Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00038/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00038-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Negotiable Instrument

---

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

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] FOR LEAVE FOR 

 THE FILING OF THE [PROPOSED] FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 3:05-cv-38 EMC

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

BETH A. ROSS (SBN 141337) 

bross@leonardcarder.com

AARON KAUFMANN (SBN 148580)

akaufmann@leonardcarder.com 

DAVID P. POGREL (SBN 203787)

dpogrel@leonardcarder.com

ELIZABETH R. GROPMAN (SBN 294156)

egropman@leonardcarder.com

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

1330 Broadway, Suite 1450 

Oakland, California 94612 

Tel: (510) 272-0169 

Fax: (510) 272-0174 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

CAROLYN KUBOTA (SBN 113660) 

ckubota@omm.com

SCOTT VOELZ (SBN 181415) 

svoelz@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

400 South Hope Street 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Tel: (213) 430-6000 

Fax: (213) 430-6407 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEAN ALEXANDER, et. al. 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. 

et. al., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] FOR LEAVE FOR THE 

FILING OF THE [PROPOSED] 

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 34 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 4
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

- 1 - 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] FOR LEAVE FOR 

 THE FILING OF THE [PROPOSED] FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 3:05-cv-38 EMC

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

The parties to this lawsuit, by and through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate for 

leave for to the filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A. The 

parties have agreed to the filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint for the purposes of (a) 

allowing Plaintiffs to add an additional Plaintiff, Marjorie Pontarolo, and (b) remove all 

references to Plaintiffs’ claims under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 

which were resolved and dismissed in a separate action. 

It is further stipulated that Defendant will have until October 12, 2015 to file an answer or 

any other responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint. Alternatively, 

Defendant may elect not to file a responsive pleading, in which case the Defendant’s Answer on 

file will be deemed the responsive pleading to the Fourth Amended Complaint. 

The proposed amended pleading is submitted, with the opposing party’s consent, pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). 

Respectfully submitted, 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP 

Dated: September 9, 2015 By: /s/ Beth A. Ross 

Beth A. Ross 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Dated: September 9, 2015 By: /s/ Scott Voelz 

Carolyn Kubota 

Scott Voelz

Attorneys for Defendant FedEx Ground 

Package System, Inc. 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 34 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 4
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

- 2 - 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] FOR LEAVE FOR 

 THE FILING OF THE [PROPOSED] FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 3:05-cv-38 EMC

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

ATTESTATION OF FILING

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5-1(i)(3), I, Beth A. Ross, hereby attest that concurrence in 

the filing of this Stipulation has been obtained from each of the other signatories listed above. 

Dated: September 9, 2015 LEONARD CARDER, LLP

By: /s/ Beth A. Ross 

Beth A. Ross 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 34 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 4
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

- 3 - 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] FOR LEAVE FOR 

 THE FILING OF THE [PROPOSED] FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No. 3:05-cv-38 EMC

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

ORDER 

Pursuant to stipulation, Plaintiffs shall be granted leave to file the [Proposed] Fourth 

Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A hereto, and the Clerk is directed to file said 

[Proposed] Fourth Amended Complaint. 

Defendant will have until October 12, 2015 to file an answer or any other responsive 

pleading to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint. Alternatively, Defendant may elect not to file 

a responsive pleading, in which case the Defendant’s Answer on file will be deemed the 

responsive pleading to the Fourth Amended Complaint. 

DATED: _____________, 2015 

_______________________________ 

Hon. Edward M. Chen 

U.S. District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146 Filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 4

October 15

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 4 of 34
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

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

BETH A. ROSS (SBN 141337) 

bross@leonardcarder.com 

AARON KAUFMANN (SBN 148580)

akaufmann@leonardcarder.com

DAVID P. POGREL (SBN 203787)

dpogrel@leonardcarder.com

ELIZABETH R. GROPMAN (SBN 294156)

egropman@leonardcarder.com

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

1330 Broadway, Suite 1450 

Oakland, California 94612 

Tel: (510) 272-0169 

Fax: (510) 272-0174 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEAN ALEXANDER, PETER ALLEN, 

ALBERT AYANA, SUZANNE ANDRADE, 

JARRETT HENDERSON, ELY INES, JORGE 

ISLA, PAUL INFANTINO, ERIC JEPSON, 

GUPERTINO MAGANA, BERNARD 

MENDOZA, JESSE PADILLA, MARJORIE 

PONTAROLO, JOEY RODRIGUEZ, ALLAN 

ROSS, AGOSTINO SCALERCIO AND 

ANTHONY YBARRA

Plaintiffs,

vs.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. 

et. al., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS 

ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 5 of 34
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

- 1 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

Plaintiffs Dean Alexander, Peter Allen, Albert Anaya, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett 

Henderson, Ely Ines, Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Eric Jepson, Gupertino Magana, Bernard 

Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Marjorie Pontarolo, Joey Rodriguez, Dale Rose, Allan Ross, Agostino 

Scalercio, and Anthony Ybarra, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, and the 

general public allege as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. The California Labor Code provides legal rights to employees and requires 

employers to meet various legal obligations to their employees, such as the duty to reimburse 

their employees for all expenses necessarily incurred in connection with their employment (Lab. 

Code §2802), the duty to pay overtime premium pay for hours worked which exceed eight in any 

workday or forty in any workweek (Lab. Code §1194), the duty to provide workers compensation 

coverage (Lab. Code §§3200 et seq.), the duty to provide meal and rest breaks (Lab. Code §510, 

226.7), the duty to avoid coercion in purchase of necessary equipment and materials (Lab. Code 

§450) and other legal obligations. Under settled law, employers may not avoid these legal 

obligations or interfere with the exercise of these rights by mis-classifying their employees as 

“independent contractors” if the employers treat workers as employees.

