and “[o]ther than to say ‘be careful’ or to give him directions to a particular location, . . . [the company] did not instruct [the driver] as to how to make the deliveries or how to drive his car.”).

FedEx treats its drivers more like the drivers in JKH Enterprises and Air Couriers than like the insurance agent in Arnold and the drivers in Brown and Millsap. Indeed, in many respects FedEx exercises greater control over its drivers than was exercised over the drivers in JKH Enterprises and Air Couriers. FedEx requires its drivers to load and unload packages at FedEx terminals every working day. “Such regular schedules are consistent with employee status and reflect employer control.” Air Couriers, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 47. FedEx assigns each driver a specified service area and tells drivers where in their service area to deliver packages. FedEx drivers have no control over which packages they deliver. FedEx “obtain[s] the clients in need of the service and provid[es] the workers to conduct it,” JKH Enters., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 579. “Drivers deliver[] packages to [FedEx]’s customers, not to their own customers. [FedEx]

24

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

set[s] the rates charged to customers, bill[s] the customers, and collect[s] payment.” Air Couriers, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 47; see also Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Ct., 269 Cal. Rptr. 647, 653 (Ct. App. 1990) (finding a driver to be an employee where the company “determined what would be delivered, when and to whom and what price would be charged”). FedEx pays the drivers on a regular schedule. See Air Couriers, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 47; JKH Enters., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 580.

According to FedEx, its drivers’ “entrepreneurial opportunities”—the ability to take on multiple routes and vehicles and to hire third-party helpers—are inconsistent with employee status. FedEx relies not on California law for this argument, but on the D.C. Circuit’s decision in FedEx Home Delivery v. National Labor Relations Board, 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009). In FedEx Home Delivery, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit reversed an agency decision that FedEx drivers were employees. Id. at 495. The majority “shift[ed the] emphasis away from the unwieldy control inquiry,” asking instead “whether the putative independent contractors have significant entrepreneurial opportunity for gain or loss.” Id. at 497 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). It held that the evidence “favoring a finding the [drivers] are employees [was] clearly outweighed by evidence of entrepreneurial opportunity.” Id. at 504.

The D.C. Circuit’s decision in FedEx Home Delivery, even if correct, has no bearing on this case. There is no indication that California has replaced its longstanding rightto-control test with the new entrepreneurial-opportunities test developed by the D.C. Circuit. Instead, California cases indicate that entrepreneurial opportunities do not undermine a finding of employee status. In Arzate v. Bridge Terminal

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

25

Transport, Inc., 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 400 (Cal. App. 2011), the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant where, as here, the “plaintiffs drove their own trucks and paid the related expenses, [and] could have leased more than one truck to defendant and hired other drivers.” Id. at 405–06. The court found that these opportunities did not override other factors in California’s multi-factor analysis such that the drivers were independent contractors as a matter of law. Id. In Narayan, we concluded that, where drivers “retained the right to employ others to assist in performing their contractual obligations,” but the company had to approve all helpers, this was indicative of control of the details of the drivers’ performance under California law. 616 F.3d at 902. And in Ruiz, we found that drivers were employees where the company “retained ultimate discretion to approve or disapprove of those helpers and additional drivers.” 2014 WL 2695534, at *8. “[A]pproval was largely based upon neutral factors, such as background checks required under federal regulations,” but the drivers nonetheless “did not have an unrestricted right to choose these persons, which is an “important right[] [that] would normally inure to a self-employed contractor.” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Borello, 769 P.2d at 408 n.9). Further, “any additional drivers were subject to the same degree of control exerted by Affinity over the drivers generally.” Id.

