1

Stacey Vucko, SBN 6296832

VUCKO LAW LLP

2208 Midwest Road, Suite 104

Oak Brook, IL 60523

San Francisco, CA 94108

Telephone: 312.522.2517

svucko@vuckolaw.com

Joshua Konecky, to appear pro hac vice

James Bloom, to appear pro hac vice

Sarah McCracken, to appear pro hac vice

SCHNEIDER WALLACE 

COTTRELL KONECKY LLP

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400

Emeryville, CA 94608

Telephone: (415) 421-7100

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105

jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com

jbloom@schneiderwallace.com

smccracken@schneiderwallace.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

VALINDA STEPHENS and BERNARD 

SHURN d/b/a BNVS TRANSPORT LLC, 

and, DAMIEN MUHAMMAD d/b/a MEIN 

& MEEN TRUCKING, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

C&K TRUCKING, LLC,

 Defendant.

CASE NO. 2020-CV-4305

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT;

(1) TRUTH IN LEASING ACT 

(2) COMMON LAW

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs, Valinda Stephens, Bernard Shurn, and Damien Muhammad, by and through 

their undersigned attorneys, hereby bring this Class Action Complaint against Defendant C&K 

Trucking, LLC (“C&K Trucking”) and allege as follows: 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1
2

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action under the Truth in Leasing Act (“TILA”), 

49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(2) and Illinois common law of contract and fraud. The TILA is a federal 

law that protects small “owner-operators,” including Plaintiffs, against being misled and 

defrauded by larger trucking companies, such as Defendant C&K Trucking. Throughout the 

relevant time period covered by this action, Defendant C&K Trucking has engaged in an ongoing 

and repeated practice of violating the TILA in its dealings with Plaintiffs and the Class of owneroperators described below. 

2. Defendant C&K Trucking is in the business of providing “intermodal drayage” 

services to shippers across the United States. Intermodal drayage refers to the use of trucks to 

move freight from one mode of transportation to another (e.g., from a cargo ship to a train). To 

provide these services to its clients (the “Shippers”), Defendant enters into standardized 

agreements with hundreds of much smaller owner-operators, including named Plaintiffs Valinda 

Stephens, Bernard Shurn, and Damien Muhammad. For the most part, these owner-operators are 

modest “mom and pop” companies. They often consist of just one or two individuals who, despite 

a formal business name and structure, do all the work themselves and have very little bargaining 

power when compared to a large carrier, such as Defendant. 

3. Under Defendant’s standardized agreements, the owner-operators must provide a 

truck to lease to Defendant. The owner-operators themselves often do not have sufficient funds 

to own the truck outright, and thus rely on financing and/or have older trucks that incur substantial 

maintenance and repair costs. Defendant does not pay for any of these maintenance or repair 

costs, but does obtain legal possession and control over the trucks by leasing them from the owneroperators. Once the trucks are leased, Defendant continues to contract with the same owneroperators to use the now-leased trucks to provide the drayage services to the shippers. 

4. While the owner-operators are the individuals personally driving the trucks and 

doing the work, they do not have any contractual relationship with the Shippers, who remain the 

clients of Defendant. Instead, the owner-operators depend on Defendant for their compensation. 

5. Defendant’s standardized contracts with the owner operators require it to pay the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:2
3

owner-operators a certain amount for hauling loads tendered by Defendant, less certain 

“withholdings.” However, Defendant has a pattern and practice of paying the owner operators 

substantially less than the amount to which it agreed. Defendant also calculates the owner 

operators’ pay in an opaque, confusing, arbitrary, and contradictory fashion, without providing 

the owner-operators visibility into the way the calculations are being performed, or sufficient 

information to verify or challenge the calculations. This results in the owner-operators constantly 

being short-changed on their pay. 

6. Ms. Stephens and Mr. Shurn, d/b/a BNVS Transport LLC, signed contracts with 

C&K Trucking on or about May 28, 2019 and January 10, 2020. Mr. Muhammad, d/b/a Mein & 

Meen Trucking, signed a contract with C&K Trucking on or about October 2, 2019. All three 

contracts are nearly identical. True and correct copies of the contracts are attached hereto as 

Exhibits 1, 2, and 3. 