2. In 1999, a statewide class action entitled Estrada et al. v. Roadway Package 

Systems, BC 210130, was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. (The case name was later 

changed to Estrada v. FedEx Ground by order of the court.) A class was certified on August 2, 

2001 and the case proceeded to trial in phases beginning with Phase I, tried in the court from 

April 16 to June 30, 2004 before the Honorable Howard J. Schwab in Department F-48. At the 

end of Phase I, Judge Schwab issued a Statement of Decision on July 26, 2004, finding that 

pickup and delivery drivers with one route were employees, not independent contractors, and 

finding that FedEx Ground had not reimbursed its drivers for their work-related expenses. Final 

judgment in that case was entered on December 19, 2005 finding that those drivers were 

employees and enjoining further mis-classification by FedEx Ground. On August 13, 2007, the 

California Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the trial court’s ruling that pickup and 

delivery drivers with one route were employees and that class certification was proper. The class 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 6 of 34
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

- 2 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

definition in Estrada v. FedEx Ground included those who were drivers at the time of the 

certification order on August 2, 2001 but did not include drivers operating under contracts signed 

thereafter and also did not include those pickup and delivery drivers operating for the FedEx 

Ground division doing business as FedEx Home Delivery. The instant lawsuit follows the earlier 

Estrada case, covering those not included in that class and seeking relief for all pickup and 

delivery drivers operating under contract with FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery. 

3. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FEG”), and its division, FedEx 

Home Delivery (“FHD”) (hereinafter together referred to as Defendant), is a Delaware 

corporation doing business as two national companies, affiliated with the Federal Express 

Corporation. FEG (including FHD) employs thousands of drivers to pick up and deliver packages 

for its customers throughout the United States. As a condition of employment, each FEG and 

FHD driver is required to sign a lengthy form contract entitled the “Pickup And Delivery 

Contractor Operating Agreement” that mis-characterizes each driver as an “independent 

contractor.” These operating agreements were designed to conceal the true nature of the 

relationship between FEG and its drivers: that of employer and employee. 

4. Despite FEG and FHD’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 California law, and despite the finding of the Los Angeles Superior Court in the Estrada 

case that these drivers are employees, FEG and FHD continue to mis-classify their drivers as 

independent contractors. As a result, these drivers are deprived of the rights and protections 

guaranteed by California 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 FEG and FHD’s exclusive benefit and to work under other unlawful 

conditions. FEG and FHD’s mis-characterization of their drivers as independent contractors, the 

concealment and/or non-disclosure of the true nature of the relationship between FEG and FHD 

and its drivers and the attendant deprivation of substantial rights and benefits of employment are 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 7 of 34
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

- 3 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

part of an on-going unfair, and/or unlawful and/or fraudulent business practice by FEG and FHD 

which this court should enjoin.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiffs Dean Alexander, Peter Allen, Albert Anaya, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett 

Henderson, Ely Ines, Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Eric Jepson, Gupertino Magana, Bernard 

Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Marjorie Pontorolo, Joey Rodriguez, Dale Rose, Allan Ross, Agostino 

Scalercio and Anthony Ybarra are residents of, Carmichael, Chico, Clovis, El Dorado Hills, 

Escondido, Folsom, Lahabra, Moreno Valley, Oceanside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Juan 

Santee, Capistrano, San Ramon, Union City, Vacaville, Yuba City in the State of California. Paul 

Infantino, Marjorie Pontarolo. Joey Rodriguez, and Agostino Scalercio were employed by FEG 

for all relevant times as pick-up and delivery drivers. Dean Alexander, Peter Allen, Albert 

Anaya, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Jorge Isla, Gupertino Magana, Bernard 

Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Dale Rose, Allan Ross and Anthony Ybarra were and/or are employed by 

FHD for all relevant times as pick-up and delivery drivers. Together, they sue on behalf of 

themselves, as representatives of all similarly situated pickup and delivery drivers in the classes 

defined below, on behalf of the public and as private attorney generals pursuant to the Unfair 

Business Practices Act (“UBPA”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq. and Cal. Labor Code § 

2699.

6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that at all times herein 

defendant FEG (including its division FHD) has been and is a Delaware corporation authorized to 

do business and doing business in all fifty states including the state of California at various 

locations throughout the United States with its principal corporate headquarters in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that at all times 

relevant herein defendant FEG and its division FHD operate a network of approximately 500 

distribution hubs and local pick-up and delivery terminals throughout the United States with at 

least fifty employees within a 75-mile radius of each other. At all times relevant herein, 

defendant FEG and its division FHD have been and are employers of Plaintiffs within the 

meaning of California law. 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 8 of 34
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

- 4 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, association or 

otherwise of defendants named herein as DOES 1 THROUGH 20, inclusive, are unknown to 

Plaintiffs and therefore Plaintiffs sue such DOES by fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed, 

believe, and on that basis allege that these DOE defendants are California residents or 

corporations or entities doing business in the State of California, and that each is the agent of the 

other Defendants and that each is responsible for some or all of the acts and omissions alleged 

herein. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of these DOE 

defendants when they have been determined. 

JURISDICTION

8. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to the 

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-

1715. 

VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

9. Because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims 

stated herein arose within this District, and a substantial number of the members of the class 

alleged herein work or worked for Defendant in facilities and operations maintained by 

Defendants within this District and within the Division and Courthouse to which this action has 

been assigned, venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and assignment to 

the San Francisco Division or Oakland Division is proper pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(d). 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

10. Plaintiffs Alexander, Allen, Anaya, Andrade, Henderson, Ines, Isla, Infantino, 

Jeppson, Magana, Mendoza, Padilla, Rodriguez, Ross, Scalercio, and Ybarra bring a statewide 

class action on behalf of all persons who are now working or have worked for FEG and/or FHD 

as pick-up and delivery drivers within the State of California during the time period covered 

herein. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated 

members of the class who have been similarly deprived of rights under California law by FEG 

and FHD in the manner described in this Complaint. For purposes of Plaintiffs’ First, Fourth, 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 5 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 9 of 34
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

- 5 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Causes of Action, as set forth below, 

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class comprised 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) between November 17, 2000 

and October 15, 2007; 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. 

Plaintiffs intend to include as members of the California statewide class (a) all FHD pick- up and 

delivery drivers who executed contracts to provide service to FHD between November 12, 2000 

and the time of trial, (b) all FEG California pick-up and delivery drivers who began providing 

services to FEG after August 2, 2001 and were therefore never included in the Estrada class on 

that basis for any time between August 2, 2001 and the time of trial, (c) any former or putative 

Estrada class members whose claims were dismissed by the Los Angeles Superior Court without 

prejudice or who were excluded from the Estrada class during the pendency of that action for lack 

of jurisdiction for the period May 11, 1995 through the time of trial. 

11. During the class period, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege 

that more than 2000 persons have worked for FEG and/or FHD as package pickup and delivery 

drivers in California and who fall within this class and whose identities may be ascertained from 

Defendant’s’ records.