The entrepreneurial opportunities available to FedEx’s drivers are equivalent to those in Narayan and Ruiz. The OA allows drivers to operate more than one vehicle or route only if FedEx consents, and only if doing so is “consistent with the capacity of the [driver’s] terminal.” Drivers must be “in good standing” in order to assign their contractual rights, and any replacement driver must be “acceptable to FedEx.” Nothing

26

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

in the OA limits FedEx’s discretion to withhold consent to additional vehicles or routes, or to decide whether a replacement driver is “acceptable.” Daniel Sullivan, FedEx’s founder and CEO until January 2007, testified in his deposition that FedEx may refuse to let a driver take on additional routes or sell his route to a third party. He further testified that FedEx’s senior managers have the authority to reject proposed replacement drivers based on failure to meet FedEx standards such as grooming requirements. “The existence of the right of control and supervision establishes the existence of an agency relationship.” Ayala, 327 P.3d at 173 (quoting Malloy v. Fong, 232 P.2d 241, 249 (Cal. 1951) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Whether FedEx ever exercises its right of refusal is irrelevant; what matters is that the right exists. See id. (“It is not essential that the right of control be exercised or that there be actual supervision of the work of the agent.” (quoting Malloy, 232 P.2d at 249) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2. Secondary Factors

In light of the powerful evidence of FedEx’s right to control the manner in which drivers perform their work, none of the remaining right-to-control factors sufficiently favors FedEx to allow a holding that plaintiffs are independent contractors. See Borello, 769 P.2d at 404 (identifying evidence of the right to control as the “principal” factor); JKH Enters., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 579–80 (holding, where JKH’s retention of “all necessary control over the operation as a whole” was, under Borello, “enough to find an employment relationship,” that no “single factor, either alone or in combination, mandate[d] a different result”).

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

27

The first factor, the right to terminate at will, slightly favors FedEx. The OA contains an arbitration clause and does not give FedEx an unqualified right to terminate. Under California law, the right to discharge at will is “[s]trong evidence in support of an employment relationship,” Tieberg, 471 P.2d at 979, even though termination for cause is consistent with both employee and independent contractor status, see Ruiz, 2014 WL 2695534, at *11 (“[T]he parties’ mutual termination provision is consistent with either an employer-employee or independent contractor relationship.”); cf. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 765 P.2d 373, 376 (Cal. 1988) (noting that, while California Labor Code § 2922 provides a presumption of at-will employment when employment is for no specified term, “[t]his presumption may be superseded by a contract, express or implied, limiting the employer’s right to discharge the employee”).

FedEx’s right under the OA to terminate its drivers, while broad, is somewhat constrained. FedEx may fire a driver for any “breach[] or fail[ure] to perform . . . contractual obligations,” which would cover, for example, any failure to act “with proper decorum at all times,” or to “foster the professional image and good reputation of FedEx.” We conclude that this factor does not favor FedEx enough to allow a finding that its drivers are independent contractors. See Toyota Motor Sales, 269 Cal. Rptr. at 653 (“The real test [for ascertaining whether the right to control exists] has been said to be whether the employee was subject to the employer’s orders and control and was liable to be discharged for disobedience or misconduct.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The second factor, distinct occupation or business, favors plaintiffs. As the California Court of Appeal reasoned in

28

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

Estrada, “the work performed by the drivers is wholly integrated into FedEx’s operation. The drivers look like FedEx employees, act like FedEx employees, [and] are paid like FedEx employees.” 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 334. “The customers are FedEx’s customers, not the drivers’ customers.” Id. at 336–37. While the drivers have opportunities to expand their businesses by taking on additional routes and hiring helpers, these opportunities themselves are only available subject to FedEx’s business needs.

The third factor, whether the work is performed under the principal’s direction, slightly favors plaintiffs. As explained above, although drivers retain freedom to determine several aspects of their day-to-day work, FedEx also closely supervises their work through various methods.

The fourth factor, the skill required in the occupation, also favors plaintiffs. FedEx drivers “need no experience to get the job in the first place and [the] only required skill is the ability to drive.” Id. at 337; see JKH Enters., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 579 (“[T]he functions performed by the drivers, pick-up and delivery of papers or packages and driving in between, did not require a high degree of skill.”).