7. Defendant has a pattern of paying the owner-operators lower rates than it 

represents it will pay them. For example, Defendant represented, via its contracts, that it would 

pay all three Plaintiffs a certain rate for their work, then failed to honor that rate. As another 

example, Defendant, through its dispatchers, quoted certain rates to Plaintiffs before they 

accepted loads. After Plaintiffs completed the assignment, Defendant then frequently paid 

Plaintiffs a different, lower rate than the rate it had previously quoted. On at least one occasion, 

Ms. Stephens contacted Defendant regarding the rate of pay and received three different answers

from various personnel, including Defendant’s dispatchers, regarding the pay rate for the load. 

This experience is typical not just for Plaintiffs, but for other Class members as well. 

8. Defendant also fails to make clear how much it will pay owners, in violation of its 

contracts and the regulations. C&K fails to itemize and explain how it computes “charge-backs,” 

or deductions, despite its legal obligation to do so under TILA and its contracts, and despite the 

owner-operators’ requests that it do so. (E.g., Exs. 1, 2 and 3, ¶ 12, Appx. C; 49 C.F.R. §

376.12(g) and (h)). Consequently, C&K significantly underpays owner-operators. C&K also 

refuses to provide owner-operators documentation necessary to understand charge-backs and 

settlement statements, in violation of its contracts and the regulations. Similarly, Defendant fails 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:3
4

to provide proper accounting for owner-operators’ escrow accounts, in violation of its 

standardized contracts and the regulations. (E.g., Exs. 1, 2, and 3, ¶ 17, Appx. C; 49 C.F.R. § 

376.12(k)). 

9. C&K Trucking’s dishonest, unlawful conduct results in owner-operators receiving 

far less compensation than it owes them. In Plaintiffs’ situation, for example, C&K Trucking

underpaid them to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. 

10. Defendant is an “authorized carrier” under the TILA. The TILA provides strict 

disclosure requirements and other protections to allow owner-operators to understand how their 

payments and withholdings are calculated, and to prevent the kind of chronic underpayments and 

false calculations made by Defendant here. 49 C.F.R. § 376.12.

11. Authorized carriers like Defendant are required to “adhere[] to and perform” the 

TILA requirements. Id. TILA creates a right of action for owners working for authorized carriers 

who violate the requirements. 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(2).

12. Defendant has failed to comply with its contracts and TILA regulations, exploiting 

owner-operators and unlawfully underpaying them. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of 

themselves and other owner-operators to redress the wrongs Defendant has caused through these 

actions.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ TILA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

14. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ common law claims 

because they are so related to this action that they form part of the same case or controversy under 

Article III of the United States Constitution.

15. This Court has general jurisdiction over Defendant C&K Trucking because it 

resides in this District. This Court has specific jurisdiction over Defendant because it took many 

of the actions described herein in this District or directed those actions specifically at this District.

16. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), inasmuch as 

Defendants have offices, conduct business and can be found in the District, and the causes of 

action set forth herein have arisen and occurred in part in the District. For example, Plaintiffs 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:4
5

regularly worked for Defendants in this District. Venue is further proper under 29 U.S.C. § 

1132(e)(2) because Defendants have substantial business contacts within the state of Illinois and 

in this District. 

THE PARTIES

17. Plaintiffs and the proposed Class members as set forth below are current or former 

owner-operators across the United States who contracted with C&K Trucking to lease vehicles 

and provide services for C&K Trucking’s clients throughout the country at any time beginning 

four years before the filing of this Complaint. 

18. Plaintiffs Valinda Stephens and Bernard Shurn reside in Illinois. Plaintiffs 

Stephens and Shurn contracted to provide services to C&K Trucking, including in this Judicial 

District, and operated out of a terminal located in this Judicial District. Plaintiff Stephens has 

provided services to Defendant, throughout Illinois, since approximately June 2019. Ms. 