12. For purposes of Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action, as set forth below, Plaintiffs 

Alexander, Allen, Anaya, Andrade, Henderson, Ines, Isla, Magana, Mendoza, Padilla, Ross, and 

Ybarra seek to certify a sub-class of those identified in Paragraph 10 above comprised 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) between November 17, 2000 

and October 15, 2007; 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 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 6 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 10 of 34
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

- 6 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

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. 

13. During the class period Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege 

that more than 800 persons have worked for FEG and/or FHD as pick-up and delivery drivers in 

California and who fall within the subclass identified in paragraph 12 and whose identities may 

be ascertained from Defendant’s records. The subclass identified in paragraph 12 shall 

hereinafter be referred to as the “Overtime Subclass.”

14. For purposes of Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action, as set forth below, Plaintiffs 

Plaintiff Marjorie Pontarolo seeks to certify a sub-class of those identified in Paragraph 10 above 

comprised 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) between November 17, 2000 

and October 15, 2007; 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, 2011, 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. 

15. During the class period Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege 

that there are more than 400 persons who have worked for FEG and/or FHD as pick-up and 

delivery drivers in California, who fall within the subclass identified in paragraph 14, and whose 

identities may be ascertained from Defendant’s records. The subclass identified in paragraph 14 

shall hereinafter be referred to as the “meal and rest period subclass.”

16. This action may be properly maintained as a class action under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23 and/or California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 in that: 

a. The members of each subclass are so numerous that their individual joinder 

in a single action is impossible and/or impracticable; 

b. The central questions of law and fact involved in this action are of a 

common or general interest and those common legal and factual issues 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the 

class. Among the common questions of law and fact are the following: 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 7 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 11 of 34
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

- 7 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

i. Whether class members have been mis-classified as independent 

contractors pursuant to FEG and/or FHD’s operating agreements; 

ii. Whether class members are entitled to the protections of various 

provisions of the California Labor Code as detailed below; 

iii. Whether FEG and/or FHD have violated their legal obligations 

under various provisions of the California Labor Code as detailed 

below; 

iv. Whether FEG and/or FHD unlawfully failed to provide workers 

compensation insurance benefits and unemployment insurance 

benefits to the class members in violation of Cal. Labor Code 

§§3200 et seq. and Cal. Unempl. Ins. Code §§100 et seq.

respectively; 

v. Whether FEG and/or FHD’s actions constitute violations of the 

Unfair Business Practices Act, California Business & Professions 

Code ; 

vi. Whether FEG and/or FHD intentionally and/or negligently 

misrepresented, concealed and/or failed to disclose to Plaintiffs and 

the class they seek to represent their true employment status and 

thereby obtained unjust profits and induced the drivers to incur 

substantial expenses in reliance on such representations; 

vii. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief 

and an equitable accounting; and 

viii. Whether the imposition of civil penalties pursuant to California 

Labor Code Section 2699 is proper. 

17. The claims of the named representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the 

members of the California class and subclasses. The named plaintiffs share the same interests as 

other members of the class and subclasses in this action because, like other class and subclass 

members, they have each been mis-classified, have been deprived of their legal rights, have been 

subjected to FEG and/or FHD’s unlawful policies and procedures and suffered financial loss of 

thousands of dollars due to FEG and/or FHD’s wrongful mis-classification. Given the 

significance of the deprivation of their rights, they have the incentive, and are committed, to 

vigorously prosecute this action. They have retained competent and experienced counsel who 

specialize in class action and employment litigation to represent themselves and the proposed 

class.

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 8 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 12 of 34
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

- 8 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

18. A class action is the only realistic method available for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. The expense and burden of individual litigation makes it 

impracticable for members of the class to seek redress individually for the wrongful conduct 

herein alleged. Were each individual member required to bring a separate lawsuit, the resulting 

multiplicity of proceedings would cause undue hardship and expense for the litigants and the 

Court and create the risk of inconsistent rulings which would be contrary to the interest of justice 

and equity. 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 

19. FEG is a national corporation, and FHD is a division thereof, whose business 

consists of package delivery and pick-up service to customers, using a single integrated 

nationwide network of transportation, sortation and communication facilities and integrating class 

members into those existing network of operations. Defendant FEG and/or its division FHD 

hired plaintiffs to timely deliver and pick up packages at times, locations and for amounts 

determined solely by FEG and/or FHD. 

20. FEG and its division FHD employ or employed during the class period more than 

14,000 pick-up and delivery drivers in the United States including, either presently or at material 

times in the past, each of the plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class. FEG and FHD employ 

or employed during the class period more than 2,000 pick-up and delivery drivers in the State of 

California including, either presently or at material times in the past, each of the plaintiffs and 

members of the plaintiff class. 

21. FEG and FHD retain the right to control the manner and means by which Plaintiffs 

and class members perform their jobs. Pick-up and delivery drivers work from a FEG or FHD 

terminal, where they are assigned packages for delivery and locations for pickups each day. FEG 

and FHD employ a variety of managerial and supervisory employees at their terminals who have 

supervisory responsibility over the drivers, their daily assignments and paperwork. Drivers also 

interact with other FEG and/or FHD personnel on a daily basis. 

22. FEG and FHD unilaterally set the compensation to be paid to the pick-up and 

delivery drivers. Defendant pays drivers for the number of stops, deliveries and pick-ups made, as 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 9 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 13 of 34
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

- 9 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

well as daily compensation for making themselves available for pickup and delivery work in 

geographic areas determined by FEG and FHD. 

23. FEG and FHD unilaterally set the prices charged to their customers for the services 

rendered by Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members. 

24. FEG and FHD have created and regularly updated a large number of written 

policies and procedures outside of the Operating Agreement that drivers are never given, but 

nonetheless govern the terms and conditions of their employment and compensation. FEG and 

FHD’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/or which FEG and FHD fail to disclose and/or provide to 

drivers that govern the relationship between FEG, FHD and the drivers. The other written 

handbooks and manuals and additional extra-contractual 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 drivers do not follow an FEG or FHD rule or procedure, 

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. FEG and FHD document such so-called violations of such rules on forms 

referred to as “Business Discussion Notes” and retain 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. 

25. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members provide services which are an integral part 

of FEG and FHD’s business enterprise and they have no separate or distinct occupation or 

business. By providing vehicles with required FEG and FHD’s colors, logos and advertising, by 

at least daily reporting to FEG and FHD terminal facilities, by interacting daily with FEG and 

FHD terminal managers and other employees, by reliably serving FEG and FHD’s customers, by 

following FEG and FHD’s controlled delivery routes and delivery and pick-up methods and 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 10 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 14 of 34
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

- 10 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

schedules, by providing FEG and FHD sales personnel with customer leads, by using FEG and 

FHD scanners which enable Defendant’s customers to track their packages, and in other material 

ways, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members have rendered, and continue to render, services to 

Defendant which are integral to the Defendant’s package delivery system. 

26. Each pick-up and delivery driver (referred to by FEG and FHD 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 “Operating 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 FEG and FHD 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 FEG or FHD is the same in all material respects. 

The Operating Agreement between Plaintiffs and FEG and between Plaintiffs and FHD contain 

all of the same identical material terms with only a few, minor and insubstantial differences. 

27. 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 or pick-up 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 

perform service at “times” requested by customers and determined by FEG and FHD, the right to 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 11 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 15 of 34
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

- 11 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

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 FEG and FHD. 

28. The Operating Agreement also provides, among other things, that: 

a. Subject to company approval of any vehicle used, drivers must provide and 

maintain their own vehicle, paying for all costs and expenses incidental to 

its operation, including maintenance, gas, oil, repairs, tax, licenses and 

tolls. Moreover, drivers must adorn the vehicle with specific colors, logos 

and marks, identifying it as part of the FEG or FHD system at their own 

expense;

b. Drivers must maintain liability and workers compensation insurance 

(sometimes referred to as “work accident insurance” for the benefit of 

Defendant; 

c. Drivers must use communications equipment, i.e., a scanner, which uses 

FEG and/or FHD’s customized and/or proprietary tracking software and 

drivers must pay to rent such equipment from the Company; 

d. Drivers must prepare and submit daily reports and such shipping 

documents “as FEG may from time to time designate;”

e. Drivers must wear an approved uniform, and keep their personal 

appearance consistent with standards unilaterally “promulgated from time 

to time” by Defendant;

f. Defendant retains the right to change a driver’s work area on a daily basis 

or permanently, at its discretion, notwithstanding statements in the 

Agreement regarding an alleged “proprietary interest” in the customers the 

driver serves; 

g. After one month of service, drivers become eligible to participate in FEG’s 

“Contractor Customer” program (“CCS”), by which a monetary bonus can 

be earned for every period in which the driver has no at-fault accidents, no 

customer complaints and no missed-pickups and during which the entire 

terminal’s performance meets company-assigned standards of service; 

h. Defendant retains the right to control the volume of packages to be 

delivered and/or picked up each day, the locations of such deliveries and 

pickups, and the delivery and/or pickup times (referred to as “windows”), 

and thus controlling the drivers’ work hours; and

i. Defendant retains the right to control when drivers may leave the terminal 

with the packages for delivery each day and retains control over the release 

of scanners each day and thus further controls the drivers’ work hours.

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 12 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 16 of 34
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

- 12 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

29. The Operating Agreement sets forth an initial term ranging from one to three years 

and is automatically renewed for successive terms of one year after the expiration of the initial 

term. The Agreement can be terminated either by mutual agreement or unilaterally by Defendant 

for alleged contract violations. Because FEG and FHD retain absolute unilateral control over 

contract interpretation and termination, the Agreement is an at-will employment relationship of 

indefinite duration. 

30. The Operating Agreement is, and at all times mentioned herein, 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. 

31. Although the nature of the work performed by the plaintiff class makes detailed 

control by management unnecessary, Defendant in fact retains the right to control and exercise 

extensive control over the work of the drivers to fulfill Defendant’s commitments to its 

customers. 

32. Defendant’s right of control over plaintiff class members is also retained and/or 

exercised by FEG and FHD as demonstrated by concealed and/or undisclosed extra- contractual 

sources such as Company written rules and policies and unwritten practices which supplement 

and fill gaps in the written contract. 

33. Defendant periodically distributes memoranda and/or videotapes from 

management to all pickup and delivery drivers covering various topics including pick-up and 

delivery procedures, changes in selected company rules, procedures or programs, news regarding 

company growth or new customers with particular requirements and similar information. 

Nonetheless, Defendant has never distributed any memoranda to its pickup and delivery drivers 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 13 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 17 of 34
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

- 13 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

explaining workers compensation procedures or notices or any other notification to employees 

required by law. 

34. In order to take a limited amount of pre-scheduled time off without having to hire 

a temporary replacement driver, pickup and delivery drivers at FEG can pay Defendant $756 per 

year ($3 per day of work) to participate in its so-called “Time Off Program” which allows 

participating drivers to take two non-consecutive weeks off without hiring replacement drivers. 

During such pre-scheduled time off, Defendant provides replacement drivers to cover the driver’s 

route for the scheduled week off. Defendant must approve the time off period far in advance; 

drivers sign up for weeks of “Time-off” under this program by seniority, once per year for the 

following year during a sign-up period. Such time off is not permitted to be used on an 

emergency basis or without advance scheduling. 

35. On September 20, 2007, Defendant announced that, starting on October 26, 2007, 

it will terminate the contracts of all of its drivers who operate single work areas (approximately 

1,000 positions) in California and that, as of May 31, 2008, it will conduct its California pickup 

and delivery business using only to drivers who operate multiple-work areas. 

36. Defendant further announced that it was eliminating its single work area driver 

positions in California because of the “legal and regulatory environment in California” of which 

“the Estrada case is a part.”

37. Defendant announced that it has no plans to terminate single work area drivers 

anywhere but California at the present time, but is always looking for ways “to strengthen [its] 

business model” nation-wide.

38. Defendant also announced that it would provide the terminated single work area 

drivers in California with so-called “voluntary transition incentives” of at least $25,000.00 (and in 

some cases more) provided they are willing to execute a broad release of claims in Defendant’s 

favor contained in a document entitled, “Contractor Conversion and Release Agreement,” copies 

of which were provided to the California single work area drivers, and provided they execute 

such agreement by no later than October 26, 2007. The “Contractor Conversion and Release 

Agreement” contains the following non-negotiable provision: 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 14 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 18 of 34
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

- 14 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

Release of Claims.