The fifth factor, the provision of tools and equipment, slightly favors FedEx. The drivers provide their own vehicles and are not required to get other equipment from FedEx. On the other hand, “FedEx is involved in the purchasing process, providing funds and recommending vendors.” Estrada, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 334. Indeed, the drivers’ scanners are not readily available anywhere else. Ultimately, the vast majority of drivers get their other equipment from FedEx. See Ruiz, 2014 WL 2695534, at *10 (holding that, where “Affinity

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

29

supplied the drivers with the major tools of the job by encouraging or requiring that the drivers obtain the tools from them through paid leasing arrangements,” this factor favored employee status). Moreover, numerous California cases find employee status even though the employee provides his own vehicle or tools. See, e.g., Borello, 769 P.2d at 409; Estrada, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 331; Air Couriers, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 47; JKH Enters., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 569; Toyota Motor Sales, 269 Cal. Rptr. at 654.

The sixth factor, length of time for performance of services, favors plaintiffs. Drivers enter into the OA for a term of one to three years. At the end of the initial term, the OA provides for automatic renewal for successive one-year terms if there is no notice of non-renewal by either party.

[T]he length and indefinite nature of the plaintiff [d]rivers’ tenure with [FedEx] . . . point toward an employment relationship. . . . This was not a circumstance where a contractor was hired to perform a specific task for a defined period of time. There was no contemplated end to the service relationship at the time that the plaintiff [d]rivers began working for [FedEx].

Narayan, 616 F.3d at 903; see also Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 887, 900 (2008) (“[T]he notion that an independent contractor is someone hired to achieve a specific result that is attainable within a finite period of time . . . is at odds with carriers who are engaged in prolonged service to [an employer].”); Air Couriers, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 47 (holding that, where many drivers had worked for “years,”

30

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

these “lengthy tenures” were “inconsistent with independent contractor status”).

The seventh factor, method of payment, is neutral. FedEx pays its drivers according to a complicated scheme that includes fixed and variable components and ties payment to, among other things, packages, stops, and the ratio of driving time to deliveries. This payment method cannot easily be compared to either hourly payment (which favors employee status) or per-job payment (which favors independent contractor status). However, “[w]here, as here, there is ample independent evidence that the employer has the right to control the actual details of the [employee’s] work . . . , the fact that . . . the employee is paid by the job rather than by the hour appears to be of minute consequence.” Tieberg, 471 P.2d at 982; see also Varisco v. Gateway Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 393, 398 (Ct. App. 2008) (“An hourly rate traditionally indicated an employment relationship but independent contractors are now commonly paid on that basis.” (citation omitted)); Germann, 176 Cal. Rptr. at 874 (“[P]ayment may be measured by time, by the piece, or by successful completion of the service, instead of a fixed salary, and still constitute employee wages if other factors indicate an employer-employee relationship.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The eighth factor, whether the work is part of the principal’s regular business, favors plaintiffs. The work that the drivers perform, the pickup and delivery of packages, is “essential to FedEx’s core business.” Estrada, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 334; see also Huggins, 592 F.3d at 859 (noting that drivers “performed work that was the essence of FedEx’s business, namely, ‘transportation and delivery service’”).

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

31

The final factor, the parties’ beliefs, slightly favors FedEx. The OA expressly identifies the relationship as one of an independent contractor, and disclaims any authority on FedEx’s part to direct drivers as to the manner or means of their work. This disclaimer is belied by provisions of the OA and FedEx’s policies and procedures, which in fact allow FedEx to control significant aspects of the drivers’ day-to-day jobs, and it therefore provides only limited insight into the drivers’ state of mind. However, when all justifiable inferences are drawn in FedEx’s favor, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), the OA’s statement of independent contractor status is evidence that the drivers believed that they were entering such a relationship. Ultimately, though, “neither [FedEx]’s nor the drivers’ own perception of their relationship as one of independent contracting” is dispositive. See JKH Enters., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 580; Grant v. Woods, 139 Cal. Rptr. 533, 537 (Ct. App. 1977) (“[T]he belief of the parties as to the legal effect of their relationship is not controlling if as a matter of law a different relationship exists.”).