Stephens has functioned as an owner-operator, working alongside Mr. Shurn; it is a “mom and 

pop” operation with only the two of them. Ms. Stephens estimates that C&K Trucking has 

underpaid her by at least $30,000, if not more.

19. Plaintiff Damien Muhammad resides in Illinois. Mr. Muhammad contracted to 

provide services to C&K Trucking twice: first, from approximately February or March 2018 

through August 2019, and second from approximately October 2019 through February 2020. Mr. 

Muhammad operated alone for the vast majority of his time providing services for C&K Trucking, 

with the exception of a short stint in which one other person worked with him. Mr. Muhammad 

estimates that C&K Trucking owes him at least $10,000, if not more. 

20. Defendant C&K Trucking is and at all relevant times has been engaged in the 

business of providing “intermodal drayage” services throughout the United States. Defendant has 

at least one facility in this judicial district. Defendant C&K Trucking is headquartered in Chicago 

Ridge, IL.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. C&K Trucking’s Network of Owner-Operators

21. C&K Trucking operates a transportation system through which it uses trucks to 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:5
6

effect the transfer of freight from one mode of transportation to another for its clients 

(“Shippers.”)

22. Defendant carries out its operations by contracting with hundreds of owneroperators, such as Plaintiffs. Under these written contracts, Defendant leases the owneroperators’ trucks, with the owner-operators also providing drivers (usually themselves), to 

transport the freight. (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3). 

B. C&K Trucking’s Owner-Operator Contracts

23. Defendant’s standardized contracts with the owner-operators require Defendant to 

pay the owner-operators a certain amount for hauling loads tendered by Defendant. For example, 

under C&K Trucking’s owner-operator contracts with Plaintiffs, it must pay owner-operators a 

specific percentage of C&K’s “Adjusted Gross Revenue,” or AGR, as defined in the contracts, 

and a specific percentage of fuel surcharges, if any are received from Shippers, for hauling loads. 

(Ex. 1, 2 and 3, ¶ 14, Appx. B). So-called “accessorial charges,” which include detention, i.e. 

delays while waiting to load or unload, tarping, and loading and unloading charges, are to be paid 

to owner-operators based upon the same percentage of AGR. (Id., Appx. B, ¶ 1(c)). Per the 

contracts, these rates of pay may only be changed by agreement in writing between C&K 

Trucking and the owner-operators. (Id.) 

24. C&K Trucking’s owner-operator contracts with Plaintiffs contain lists of items 

that it will “charge back,” or deduct, from owner-operators’ pay if it pays those costs up front. 

Among other items, C&K Trucking includes in this list a vague, catch-all category of “operating 

expenses not otherwise listed.” (Ex. 1-3, Appx. C at p. 15). 

25. C&K Trucking’s owner-operator contracts with Plaintiffs require owner-operators 

to deposit with it specific amounts of money to be placed in an escrow account. (Ex. 1, 2 and 3, 

¶ 17). The contracts are broad, vague and non-specific as to the items to which the escrow money 

may be applied. The contracts require C&K Trucking to, inter alia, pay interest to owneroperators on the money and provide a “written itemization or explanation” of any deductions 

before making them, on a monthly basis or as part of owner-operators’ “settlement statements” 

(pay statements). (Id.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:6
7

26. TILA requires Defendant to pay owner-operators within 15 days of C&K’s receipt 

of certain shipping documents from the owner-operators. (49 C.F.R. § 376.12(f)). Under TILA 

regulations, C&K must provide settlement sheets or statements which explain the pay and any 

charge-backs/ deductions it has made from. (E.g., 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(h)).

27. C&K Trucking’s standardized contracts require it to pay owner-operators either 

weekly or within 15 days of receiving certain documents from owner-operators. (Ex. 1, 2 and 3, 

¶ 15). Under its standardized contracts, C&K Trucking must provide “settlement statements,” 

which explain the pay and any charge-backs/deductions it has made. (Id.)

C. C&K Trucking’s Route and Pay Policies

28. C&K Trucking splits payment for owner-operators’ services into two categories: 

(1) “regional runs” and (2) “cross-town runs,” based on mileage. 

