Case Name: Cynthia ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant; Carlos Castaneda, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Swift Transportation Corporation, Defendant-Appellant; Albert Zamora, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Swift Transportation Corporation, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-03
Citations: 319 F. App'x 333
Docket Number: Nos. 08-50476, 08-50546, 08-50631
Parties: Cynthia ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Carlos Castaneda, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Swift Transportation Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Albert Zamora, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Swift Transportation Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
Cynthia ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Carlos Castaneda, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Swift Transportation Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Albert Zamora, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Swift Transportation Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 08-50476, 08-50546, 08-50631.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 3, 2009.
Lisa A. Elizondo, Elizondo & Hayes PC, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gerald Green Howard, Charles C. High, Jr., Kemp Smith, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARWOOD, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Swift Transportation Corporation (Swift) appeals the denials of its motions to compel arbitration in three separate cases brought against it by former employees. The cases below came before three different district court judges, each of whom correctly concluded that the respective arbitration agreements at issue were illusory because Swift reserved the right to revoke or modify the agreements at any time without notice. Accordingly, Swift's motions to compel arbitration were appropriately denied. AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. See J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 230 & n. 2 (Tex.2003).