(a) In exchange for the consideration stated in Article 2(a) and for other good and 

valuable consideration, and except for those obligations created by or arising out of this 

Agreement, Contractor, on his own behalf, and on behalf of any corporation, limited 

liability company, sole proprietorship, and any other business entity with which 

Contractor is affiliated, hereby covenants not to sue and acknowledges full and complete 

satisfaction of and releases and discharges, to the fullest extent permitted by law, FedEx 

Ground, its subsidiaries, divisions (including, without limitation, FedEx Home Delivery), 

parent and affiliated companies, past and present, and each of them, as well as its and their 

trustees, directors, officers, shareholders, agents, attorneys, insurers and employees, past 

and present, and each of them, hereinafter collectively referred to as “Releasees,” with 

respect to and from any and all claims, demands, liens, agreements, contracts, covenants, 

actions, suits, causes of action, wages, obligations, debts, expenses, attorneys’ fees, 

damages, judgments, orders and liabilities of whatever kind, whether known or unknown, 

suspected or unsuspected, which Contractor or any Contractor-related business entity now 

owns or holds or has at any time heretofore owned or held as against Releasees, or any of 

them, arising out of or in any way connected with (i) FedEx Ground’s announcement(s) 

that it is modifying its relationship with contractors in California, and (ii) any and all 

actions related to FedEx Ground’s modification of its relationship with California 

contractors, including, without limitation, any contemplated or actual termination, nonrenewal or assignment of Contractor’s Operating Agreement, and any contemplated or 

actual sale, assignment or other disposition of a primary service area (whether Contractor 

was the transferor or transferee of said primary service area.) 

(b) Contractor agrees that this Agreement shall be effective as a bar to each and every 

claim, demand and cause of action described above. Accordingly, Contractor, on his own 

behalf, and on behalf of any corporation, limited liability company, sole proprietorship, 

and any other business entity with which Contractor is affiliated, hereby expressly waives 

any and all rights and benefits conferred upon Contractor by the provisions of SECTION 

1542 OF THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE with respect to the above-described release 

of claims, and expressly consents that this Agreement shall be given full force and effect 

according to each and all of its express terms and provisions, including those relating to 

unknown and unsuspected claims, demands and causes of action, if any, as well as those 

relating to any other claims, demands and causes of action referred to above. SECTION 

1542 provides: 

“A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE 

CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER 

FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF 

KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR 

HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR”

39. In addition, Defendant announced that existing California single work area drivers 

who want to acquire one or more additional routes must participate in a program called 

“Enhanced Primary Plus,” under which participants must execute a document called a 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 15 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 19 of 34
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

- 15 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

“compliance disclosure addendum.” Defendant also announced that drivers who operate multiple 

work areas in California and across the county could participate in “Enhanced Primary Plus” and 

also would have to execute the “compliance disclosure addendum” if they did so.

40. The “compliance disclosure addendum” was not distributed to pick-up and 

delivery drivers on September 20, 2007 or made widely available. 

41. The “compliance disclosure addendum” contains the following non-negotiable 

indemnification agreement in favor of Defendant: 

[A]s between FedEx Ground and Contractor, Contractor agrees to: 

...

Indemnify FedEx Ground for, and hold FedEx Ground harmless from, any liability and 

claims by Contractor or any third party, including, but not limited to, any persons utilized 

by Contractor or governmental entities, arising from Contractor's use or employment of 

any other person(s) in the performance of Contractor’s obligations, including, but not 

limited to, claims or liabilities arising under industrial accident prevention, workers’ 

compensation, or similar laws or any federal, state or municipal laws applicable to the 

relationship between and among employers and employees. 

42. Defendant has failed and refused to inform drivers that the “compliance disclosure 

addendum” includes such a provision and has affirmatively misled drivers regarding the meaning 

and effect of the “compliance disclosure addendum.” 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Failure to Reimburse in Violation of Labor Code §2802) 

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 42 above as if fully set 

forth herein, and, for a cause of action by all members of the plaintiff class, allege as follows: 

43. While acting on the direct instruction of FEG and/or FHD and discharging their 

duties for FEG and/or FHD, Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members incurred work-related expenses 

including but not limited to the purchase or lease, maintenance, operating costs, and adornment of 

vehicles, insurance, communications equipment, “escrow accounts,” and uniforms. Plaintiffs and 

class members necessarily incurred these substantial expenses as a direct result of performing 

their job duties for Defendant. 

///

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 16 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 20 of 34
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

- 16 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

44. FEG and FHD have failed to indemnify or in any manner reimburse the plaintiff 

class members for these expenditures, and have knowingly inserted illegal contractual provisions 

as part of an unconscionable and illegal scheme designed to avoid its legal duty to indemnify its 

employees. By mis-classifying its employees as “independent contractors,” and further by 

contractually requiring those employees to pay expenses which they incurred in direct 

consequence of the discharge of their duties for FEG/FHD and/or in obedience to the direction of 

FEG/FHD, FEG and FHD have violated and continue to violate Cal. Labor Code § 2802. 

45. As a direct and proximate result of FEG and FHD’s conduct, Plaintiffs and 

Plaintiff class members have suffered substantial losses according to proof, as well as prejudgment interest, costs and attorney fees for the prosecution of this action. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are entitled to damages in an amount to be 

ascertained at the trial of the matter according to proof. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to pay overtime compensation in Violation of California Labor 

 Code §§510 and 1194 et seq. and For Late Payment of Wages In Violation 

of California Labor §201 et seq.)

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 above as if fully set 

forth herein, and, for a cause of action by the identified overtime subclass of the plaintiff class, 

allege as follows: 

46. Various Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members operate vehicles with a gross 

vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds, including but not limited to P350, P400 and 

other small step package vans. Persons who operate such vehicles are not subject to the 

maximum hours regulations promulgated pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and 

are therefore not exempt from the overtime requirements established by the California Labor 

Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order 9. 

47. Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members who during the class period have operated 

vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds for Defendant FEG and/or 

FHD and are therefore are legally entitled to overtime compensation for all hours worked in 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 17 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 21 of 34
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

- 17 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

excess of eight hours per day and all hours worked in excess of forty per work week under the 

California Labor Code and the California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order 9. 

48. Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members who operate vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds have not been paid at the rate of time and one-half their 

regular rate of pay for all hours of overtime worked, in violation of California Labor Code §§510 

and 1194 et seq. and IWC Wage Order 9. 

49. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of FEG and FHD, such 

Plaintiffs and such plaintiff class members have suffered substantial monetary losses, according 

to proof, and are further entitled to pre-judgment interest, recovery costs of suit and reasonable 

attorney fees as a result of their prosecution of this lawsuit. 