29. Before beginning a run, an owner-operator contacts C&K Trucking to ask which 

loads are available and their applicable pay rates. C&K Trucking is then supposed to inform the 

owner-operator of the rate either the day of or the day before the assignment. 

30. C&K Trucking’s policy at first regarding regional run rates was to tell the rates to 

owner-operators verbally. In or about July 2019, C&K Trucking began sending rates to owneroperators by text message. Despite these policies, in reality, C&K Trucking representatives 

generally refuse to give rates for regional runs and, even when they do, C&K Trucking will not 

honor those rates. 

31. C&K Trucking representatives typically tell drivers that they do not know the rates 

for their cross town runs. C&K Trucking representatives thus effectively refuse to provide rates 

at all for cross-town runs. C&K Trucking further sometimes pays owner-operators for a fuel 

surcharge, but does not other times.

32. If an owner-operator discovers that any extra work must be done during an 

assignment, he or she lets C&K Trucking know by text or phone call. At that point, C&K 

Trucking is supposed to confirm how much additional pay the owner-operator will receive for the 

additional work. However, C&K Trucking frequently refuses to confirm additional pay amounts 

and brushes owner-operators off. C&K Trucking also sometimes pays owner-operators the local 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:7
8

rate for regional runs.

33. After an owner-operator runs a load, he or she must fill out a “Driver Worksheet” 

by hand. He or she then emails or hand delivers the worksheet to C&K Trucking’s billing office.

34. On payday, owner-operators receive a “settlement statement” from C&K 

Trucking. If an owner-operator believes that pay is missing from his or her settlement statement, 

C&K Trucking requires him or her to fill out a separate worksheet to identify and itemize the 

missing pay. Owner-operators then hand deliver or email the separate worksheet to the billing 

office. C&K Trucking’s practice is to effectively ignore valid disputes, either providing owneroperators some, but not all of the additional money owed, or nothing at all. 

35. The named plaintiffs’ experiences bring these common policies to life, as 

discussed below:

36. Plaintiffs Stephens and Shurn: Plaintiff Stephens contracted with C&K Trucking 

to provide services to its clients in approximately May 2019. Plaintiff Shurn works with Ms. 

Stephens. Other than Mr. Shurn, Ms. Stephens works with no one else. 

37. Ms. Stephens frequently found that her pay did not match up with quoted rates 

(when she was able to obtain quotes up front, which did not always happen). Ms. Stephens also 

did not receive itemizations or documentation explaining charge-backs, with rare exceptions. 

Even when it came to those rare exceptions, the itemizations often would add up to less than was 

deducted from her pay. When Ms. Stephens contacted management about pay issues, they 

typically ignored emails, told her they would get back to her, claimed ignorance as to the issues 

she raised, addressed only one question within an email while ignoring the rest, or acted as though 

they were instructing someone to send her additional pay owed, without following through. On 

the rare occasions management addressed specific charge-back issues in response to Ms. 

Stephens’ questions, their answers as to what would be charged back, and by how much, were 

opaque, contradictory, and misleading. 

38. Defendant has not provided accounting or documentation regarding Ms. Stephens’ 

escrow account, in violation of its contract with her and TILA regulations. Defendant also 

frequently took longer than fifteen days to pay Ms. Stephens for loads, in violation of its contract 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:8
9

with her and TILA regulations.

39. On several occasions, Defendant quoted Ms. Stephens multiple (sometimes 

conflicting) rates for a load, then paid her less. Ms. Stephens also found that Defendant’s agents 

typically refused to quote any rates at all for cross-town runs. If Ms. Stephens requested a rate 

for a cross-town run, Defendant’s agents usually said they would get back to her but would then 

give the run to someone else. Ms. Stephens began doing regional runs because of these issues, 

because Defendant paid higher rates for regional runs, and because Defendant’s agents would 

usually quote the rate before a regional run. After Ms. Stephens switched to regional runs, 

however, Defendant did not consistently provide rates up front. Even when Defendant did so, it 

frequently paid Ms. Stephens what turned out to be local rates or otherwise underpaid her.