3. Summary

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to FedEx, the OA grants FedEx a broad right to control the manner in which its drivers’ perform their work. The most important factor of the right-to-control test thus strongly favors employee status. The other factors do not strongly favor either employee status or independent contractor status. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiffs are employees as a matter of law under California’s right-to-control test.

32

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

C. FedEx’s Conditional Cross-Appeal

FedEx argues that we should decertify the class if—but only if—we rely on individualized evidence in reversing the MDL Court’s grant of summary judgment to FedEx. Our decision does not rely on any individualized evidence. FedEx’s argument is therefore unavailing.

Conclusion

We hold that plaintiffs are employees as a matter of law under California’s right-to-control test. Accordingly, we reverse both the MDL Court’s grant of summary judgment to FedEx and its denial of plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. We remand to the district court with instructions to enter summary judgment for plaintiffs on the question of employment status.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

TROTT, Circuit Judge, with whom GOODWIN, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring:
The resolution of this case as a matter of granting summary judgment to the drivers is far from simple, as the length and complexity of Judge Fletcher’s meticulous opinion demonstrates. It has not been made easier by FedEx’s brief, which, by quoting part of a sentence from an admission — but not all of it — creates a rosier picture of the drivers’ state of mind than the record supports.

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

33

FedEx represents in its brief, and I quote, that each of the drivers personally “intended to enter an independent contractor relationship with [FedEx].” What the brief omits are the important words that precede this language and the final sentence in the drivers’ response. This is what the drivers admitted:

Named plaintiffs admit that on the day they signed their original Operating Agreement, in reliance on Defendants’ statements that they would be an independent contractor, they intended to enter into an independent contractor relationship with Defendants. Named Plaintiffs deny, however, that an independent contractor relationship ever, in fact, existed between them and Defendants.

Response to Request for Admission No. 1 (emphasis supplied). The meaning of this response read as a whole is that the drivers believed they were becoming true independent contractors, but the reality they encountered was different.

We also find the actual meaning of the drivers’ “admission” in this case in a companion case, Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Nos. 12-35525 and 1235559. In that case, drivers pursued a personal claim in Oregon district court for rescission, claiming fraud. In denying summary judgment to both parties on the sole ground that the claim was not timely, the district court noted that “[d]eposition testimony indicate[d] that soon after becoming a driver, each plaintiff believed that the [Operating Agreement], despite its express terms, did not give the driver

34

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

the control he expected as an independent contractor.” Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 3:05-cv-1127-HZ, 2012 WL 1902601, at *7 (D. Or. May 25, 2012). All that glittered turned out not to be gold.

Once again, we learn the regrettable lesson that the basic information we require to resolve a controversy is not always found in the parties’ briefs, but in the ungilded record itself. A good rule in this business is to verify before you trust. Lawyers would be well advised not to elide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Judge Fletcher’s analysis of the demands of California law is correct. Although Estrada went to the Court of Appeal after a contested trial — not on a grant of summary judgment to the drivers — we would be misguided to ignore what the California Court of Appeal said in that case, as well as the particulars of the test set out by the California Supreme Court in Borello, which does not embrace the “entrepreneurial opportunities” test, as a gloss or otherwise.

Abraham Lincoln reportedly asked, “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” His answer was, “Four. Calling a dog’s tail a leg does not make it a leg.” Justice Cardozo made the same point in W.B. Worthen Co. v. Kavanaugh, 295 U.S. 56, 62 (1935), counseling us, when called upon to characterize a written enactment, to look to the “underlying reality rather than the form or label.” The California Supreme Court echoed this wisdom in Borello, saying that the “label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced.” 769 P.2d at 403. As noted by Judge Fletcher, “[N]either [FedEx’s] nor the drivers’ own perception of their

ALEXANDER V. FEDEX

35

relationship as one of independent contracting” is dispositive. JKH Enters., Inc., 48 Cal. Rptr. at 580.

