Guimaraes v. Metal Transport, LLC

• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: JULIA K. MUNLEY, JUDGE
• Citation: 790 F.Supp.3d 389
• Docket Number: 3:24cv1232
• Decision Date: 10 July 2025
• Parties: Edgar GUIMARAES and Alexander Duran, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. METAL TRANSPORT, LLC (individually and d/b/a Century Express); Evans Delivery Company, Inc. (individually and d/b/a Century Express); Century Express; ABC Corps. 1-10 (fictitious parties) and John/Jane Does 1-10 (fictitious parties), Defendants

790 F.Supp.3d 389

Edgar GUIMARAES and Alexander Duran, on behalf of themselvesand all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. METAL TRANSPORT, LLC (individually and d/b/a Century Express);Evans Delivery Company, Inc. (individually and d/b/a Century Express);Century Express; ABC Corps. 1-10 (fictitious parties)and John/Jane Does 1-10 (fictitious parties), Defendants

No. 3:24cv1232

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Signed July 10, 2025

Ravi Sattiraju, Pro Hac Vice, Sattiraju & Tharney, L.L.P., East Windsor, NJ, Harold L. Lichten, Pro Hac Vice, Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Krysten Leigh Connon, Pro Hac Vice, Olena Savytska, Pro Hac Vice, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiff Edgar Guimaraes.

Ravi Sattiraju, Pro Hac Vice, Sattiraju & Tharney, L.L.P., East Windsor, NJ, Harold L. Lichten, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plaintiff Alexander Duran.

Charles Lawrence Shute, Jr., Matthew A. Green, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant Metal Transportation LLC.

Michele-Lee Shapiro, Steven Robert Rowland, Kenneth L. Moskowitz, Brown Moskowitz & Kallen, P.C., Chatham, NJ, Christian A. Angotti, David Zwier, Robert W. Pritchard, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant Evans Delivery Company, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

JULIA K. MUNLEY, JUDGE

Plaintiffs Edgar Guimaraes and Alexander Duran signed owner-operator agreements with a motor carrier and worked as truck drivers. As discussed below, the agreements called for the plaintiffs to be paid a percentage of the revenue from each load transported subject to chargebacks and other deductions by the defendants. In this action, plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals against Defendants Metal Transport, LLC (individually and d/b/a Century Express) ("Metal"); Evans Delivery Company, Inc. (individually and d/b/a Century Express) ("Evans"); and Century Express alleging that, despite the agreements, they were employees and not independent contractors.¹

As citizens of New Jersey, plaintiffs advance claims pursuant to the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 34:11-4.1-4.14, for allegedly unlawful withholdings and deductions from their wages as the result of this purported misclassification. Plaintiffs also contend that defendants failed to pay them overtime in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), N.J. STAT. ANN. § 34:11-56a.

Before the court are two motions to dismiss plaintiff's third amended complaint filed by Defendants Evans and Metal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Having been fully briefed, these motions are ripe for disposition.

Background

According to the third amended complaint, Defendants Evans and Metal provide transportation and delivery services from various seaports in New Jersey, including the Port Newark Container Terminal.² (Doc. 81 ¶¶ 8, 10). Guimaraes and Duran contracted with defendants as owner-operators, hauling intermodal containers filled with various products to and from defendants' facilities to their customers along delivery routes set by the defendants. Id. ¶¶ 2-4, 7, 12, 20. Guimaraes hauled loads for the defendants between 2016 (or 2017) and 2019. Id. ¶¶ 2, 25. Duran operated vehicles in furtherance of the defendants' business between 2018 and 2023. Id. ¶ 3.

Per the allegations, the owner-operator agreements between the plaintiffs and defendants caused plaintiffs to be misclassified as independent contractors and not employees when an employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. Id. ¶¶ 1, 9, 12, 17. Thus, plaintiffs advance facts focusing on the level of control that defendants allegedly exercised over their truck drivers. For example, plaintiffs allege the following: they did not work in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business; they did not have their own clientele; they relied exclusively upon defendants for work; and they joined the ranks of the unemployed upon their termination. Id. ¶¶ 21-23.