40. Defendant also unilaterally changed the rates for certain customers without 

informing Ms. Stephens. For example, with a customer called Saia, Ms. Stephens discovered in 

approximately January 2020 that Defendant was paying her less than the usual rate. Ms. Stephens 

contacted Defendant about this pay discrepancy, at which point Defendant persuaded Ms. 

Stephens by phone and Google Text to do the Saia run by promising to pay her the higher rate on 

a previous settlement statement. However, after Ms. Stephens did the run, Defendant did not 

follow through on the agreement and underpaid her. Ms. Stephens disputed the underpayment all 

the way up Defendant’s chain of command. Defendant explicitly told Ms. Stephens, including in 

writing through its Vice President, that it would not honor its agreement with her As another 

example, Ms. Stephens was quoted a rate of $615.00 for a customer called Berco via Google Text

and email. However, Defendant lowered the Berco rate without Ms. Stephens’ knowledge or 

permission, sometimes underpaying Ms. Stephens by two hundred dollars or more. These are 

just a couple examples of how Defendant has unilaterally changed the rates without informing 

Plaintiffs. Additionally, the amount by which Defendant has underpaid Ms. Stephens in general 

has worsened over time. 

41. Ms. Stephens and Mr. Shurn also found that, on occasion, Defendant was dishonest 

as to documentation requirements for receiving pay. In one instance, Defendant’s agents 

instructed Mr. Shurn, as a prerequisite to receiving pay, to give them only one document, and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:9
10

leave the rest in the trailer. Mr. Shurn complied. Afterwards, Defendant’s agents refused to pay 

Mr. Shurn, stating they refused to do so because he did not directly provide them with the 

documentation he had placed in the trailer on their instruction. Ms. Stephens and Mr. Shurn 

disputed Defendant’s failure to pay. It took Defendant approximately two months to pay anything 

for the load. Even then, Defendant paid less than the rate it had quoted.

42. Plaintiff Muhammad: Plaintiff Muhammad found that even when Defendant’s 

agents quoted him rates before he ran loads (an obligation which Defendant all too often ignored), 

Defendant typically failed to honor those rates, sometimes underpaying by hundreds of dollars. 

Mr. Muhammad did not receive proper itemizations, explanations, or documentation regarding 

charge-backs, making it difficult, if not impossible, for him to dispute underpayments. Defendant 

refused to provide Mr. Muhammad with requested documentation, such as freight bills, when he 

asked to see such documentation. On occasion, Defendant refused to pay him at all, stating that 

even though he had provided the necessary documentation, they would include the pay in the next 

check. Sometimes Defendant followed through on including payment in the next check, and 

sometimes did not. Defendant has consistently failed to provide proper accounting or 

documentation regarding Mr. Muhammad’s escrow account, in violation of its contract with him 

and TILA regulations. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

43. Plaintiffs bring Causes of Action One through Four as a class action on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 

and 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3). 

44. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class (referred to herein as the “TILA 

Class”):

“All current or former owner-operators across the United States who 

contracted with C&K Trucking to lease vehicles and provide services for 

C&K Trucking’s clients at any time beginning four years before the filing 

of this Complaint.”

45. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following subclass within the broader Class defined 

above (“Illinois Subclass”): 

i. All current or former owner-operators who contracted with C&K Trucking to lease 

vehicles and provide services for C&K Trucking’s clients at any time beginning 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:10
11

ten years before the filing of this Complaint, and who presented themselves for 

work in Illinois.

D. Ascertainability

46. The proposed Class is ascertainable because it comprises a discrete, well defined 

and objectively identifiable group – all current or former owner-operators across the United States 

who contracted with C&K Trucking to lease vehicles and provide services for C&K Trucking’s 

clients at any time beginning four years before the filing of this Complaint. The Class members 

have been assigned truck numbers are easily identifiable from Defendants’ business records. The 

Illinois Subclass is similarly discrete, well-defined, and objectively identifiable.