Bottom line? Labeling the drivers “independent contractors” in FedEx’s Operating Agreement does not conclusively make them so when viewed in the light of (1) the entire agreement, (2) the rest of the relevant “common policies and procedures” evidence, and (3) California law. As Judge Fletcher points out, the MDL decision to the contrary relied on an inappropriate consideration: the entrepreneurial opportunities factor.

Although our decision substantially unravels FedEx’s business model, FedEx was not entitled to “write around” the principles and mandates of California Labor Law by constructing a contract which, after a contested trial, the California trial court in Estrada called:

[A] brilliantly drafted contract creating the constraints of an employment arrangement with [the drivers] in the guise of an independent contractor model — because FedEx not only has the right to control, but has close to absolute control over [the drivers] based upon interpretation and obfuscation.

Estrada, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 334 (brackets in original) (internal quotations marks omitted). The Court of Appeal in that case appropriately called the trial court’s observation an application of the looks like, walks like, swims like, and quacks like a duck test. See id. at 335.

Accordingly, I concur in Judge Fletcher’s persuasive opinion.

 
 In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

No. 11-2438 FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
v.
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION,

Petitioner, Respondent.

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
MDL No. 1700
SUBMITTED JULY 27, 2011—DECIDED NOVEMBER 17, 2011

Before MANION, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This petition for the extraordinary writ of mandamus presents an important question concerning the management of appeals in multidistrict litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 when portions of some cases must be returned to their original transferor courts. In this case, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) chose one of two alternative courses. The JPML chose to ensure that each case

2

No. 11-2438

produces one appeal of all issues in that case, rather than using partial final judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to ensure that all related appeals would go to the same circuit. As we explain below, we agree with the JPML that there are strong arguments for both sides of this procedural dispute, and we defer to the JPML’s exercise of its discretion in this matter. In terms of the standards for issuing writs of mandamus, we find that the petitioner has failed to show that it has a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ, so its petition is denied.

I. The MDL Litigation
Delivery drivers for petitioner FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. filed numerous class actions against FedEx alleging that the company improperly classified them as independent contractors rather than employees. Although the cases in federal courts alleged violations of many different state laws, they presented many common questions of fact. Under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the JPML consolidated more than 70 of the cases in MDL No. 1700 and transferred those cases to the Northern District of Indiana in 2005 for consolidated pretrial proceedings under the supervision of Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., a veteran district judge with long experience both as a transferee judge managing MDL cases and as a member of the JPML itself. Judge Miller supervised the cases through several years of discovery and motions practice.
In August 2010, Judge Miller granted a bellwether summary judgment to FedEx on all of the state-law

No. 11-2438

3

claims in the Kansas case. He concluded that the class members and named plaintiffs were independent contractors as a matter of law. In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litig., 734 F. Supp. 2d 557 (N.D. Ind. 2010). In December 2010, Judge Miller granted summary judgment to FedEx on parallel claims in most of the other pending cases, while granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on some claims in a few cases. In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litig., 758 F. Supp. 2d 638 (N.D. Ind. 2010). Those decisions effectively concluded the coordinated pretrial proceedings. It was time for appeal in the closed cases and remand in the cases that still had open claims that had not been resolved by the summary judgment motions.
The present controversy arose from the fact that Judge Miller’s summary judgment decisions resolved all the claims in 22 of the still-pending MDL cases, but other claims remained in the other 12 pending MDL cases. Plaintiffs are appealing in the 22 cases where the transferee court entered final judgments, and those appeals are pending before this circuit. There is no final, appealable judgment in the remaining 12 cases, and there’s the rub.
There are two basic options for managing those cases and the expected appeals from the transferee court’s decisions in them. One option would be to have Judge Miller issue partial final judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), so that plaintiffs would have to appeal immediately in those cases and