50. As a further direct and proximate result of the unlawful failure to pay overtime 

compensation, such Plaintiffs and such plaintiff class members who were deprived of their 

overtime compensation and who have resigned or been terminated from their employment, are 

entitled to recover thirty additional days of pay pursuant to California Labor code §201 et seq. by 

virtue of FEG and FHD’s failure to timely pay all wages due and owing upon resignation or 

termination. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the overtime subclass are entitled to damages in an amount 

to be ascertained at the trial of the matter according to proof. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Provide Meal and Break Periods In Violation of 

California Labor Codes §§510, 226.7 and IWC 9)

 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 50 above as if fully set 

forth herein, and, for a cause of action by Plaintiffs, in their individual capacities, and Plaintiff 

Marjorie Pontarolo on behalf of herself and the identified meal and rest period subclass, allege as 

follows: 

51. FEG and FHD required Plaintiffs and members of the meal and rest period 

subclass to work without any thirty minute unpaid meal period and/or either of two break periods 

as required by California Labor Codes §§510, 226.7 and California Industrial Welfare 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 18 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 22 of 34
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

- 18 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

Commission Wage Order 9, which is applicable to Plaintiffs and the meal and rest period 

subclass. 

52. By virtue of being deprived of such meal and rest periods, Plaintiffs and members 

of the meal and rest period subclass are entitled to recover up to two additional hours of pay at the 

regular rate of pay for each work day that such meal and/or rest periods were not provided. FEG 

and FHD have failed and refused to pay such additional compensation in violation of the 

aforesaid provisions of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Order 9. 

53. As a direct and proximate result of FEG and FHD’s conduct as alleged, Plaintiffs 

and members of the meal and rest period subclass have suffered substantial monetary losses, 

according to proof, plus pre-judgment interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the meal and rest period subclass are entitled to damages in 

an amount to be ascertained at the trial of the matter according to proof. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Illegal Deductions From Wages In Violation Of 

California Labor Code §221 & 223)

 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 53 above as if fully set 

forth herein, and, for a cause of action by all members of the plaintiff class, allege as follows: 

54. FEG and FHD have unlawfully withheld monies from the compensation earned by 

Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members for certain ordinary business expenses of FEG and FHD, 

including but not limited to “cargo claims” for the value of lost or damaged cargo and insurance 

claims in violation of California Labor Code §§ 221 and 223. 

55. FEG and FHD have withheld said funds unlawfully without providing Plaintiffs 

and plaintiff class members with advance notice of the amounts, reasons or documentation of any 

justification for such deductions and absent any lawfully sufficient reason for such conduct. 

As a direct and proximate result of FEG and FHD’s conduct, Plaintiffs and plaintiff class 

members have suffered substantial losses and been deprived of compensation to which they were 

entitled, including monetary damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees. 

///

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 19 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 23 of 34
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

- 19 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

56. As a direct and proximate result of FEG and FHD’s conduct, Plaintiffs and 

plaintiff class members who resigned or were terminated without being paid their full 

compensation, by virtue of such illegal deductions, are also entitled to thirty additional days of 

pay pursuant to California Labor Code §201-203. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are entitled to damages in an amount to be 

ascertained at the trial of the matter according to proof. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(For Unlawful Coercion In Violation of 

California Labor Code 450 et seq.) 

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 56 above as if fully set 

forth herein, and, for a cause of action by all members of the plaintiff class, allege as follows: 

57. FEG and FHD have compelled and/or coerced Plaintiffs and plaintiff class 

members to patronize FEG and/or FHD by requiring Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members to rent 

or purchase uniforms, scanners, van washing services, DOT inspections, and other equipment, 

services and material directly from FEG and FHD in violation of California Labor Code §450. 

58. FEG and FHD have also compelled and/or coerced Plaintiffs and plaintiff class 

members to patronize preferred vendors of FEG/FHD for purchase or lease of vehicles and/or 

work accident and physical damage insurance in violation of California Labor Code §450. As a 

direct and proximate result of FEG and FHD’s coercion, Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members 

have suffered substantial monetary damage, according to proof. 

 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are entitled to damages in an amount to be 

ascertained at the trial of the matter according to proof. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud) 

 Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 above as if fully set 

forth herein, and, for a cause of action by all members of the plaintiff class, allege as follows: 

59. Plaintiffs and the class they represent were hired by FEG and FHD to work as 

“independent contractors” pursuant to the terms of the OA described above. In fact, Defendant 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 20 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 24 of 34
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

- 20 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

knew or should have known, at all times, that the “independent contractor” classification in the 

Operating Agreement was and is improper and that, in fact, plaintiffs and all persons similarly 

situated were and are “employees” entitled to the benefits and protections of all laws enacted for 

employees. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and on that basis allege, that 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 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, Operations 

Management Handbook and Settlement Manual, other policies and secret driver files and other 

materials 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. 

60. At all material times, FEG and FHD either knew, or should have known, that the 

material representation made to plaintiffs 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. 

61. 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 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. 

62. By its aforesaid conduct, Defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud and malice in 

violating Plaintiff rights and protections guaranteed by the California Labor Code and other 

applicable law. 

///

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 21 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 25 of 34
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

- 21 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, pray for 

relief as stated hereinafter. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unfair Business Practices in Violation of California Business and 

Professions Code §§17200 et. seq.)

 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 62 above as if fully set forth, and 

for a cause of action on behalf of all members of plaintiff class, allege as follows: 

63. The California Unfair Business Practices Act (UBPA), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 

17200 et. seq. prohibits business and/or individuals from engaging in, inter alia, business 

practices which are unlawful, unfair or fraudulent. 

64. By all of the foregoing alleged conduct of failing to indemnify Plaintiffs and class 

members for work-related expenses, by failing and refusing to provide plaintiffs and class 

members with workers compensation insurance and unemployment insurance benefits, by failing 

to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members who operate trucks with a 

gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds, by failing and refusing to provide meal 

and/or rest periods to plaintiffs and members of the meal and rest period subclass, by unlawfully 

deducting money from wages and coercing Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members to patronize 

Defendant and allied companies, by intentionally, reckless and/or negligently misrepresenting to 

Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members the true nature of their employment status, and by engaging 

in the other acts and conduct alleged above, FEG and FHD have committed, and are continuing 

to commit, ongoing unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices within the meaning of Cal. 

Bus. & Professions Code §17200 et seq. 