E. Numerosity

47. Defendants have contracted with several hundred owner-operators or more to 

provide intermodal drayage services nationwide within the four years preceding the filing of this 

Complaint. Class members are therefore far too numerous to be individually joined in this 

lawsuit.

F. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and/or Fact

48. Common questions of law and/or fact exist as to the members of the Class and, in 

addition, common questions of law and/or fact predominate over questions affecting only 

individual members of the Class. The common questions include the following:

i. Whether C&K Trucking’s standardized contract with owner-operators violates 

TILA regulations;

ii. Whether C&K Trucking’s conduct and policies have resulted in violations of 

TILA regulations;

iii. Whether C&K Trucking has not adhered to and performed 49 C.F.R. § 376.12’s 

requirements;

iv. Whether C&K Trucking’s standardized contracts fail to clearly disclose the 

actual calculation methods used to determine the amount to be paid to operatorowners;

v. Whether C&K Trucking fails to comply with its obligation to make clear how 

much it would pay owner-operators for their services;

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:11
12

vi. Whether C&K Trucking fails to provide the documentation required under 49 

C.F.R. § 376.12 and other applicable regulations, such that owner-operators can 

determine how rates and charges were computed;

vii. Whether C&K Trucking’s standard contract fails to clearly specify which items 

may be charged back;

viii. Whether C&K Trucking’s standard contract fails to clearly specify how chargebacks will be calculated;

ix. Whether C&K Trucking fails to afford owner-operators copies of those 

documents necessary to determine the validity of charge-backs;

x. Whether C&K Trucking’s standardized contracts fail to properly specify the 

amounts which will be charged back to an owner-operator for insurance;

xi. Whether C&K Trucking fails to make clear to owner-operators how much it 

would charge back for insurance;

xii. Whether C&K Trucking fails to administer owner-operators’ escrow funds as 

required by 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 and other applicable regulations; 

xiii. Whether C&K Trucking makes payment to owner-operators contingent on 

documents it is prohibited from demanding as a precondition for payment;

xiv. Whether C&K Trucking fails to provide sufficient explanation of payments and 

charge-backs in its settlement statements;

xv. Whether C&K Trucking fails to provide settlement statements in a timely 

manner;

xvi. Whether C&K Trucking has engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to pay 

owner-operators the amounts to which they are entitled under their contracts and 

applicable law;

xvii. Whether C&K Trucking has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging back 

more from the owner-operators than it is legally and contractually entitled to;

xviii. Whether C&K Trucking fails to notify owner-operators of changes in existing 

deduction items;

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:12
13

xix. Whether C&K fails to properly account for its handling of owner-operators’ 

escrow accounts;

xx. The injunctive and/or monetary relief to which Plaintiffs and the Class may be 

entitled because of the violations alleged herein;

Additionally, as to the Illinois Subclass:

xxi. Whether C&K Trucking’s policies and practices result in false statements of 

material fact to owner-operators regarding, inter alia, their pay rates, chargebacks, the method of calculating pay, and the pay to which they were entitled;

xxii. Whether C&K Trucking is aware that its policies and practices result in false 

statements of material fact to owner-operators regarding, inter alia, their pay 

rates, charge-backs, the method of calculating pay, and the pay to which they 

were entitled;

xxiii. Whether C&K Trucking intended its false statements regarding, inter alia, their 

pay rates, charge-backs, the method of calculating pay, and the pay to which they 

were entitled to induce owner-operators to contract with it, and to continue 

providing services to its clients;

xxiv. Whether owner-operators relied upon C&K Trucking’s false statements in 

choosing to contract with C&K Trucking and provide ongoing services to its 

clients;

xxv. The injunctive and/or monetary relief to which Plaintiffs and the Subclass may

be entitled because of the violations alleged herein;

G. Typicality

49. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Defendant’s common 

course of conduct of violating TILA regulations and its contracts, thereby underpaying owneroperators, caused Plaintiffs and the proposed Class to sustain the same or similar injuries and 

damages. Plaintiffs’ claims are thereby representative of and co-extensive with the claims of the 

proposed Class.

