Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04137/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04137-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL VILLALPANDO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EXEL DIRECT INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-04137-JCS 

COURT'S PROPOSED NEUTRAL 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Court requested that the parties provide a joint neutral statement of the case to read to 

the jury at the outset of the trial in this action. As the parties were unable to agree, the Court 

proposes the following neutral statement to be read to the jury:

This is a class action brought on behalf of individuals who have 

worked as delivery drivers for Exel in California. Exel, the 

“Defendant,” is a company that contracts with various retail 

establishments to provide home delivery services. These services 

are provided by Exel’s delivery drivers, also called “Plaintiffs” or 

“Drivers,” who deliver merchandise that customers have purchased 

at the retail establishments to the customers’ homes. Earlier in the 

case, the Court ruled that although Exel classified the Drivers as 

“independent contractors,” the Drivers are actually “employees” 

under the applicable law. The Drivers contend that Exel denied 

them their legal rights as employees by failing to reimburse them for 

out-of-pocket work expenses, failing to pay them overtime, failing 

to pay them for time spent in morning meetings before making 

deliveries, and failing to provide off duty meal and rest breaks. The 

Drivers also claim that Exel has unlawfully deducted money from 

their wages to cover Exel’s own operating costs. Exel denies that it 

has violated these rights, asserting that it has satisfied its obligations 

to Plaintiffs as their employer. All of the Drivers who are Plaintiffs 

Case 3:12-cv-04137-JCS Document 332 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in this case made at least one home delivery for Exel at some point 

during the period of June 14, 2009, to January 6, 2015.

Dated: May 26, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:12-cv-04137-JCS Document 332 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 2