65. As a direct and proximate result of the unfair business practices described above, 

Plaintiffs, members of the plaintiff class and the general public have all suffered significant 

losses and Defendant has been unjustly enriched. 

66. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17203, Plaintiffs, members of the plaintiff 

class, and the general public are entitled to: (a) restitution of money acquired by Defendant by 

means of their unfair business practices, in amounts not yet ascertained but to be ascertained at 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 22 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 26 of 34
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

- 22 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

trial; (b) injunctive relief against Defendant’s continuation of their unfair business practices, and 

(c) a declaration that Defendant’s business practices are unfair within the meaning of the statute.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are entitled to relief as more fully set forth 

below.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Injunctive Relief -- Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17203)

 Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 66 of this Complaint as though fully set forth, 

and for a cause of action on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, allege as 

follows: 

67. By failing to indemnify Plaintiffs and class members for work-related expenses, by 

failing and refusing to provide plaintiffs and class members with workers compensation insurance 

and unemployment insurance benefits, by failing to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffs and 

plaintiff class members who operate trucks weighting less than 10,000 pounds, by failing and 

refusing to provide meal and/or rest periods, by unlawfully deducting money from wages and 

coercing Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members to patronize Defendant and allied companies, and 

by engaging in the other acts and conduct alleged above, FEG has committed, and is continuing 

to commit, ongoing unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices within the meaning of Cal. 

Bus. & Professions Code §17200 et seq. Defendant, if not enjoined by this Court, will continue 

to engage in the said unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in derogation of the rights 

of Plaintiffs, of class members and of the general public to be free from such improper and anticompetitive conduct. 

68. Absent injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from engaging in the unlawful, unfair 

and fraudulent business practices described above, Plaintiffs, members of the class and the 

general public will be irreparably injured, the extent, nature and amount of such injury being 

impossible to ascertain. 

69. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. 

70. For these reasons, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief is appropriate. 

///

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 23 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 27 of 34
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

- 23 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and plaintiff class are entitled to injunctive relief as more fully 

set forth below. 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Relief -- Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201; 

Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §1060)

Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 70 above as if fully set forth, and, for a cause 

of action, allege as follows: 

71. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and members of the 

Plaintiff class on the one hand, and Defendant on the other hand, as to the following matters: 

a. Whether FEG and FHD mis-classified drivers as independent contractors 

when they were and are in fact employees within the meaning of 

California law; 

b. Whether FEG and FHD failed to reimburse pickup and delivery drivers for 

their necessarily incurred employment expenses, in violation of Labor 

Code §2802; 

c. Whether FEG and FHD have unlawfully refused to provide workers 

compensation and /or unemployment insurance benefits under applicable 

law; 

d. Whether FEG and FHD have unlawfully failed to pay overtime 

compensation required by California law; 

e. Whether FEG and FHD have unlawfully prohibited Plaintiffs and plaintiff 

class members from taking meal and/or rest periods as required by law; 

f. Whether FEG and FHD have made unlawful deductions from the 

compensation paid to Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members in violation of 

California law; 

g. Whether FEG and FHD have coerced or compelled Plaintiffs and plaintiff 

class members to patronize FEG, FHD and/or other companies in the 

purchase or lease of vehicles, uniforms, scanners, insurance and other 

equipment and materials in violation of California law; and 

h. Whether FEG and FHD have engaged in unlawful, unfair or fraudulent 

business practices in violation of California law. 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 24 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 28 of 34
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

- 24 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

72. Plaintiffs contend that in various ways, as alleged above, Defendant has violated 

federal and California law. Defendant contends the opposite. Declaratory relief is therefore 

appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below. 

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For an Accounting)

 Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 72 of this complaint as though fully set forth 

herein, and for a cause of action, allege as follows: 

73. Plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class are owed the un-reimbursed 

employment expenses as well as other amounts due, and statutory interest thereon. 

74. Plaintiffs do not know the precise amount of compensation due to them and to 

each member of the class. Upon information and belief, Defendant possesses business records 

from which the amount of compensation due and owing to plaintiffs and members of the class can 

be determined. 

75. The amount of statutory interest owed to plaintiffs and to each member of the class 

is based on the amount of compensation allegedly owed. This amount can only be determined by 

an accounting of Defendant FEG’s books and records.

 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs and plaintiff class pray for relief as more fully set forth below. 

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Civil Penalties - Labor Code Section 2699) 

 Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 75 of this complaint as though fully set forth 

herein, and for a cause of action, allege as follows: 

76. California Civil Code Section 2699 provides for the imposition of civil penalties 

for violations of the California Labor Code where there is no statute which specifically provides 

for the imposition of civil penalties in specified amounts to punish the alleged statutory violation; 

77. By and through the conduct described above, including failing to indemnify 

plaintiffs and class members for their work-related expenses, by failing and refusing to provide 

plaintiffs and class members with workers compensation insurance and unemployment insurance 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 25 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 29 of 34
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

- 25 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

benefits, by failing to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members who 

operate trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,001 pounds, by failing and 

refusing to provide meal and/or rest periods, by unlawfully deducting money from wages and 

coercing Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members to patronize Defendant and allied companies, 

Defendant has violated numerous provisions of the California Labor Code, including but not 

limited to Sections 221, 223, 226.7, 450, 510, 1194, and 2802 as detailed above. 

78. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2699, Defendant is liable for civil 

penalties of $100 per aggrieved employee per pay period for each initial statutory violation 

described above, and $200 per aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation 

payable to the California General Fund, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and 

Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class for each pay period commencing November 12, 2000 

and for each subsequent pay period to the date of trial. 

79. Plaintiffs have satisfied all of the prerequisites required for maintaining a civil suit 

to recover such penalties provided for in California Labor Code Section 2699.3. Plaintiffs, by 

and through their counsel, provided written notice by certified mail to the California Labor and 

Workforce Development Agency and Defendant of the specific provisions of this code alleged to 

have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation. Thereafter, 

in a letter dated December 23, 2004, the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency 

notified both Defendant and Plaintiffs’ counsel that it does not intend to investigate the alleged 

violation. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached here as Exhibit B. 