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:13
14

H. Adequacy

50. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because they are members of 

the Class and their interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the Class they 

seek to represent. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class 

action litigation, and Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiffs and their

counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of members of the Class.

I. Predominance

51. Questions of law and/or fact regarding Defendant’s policies and practices and 

whether they comply with TILA regulations and/or its standardized contracts, predominate over 

any questions affecting individual class members. Similarly, questions of law and/or fact 

regarding Defendant’s deliberate misrepresentations regarding pay predominate over any 

questions affecting individual class members.

J. Superiority

52. The class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this dispute. The injury suffered by each member of the Class, while meaningful 

on an individual basis, is not of such magnitude as to make the prosecution of individual actions 

against Defendants economically feasible. Furthermore, individualized litigation increases the 

delay and expense to all parties and the court system presented by the legal and factual issues of 

the case. In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and 

provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision 

by a single court, and avoids the problem of inconsistent judgments.

K. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

53. Injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief for the Class as a whole is 

appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), as Defendants’ standardized contracts 

apply generally to the class, as do Defendants’ policy, pattern, and/or practice of refusing to 

comply with TILA regulations, such that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief 

is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:14
15

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Truth in Leasing Act

49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(2)

54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as though 

fully set forth below.

55. 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(2) creates a right of action for damages arising from an 

authorized carrier’s violation of Truth in Leasing Act (“TILA”) regulations.

56. Plaintiffs and the Class are “owners” who leased their vehicles to C&K Trucking, 

an “authorized carrier,” for use in C&K Trucking’s business, with Plaintiffs also providing the 

drivers. Plaintiffs are not “agents” of C&K Trucking. Plaintiffs’ leases and contracts with C&K 

Trucking are subject to TILA.

57. C&K Trucking’s policies and practices resulted in violations of TILA regulations 

and its contracts/leases with Plaintiffs and the Class, which resulted in the underpayment of 

Plaintiffs and the Class. 

58. As a direct and proximate result of these violations, Defendant has damaged 

Plaintiffs and the Class in amounts to be determined according to proof at trial.

59. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(1), Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the 

other aggrieved owner-operators, are entitled to injunctive relief.

60. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 14704(e), Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the other 

aggrieved owner-operators, are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract

Common Law

61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as though 

fully set forth below.

62. Plaintiffs and the Class are “owners” who have contracts with C&K Trucking to 

lease their vehicles to it for use in its business. 

63. Plaintiffs and the Class have been entitled to certain rates and payments under their 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:15
16

contracts with C&K Trucking. 

64. C&K Trucking has failed to honor the rates and payments to which Plaintiffs and 

the Class were lawfully entitled.

65. C&K Trucking unilaterally changed rates and payments, without following the 

procedure its contracts require and without Plaintiffs’ or the Class’ permission.

66. As a proximate result of these contract breaches, Defendant has damaged Plaintiffs 

and the Class in amounts to be determined according to proof at trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraud

Common Law

67. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as though 

fully set forth below.

68. C&K Trucking made false statements of material fact to Plaintiffs and the Class 

regarding its payment and rate structure, and how much it would pay them for their services, 

including but not limited to:

i. Quoting specific rates for loads, then paying less;

ii. Promising a certain pay structure in its standardized contracts, then failing to honor 

that structure;

iii. Unilaterally lowering the price for loads without informing owner-operators ahead 

of time/without their consent;

iv. Agreeing to honor specific rates for specific loads in response to pay disputes, then 

failing to honor such agreements;

v. Misrepresenting in writing that Defendant was instructing its agents to pay 

additional monies owed, without actually doing so; 

vi. Promising higher rates for regional, as opposed to cross-town loads, but then 

underpaying and/or paying lower, cross-town rates;

vii. Misleading owner-operators as to charge-back policies; 

viii. Misrepresenting that pay would be provided within a certain time frame, then 

failing to provide some or all of it; and

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:16
17

ix. Misleading owner-operators and drivers as to the documentation necessary to 

receive pay and/or the manner in which such documentation must be provided, 

then refusing to pay some or all of the monies owed in violation of its 

representations and agreements.