As other examples of alleged control, Guimaraes leased a truck tractor, a 2015 International Prostar, through defendants' lease-to-buy program. Id. ¶ 26. Pursuant to that program, Guimaraes then had to lease the use of the tractor exclusively to Defendant Evans so that it could only be used in the course of defendants' business. Id. When Guimaraes's tractor went out of service, defendants provided him with a rental vehicle as a replacement so he could continue to drive for them. Id. ¶ 27. Similarly, Duran leased a 2012 Mack truck through a vehicle financing company. Id. ¶ 29. Duran then had to lease the use of that truck exclusively to Defendant Evans. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' lease-to-buy program was used by defendants to support the misclassification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors. Id. ¶ 30.

Plaintiffs also allege that deductions were taken from their wages for the following: 1) bobtail insurance; 2) escrow; 3) fuel; 4) fuel cards; 5) oil; 6) road tax fees; 7) maintenance escrows; 8) occupational accident insurance; 9) physical damage insurance; 9) per diem/maintenance and repair; 10) a tire liability program; 11) license plate fees; and 12) driver log deductions.³ Id. ¶¶ 34a-34n. Plaintiffs further contend that the lease-to-buy program was used as a basis to deduct numerous categories of fees and payments from plaintiffs' wages in violation of New Jersey law. Id. ¶ 30.

Plaintiffs further allege that they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week at the instruction of the defendants but were not paid overtime wages. Id. ¶¶ 35-37. Per plaintiffs, defendants never compensated them using an overtime rate of pay as required under New Jersey law. Id.

Based on the above allegations made on behalf of the plaintiffs and the putative class members, Count I asserts violations of the NJWPL regarding the allegedly unlawful deductions discussed above. Id. ¶¶ 47-51. Count II claims that defendants violated the NJWHL by failing to compensate workers with overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours. Id. ¶¶ 52-54. Count II is asserted on behalf of Duran and the putative class only, not Guimaraes. Id. In response to the third amended complaint, Defendants Evans and Metal each filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Docs. 83, 85).

Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs seek to certify this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (Doc. 81, Third Am. Compl. ¶ 38). The Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") provides district courts with original jurisdiction of any civil action that is a class action subject to certain requirements: "(1) an amount in controversy that exceeds $5,000,000, as aggregated across all individual claims; (2) minimally diverse parties; and (3) that the class consist of at least 100 or more members." Judon v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 773 F.3d 495, 500 (3d Cir. 2014)(citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (5)(B), (6); Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 590, 133 S.Ct. 1345, 185 L.Ed.2d 439 (2013)).

CAFA jurisdiction is limited to cases where the proposed class has more than 100 members. Id. at 505 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B)). In this case, the proposed class includes "[a]ll individuals that contracted with Defendants as 'owner-operators' or who otherwise provided truck driving services for Defendants and who provided said truck driving services in the State of New Jersey from July 2017 through to the present . . ." (Doc. 81, Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12). In its notice of removal, Defendant Evans indicates that "it is one of the largest intermodal drayage providers in the United States," and that it has contracted with thousands of truck drivers. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 10, 24). Thus, the proposed class exceeds 100 individuals.

Regarding diversity of citizenship, CAFA allows for minimal diversity, that is, jurisdiction is afforded where any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of one state and any defendant is a citizen of a different state. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2)(A). As alleged and fairly construed, both named plaintiffs are citizens of New Jersey and Defendant Evans is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1, Notice of Removal ¶¶ 17-18; Doc. 81, Third Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 2-3, 6). CAFA's diversity requirement is thus met here.

As for the amount in controversy, plaintiffs allege that various operating expenses were unlawfully deducted from their wages, including for insurance, fuel, taxes, and other vehicle-related costs in violation of the NJWPL. (Doc. 81, Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 33-34). Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that they were not paid overtime wages by defendants in violation of the NJWHL. Id. ¶¶ 35-37. Both the NJWPL and NJWHL provide for liquidated damages and recovery of attorneys' fees. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 34:11-4.10(c); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 34:11-56a25. Given the types of allegedly unlawful wage deductions relative to operating tractor trailers, the alleged overtime violations, the size of the putative class, and the possibility of liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under New Jersey law, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, when the claims of the individual proposed class members are aggregated. See Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 199 (3d Cir. 2007).

All of plaintiffs' claims arise under state law. As a federal court sitting in diversity, the substantive law of New Jersey shall apply to the instant case. See Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 250, n. 12 (3d Cir. 2010); Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 158 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)). As for the reasons why this federal district court in Pennsylvania has been called upon to resolve this dispute arising under New Jersey law, plaintiffs' third amended complaint references agreements between plaintiffs and defendants which include forum...