WHEREFORE plaintiffs and the plaintiff class pray for relief as more fully set forth 

below.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

[Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy] 

Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 79 of this complaint as though fully set forth 

herein, and for a cause of action, allege as follows: 

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 26 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 30 of 34
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

- 26 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

80. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated FXG pick-up 

and delivery drivers, have asserted their rights under California law, including by instituting, 

prosecuting and participating in the instant proceeding claiming that Defendant has, inter alia,

failed to provide reimbursement for work-related expenses pursuant to California Labor Code § 

2802, failed to pay overtime compensation pursuant to California Labor Code §§1194 and 510, 

failed to timely pay wages owed pursuant to California Labor Code § 201, deprived meal and 

break periods pursuant to California Labor Codes §§510, 226.7 and IWC 9, and made illegal 

deductions from wages pursuant to California Labor Code §221 and 223, engaged unlawful 

coercion in violation of California Labor Code §450 et seq., engaged in fraud, committed unfair 

business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et. seq. 

81. Plaintiffs’ assertion of their rights on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of 

similarly-situated FXG pick-up and delivery drivers under California law, including their 

institution, prosecution, and/or participation in the instant proceeding, constitutes activity 

protected by public policies. 

82. Because Plaintiffs asserted their rights on behalf of themselves and a class of 

similarly-situated FXG drivers under California law as described herein, including by instituting, 

prosecuting, and/or participating in the instant proceeding, Defendant has willfully and 

maliciously subjected and continues to subject Plaintiffs and class members to adverse 

employment actions including, inter alia, eliminating all single-work area driver positions and 

conditioning Plaintiffs’ and class members’ work and right to receive monies from Defendant on 

their agreement to waive and/or release legal claims against Defendant. 

83. Plaintiffs and plaintiff class have suffered and will continue to suffer damages as a 

result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct described herein and are entitled to damages according to 

proof. 

84. In addition, Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members are entitled to an injunction. 

Defendant, if not enjoined by this Court, will continue to engage in the unlawful conduct 

described above in derogation of the rights of Plaintiffs and of class members to engage in 

activities protected by public policies. 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 27 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 31 of 34
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

- 27 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

85. If an injunction does not issue enjoining Defendant from engaging in the unlawful 

practices described above, Plaintiffs and members of the class will be irreparably injured, the 

extent, nature and amount of such injury being impossible to ascertain. 

86. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. 

87. For these reasons, equitable relief is appropriate. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs are entitled to relief as more fully set forth below. 

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Injunctive and Declaratory Relief for Waiver of Claims in Violation of Law– 

California Civil Code § 1668)

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 87 above as if fully set forth, and 

allege as follows: 

88. By all of the foregoing alleged conduct of soliciting and attempting to enforce 

indemnification and release agreements from Plaintiffs, and by engaging in the other acts and 

conduct alleged above, FEG and FHD are, and are continuing to violate, inter alia, California 

Civil Code §1668. 

89. Defendant, if not enjoined by this Court, will continue to engage in the said 

unlawful conduct in derogation of the rights of Plaintiffs. 

90. Absent injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from engaging in the unlawful, 

conduct described above, Plaintiffs will be irreparably injured, the extent, nature and amount of 

such injury being impossible to ascertain. 

91. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. 

92. For these reasons, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief is appropriate. 

93. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs on the one hand, 

and Defendant on the other hand, as to the following matters: 

a. Whether the “Contractor Conversation Agreement and Release of Claims” 

is unlawful and/or unenforceable; 

b. Whether the “Compliance Disclosure Addendum” is unlawful and 

unenforceable; 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 28 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 32 of 34
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

- 28 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

c. Whether FEG and FHD have acted unlawfully in seeking the execution of 

the “Contractor Conversation Agreement and Release of Claims” and /or 

the “Compliance Disclosure Addendum” from Plaintiffs.

94. Plaintiffs contend that in various ways, as alleged above, Defendant has violated 

California law. Defendant contends the opposite. Declaratory relief is therefore appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as more fully set forth below. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Plaintiffs, on their own behalf, on behalf of each member of the plaintiff class, and as 

private attorneys general on behalf of the public, pray for judgment as follows: 

1. For an order by the Court certifying the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, 

Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh causes of action as statewide class action claims 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and/or California Code of Civil Procedure §382; 

2. As to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh, Twelfth and 

Thirteenth Causes of Action, for an award to plaintiffs and all members of the class, the overtime 

subclass, and the meal and rest break subclass, of compensatory and punitive damages and other 

penalties in an amount which may be proven at trial, together with prejudgment interest at the 

maximum rate allowed by law, costs and reasonable attorney fees; 

3. As to the Sixth Cause of Action for Fraud, for an award of punitive damages in an 

amount to be proven at trial; 

4. As to the Seventh Cause of Action, for an order by the Court restoring and/or 

returning to plaintiffs and members of the class all of defendant’s unfairly or illegally gotten 

profits measured by un-reimbursed expenses incurred, insurance premiums including for work 

accident and physical damage (deadhead) insurance, unpaid unemployment insurance benefits, 

monies unlawfully withheld from wages, unpaid overtime, a portion of self-employment tax paid 

by Plaintiffs and plaintiff class members which should have been paid by Defendant and other 

money due as part of a full restitutionary remedy; 

5. As to the Eighth Cause of Action, for an order by the Court preliminarily and 

permanently enjoining Defendant from continuing their unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent 

business practices; 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 29 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 33 of 34
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

- 29 - 

FOURTH AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

ATTORNEYS

1330 BROADWAY, SUITE 1450

OAKLAND, CA 94612

TEL: (510) 272-0169 FAX: (510) 272-0174

6. As to the Tenth Cause of Action, for an accounting of all damages and/or 

restitution, and/or pre-judgment interest; 

7. As to the Eleventh Cause of Action, for civil penalties as provided for in California 

Labor Code Section 2699; 

8. As to the Twelfth Cause of Action, for equitable relief including a declaration that 

the waivers and releases sought by Defendant from Plaintiffs are unlawful and unenforceable and 

that Defendant’s solicitation of such releases is unlawful and a Temporary Restraining Order and 

preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from soliciting or enforcing such 

waivers and releases; 

9. For an award to plaintiffs of all of their costs and expenses incurred in this action, 

including reasonable attorneys’ pursuant to applicable California law, including but not limited to 

Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 and California Labor Code §§1194, 2802, 2699(f) and 

other laws; and 

10. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all claims as to which they are entitled to jury trial. 

Dated: September ___, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

LEONARD CARDER, LLP 

By: 

Beth A. Ross 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class 

Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 146-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 30 of 30 Case 3:05-cv-00038-EMC Document 177 Filed 10/15/15 Page 34 of 34