69. Defendant has made false statements and misrepresentations to Plaintiffs and the 

Class on an ongoing, regular basis. Illustrative examples are provided with specificity above. 

70. C&K Trucking was aware of its false statements of material facts to Plaintiffs and 

the Class because, inter alia: 

i. Defendant’s agents were aware of the pay rates their standardized contracts 

provide for, yet refused to honor them;

ii. Defendant’s agents were aware of pay rates promised to owner-operators, often in 

writing through text or e-mail, but then refused to honor those rates;

iii. Defendant’s agents provided contradictory and misleading statements in response 

to pay disputes, or ignored disputes altogether; and

iv. Defendant’s agents provided contradictory, misleading information regarding pay 

rates for specific customers’ loads, charge backs, and other items.

71. C&K Trucking intended that Plaintiffs and the Class would rely on such statements 

in choosing to contract initially, and continue to do business with, C&K Trucking, as evidenced 

by, inter alia:

i. its agents’ deliberate decision to induce Ms. Stephens to do a run for its client, 

Saia, by agreeing to honor the previous rate before she did the run, then refusing 

to honor that agreement afterwards;

ii. its decision to fail to honor rates when it did provide rates ahead of time, and to 

underpay owner-operators; 

iii. its deliberate decision to promise a specific pay structure in its standardized 

contracts, and subsequent failure to follow through; and

iv. its deliberate decision to obscure the methods of calculating charge-backs, both in 

its standardized contracts and in addressing pay disputes, thereby misleading and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:17
18

confusing owner-operators, and underpaying them.

72. Plaintiffs and the Class relied upon C&K Trucking’s false statements in making 

business decisions, as evidenced by, inter alia,

i. Choosing to do a run for a specific client based on Defendant’s representation that 

it would honor the previous, higher rate, only to find that Defendant refused to 

follow through;

ii. Choosing to accept certain loads based on quoted rates, only to discover that 

Defendant paid less than the rate quoted; and

iii. Choosing to contract with C&K Trucking in the first place based on its 

representations as to its rate and pay structure.

73. As a proximate result of this conduct, Defendant has damaged Plaintiffs and the 

Class in amounts to be determined according to proof at trial, by underpaying them and 

fraudulently inducing them to contract with and continue to do business with C&K Trucking.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Class they seek to 

represent in this action, request the following relief:

a. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action 

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23;

b. For an order appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class;

c. For an order appointing Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Class Counsel;

d. That the Court find that Defendant has been in violation of TILA by violating its 

regulations, and of the Common Law by engaging in breach of contract and 

fraudulent misrepresentation;

e. For an order that requires C&K Trucking to pay or otherwise credit Plaintiffs and 

the Class for all pay to which they are entitled, as restitution of damages incurred 

as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of TILA, as well of its 

breaches of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation;

f. That the Court enjoin Defendant from further violations of TILA pursuant to

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:18
19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), 49 U.S.C. § 14704(a)(1), and other 

applicable law;

g. Prejudgment interest under Gorstein Enter. v. Quality Care-USA, Inc., 874 F.2d

431, 436 (7th Cir. 1989), its progeny, and other applicable law, holding 

prejudgment interest is presumptively available to victims of Federal law 

violations;

h. That Plaintiff and the Class be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. § 14704(e), and/or other applicable law;

i. That Plaintiff and the Class be awarded costs pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Procedure 54, and/or other applicable law;

j. Any and all other applicable statutory penalties, as provided by law; and

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

Respectfully submitted, 

DATED: July 22, 2020 VUCKO LAW LLP

 

By: /s/ Stacey Vucko

Stacey Vucko

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL 

KONECKY LLP

 

By: /s/ James Bloom

James Bloom

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:19
20

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right.

DATED: July 22, 2020 VUCKO LAW LLP

 

By: /s/ Stacey Vucko

Stacey Vucko

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL 

KONECKY LLP

 

By: /s/ James Bloom

James Bloom

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-04305 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:20