4

No. 11-2438

the appeals would come to this circuit. There are some obvious advantages to this course by consolidating the closely-related appeals before one circuit. The second option is to follow the usual course at the end of consolidated pretrial proceedings: transfer the cases with remaining claims back to the original transferor courts for further proceedings, including possible appeal after a final judgment. There are some obvious advantages to this course, also, by ensuring that all issues in the same case, involving the same parties and the same facts, will be appealed at once, and to the same circuit. Choosing either option means that the courts will lose the advantages of the other option. The Rule 54(b) option means that the remaining cases will be chopped up for piecemeal appeals. The remand option means that the appeals of similar issues (though under different states’ laws) in different cases will go to different circuits.
FedEx favored the Rule 54(b) option; plaintiffs favored the remand option. Judge Miller chose the remand option and recommended that the JPML, which has final authority over the question, remand the remaining 12 cases to their original transferor courts. See R. Proc. J.P.M.L. 10.1(b) (explaining that JPML can remand with or without transferee court’s suggestion). The JPML weighed that advice from Judge Miller and agreed to remand those 12 cases to the originating courts without a Rule 54(b) certification. That is the decision FedEx seeks to reverse here by a writ of mandamus. The JPML reviewed the parties’ positions and commented: “The evident merit in both views highlights an interesting

No. 11-2438

5

intersection between Rule 54(b) and Section 1407. No doubt, one can make strong arguments for either a preference for consistent appeals from a transferee court ruling or a preference that related claims in the same case be taken in the same appeal.” The JPML explained that it gave great weight to the transferee court’s remand recommendation: “in most instances the transferee judge has an acute sense about the procedural steps necessary to advance the litigation in the fairest and most efficient way.” Because the transferee court (Judge Miller) had considered both sides’ views and the relevant factors, the JPML accepted that recommendation and ordered accordingly.

II. Discussion
To qualify for mandamus relief, FedEx must first show that it has no other adequate means to obtain relief. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). FedEx satisfies this requirement: “No proceedings for review of any order of the [JPML] may be permitted except by extraordinary writ.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(e). Second, FedEx must also show that its right to the writ is clear and indisputable, and we must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381. Moreover, “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.” Id. at 380 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). FedEx fails to satisfy this second requirement.

6

No. 11-2438

In its petition to this court, FedEx offers strong arguments for the benefits of its preferred course. Its arguments give short shrift, however, to the benefits of the other course. At bottom, we agree with the JPML that the choice between the two methods of managing appeals offers “an interesting intersection between Rule 54(b) and Section 1407” and that there are strong arguments for each method.
The choice between these two methods of case management is best left to the transferee court and JPML, without trying to impose a rigid rule for all cases and circumstances. The transferee district court knows well the issues and dynamics of the particular case. The JPML brings to bear decades of experience with more than a thousand MDL proceedings, which have included some of the most complex and challenging cases in the history of the federal courts. The choice between these two methods of case management is an archetype for a discretionary judgment, and the transferee court and the JPML are in the best position to make that judgment. In terms of the standards for issuing writs of mandamus, it would be rare for one party to have a “clear and indisputable right” to one method over the other.
FedEx relies heavily on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in a similar MDL proceeding, In re Food Lion, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act “Effective Scheduling” Litig., 73 F.3d 528 (4th Cir. 1996), in which a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit issued a writ of mandamus to the JPML to undo its orders transferring cases back to their original transferor courts to ensure that all related appeals would go

No. 11-2438

7

to the Fourth Circuit itself. Judge Butzner dissented, arguing that the fact-specific nature of MDL litigation called for leaving such case-management decisions to the sound discretion of the transferee court and the JPML. Id. at 533-35.
We do not understand the Food Lion majority to have adopted a sweeping holding that all MDL cases must be managed to ensure that all related appeals go to only the circuit with jurisdiction over the transferee court. Although the Food Lion litigation was similar to this case, the claims there arose under federal law, so that one uniform law applied to claims in all the related cases and thus all the appeals. In the FedEx cases, by contrast, plaintiffs assert rights under the laws of many different states. What may have been the better way to manage the Food Lion litigation, which involved claims under federal law, is not necessarily the better way to manage these cases, in which the claims arise under similar but not identical state laws.
The JPML did not abuse its discretion and no exceptional circumstances warrant mandamus relief. FedEx has not shown that it has a clear and indisputable right to the writ, so its petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED.

11-17-11