In Re Fedex Ground Package System Inc.
| Citation | 712 F.Supp.2d 776 |
| Decision Date | 21 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RM (MDL-1700). |
| Parties | In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION.This Document Relates to: all Actions. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana |
712 F.Supp.2d 776
In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to: all Actions.
Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RM (MDL-1700).
United States District Court,
N.D. Indiana,
South Bend Division.
April 21, 2010.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Wesley Martin, pro se.
Devon Nugent, pro se.
Melissa Rohman, pro se.
Ralph Carl Veal, pro se.
Laron Jones, Baltimore, MD, pro se.
Ricardo Huerta, pro se.
C. Victor Pyle, III, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Columbia, SC, Chris A. Hollinger, Michael W. Kopp, Nora M. Puckett, Robin Dean, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, Evelyn L. Becker PHV, Kenneth Lee Blalack, II, Aparna B. Joshi, Guy Brenner, Jeffrey S. Nestler, John H. Beisner PHV, Tom A. Jerman, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Lesley A. Pate, Robert G. Ames, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, Jennifer Rygiel Boyd, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Carla D. Macaluso, Jackson Lewis LLP, Morristown, NJ, Karen P. Kruse PHV, Aaron Roblan, Jackson Lewis LLP, Seattle, WA, Michael J. Puma PHV, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, R. Jay Taylor, Jr, Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, Indianapolis, IN, Robert M. Schwartz PHV, Scott Voelz, Cameron H. Biscay, Laura E. Robinson, Michael W. Garrison, Jr, Michael G. McGuinness, Victor H. Jih, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Steve Dennis PHV, Reid & Dennis PC, Dallas, TX, Alison G. Fox, Thomas J. Brunner, Jr., D. Lucetta Pope, Baker & Daniels, South Bend, IN, Edward J. Efkeman, Federal Express Corporation, James R. Mulroy, II, Kiesewetter Wise Kaplan Prather PLC, William T. Fiala, Lewis Fisher Henderson Claxton & Mulroy LLP, Memphis, TN, Jeffrey A. Trimarchi, Jennifer Lee Merzon, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY, Kenneth E. Milam, Watkins & Eager, Jackson, MS, Eric E. Hobbs, Eric H. Rumbaugh PHV, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Milwaukee, WI, Patricia A. Sullivan, Edwards & Angell, Providence, RI, Michael R. Reck, Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn, Des Moines, IA, Robert James Penny, Wick Bramer Ukasick & Trautwein LLC, Fort Collins, CO, Steven Matthew Kelso, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs' omnibus brief in support of summary adjudication asking the court to give collateral estoppel effect to the California Estrada decision in all the MDL proceedings (doc. # 1194). The plaintiffs contend that the Statement of Decision in Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC210130, aff'd, 154 Cal.App.4th 1, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 327 (Cal.App.Ct.2007), precludes FedEx from denying that it has reserved the right to control and has exercised actual control over the manner and means used by the plaintiff drivers in performing their duties for FedEx under the terms of the Operating Agreement and common FedEx policies, procedures, and practices that implement the Operating Agreement's terms. For the reasons that follow, the court denies the plaintiffs' request to give preclusive effect to Estrada in the MDL cases.
In Estrada, the court found that FedEx had the right to control and exercised actual
FedEx disagrees that Estrada has any preclusive effect. First, FedEx says that certain material facts relied on in Estrada are different from those applicable in the MDL cases. FedEx made a number of operational changes directly affecting its relations with contractors after Estrada, such as the “Document Reengineering Initiative” that clarified the line between policies and procedures. FedEx also contends that the facts in the MDL proceedings will be different than those relied on by the Estrada court because the Estrada class was more narrow than the classes certified here and anecdotal evidence was offered during the Estrada trial involving California terminal managers' and drivers' individual experiences.
Second, FedEx contends the states in the various MDL proceedings apply different legal standards than the California court applied. Because the class certification orders analyzed each jurisdiction's law individually, FedEx reasons that the court's analysis confirms that various jurisdictions treat the factors relevant to the right to control differently.
Third, FedEx states that application of collateral estoppel to the MDL proceeding would be contrary to public policy. The Estrada judgment, FedEx says, is inconsistent with one or more previous judgments in favor of FedEx. Also, the Estrada appellate court reversed the trial court's equitable order enjoining FedEx from misclassifying single service area drivers under its then-current business model because the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek such relief. Accordingly, FedEx contends a decision applicable to a defined class of California FedEx single service area drivers that doesn't apply even throughout California shouldn't be given nationwide preclusive effect.
In Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC210130, the court certified a class of FedEx pickup and delivery contractors who at any time between May 1996 and July 2001 performed services for FedEx in the State of California driving full-time in a single work area (SWA) dispatched from a California-based terminal pursuant to the Operating Agreement. See Statement of Decision dated July 26, 2004, pp. 1-2. Drivers who operated in multiple work areas (MWAs), corporate entities, and others were excluded from the class. Decision, p. 2. Two of the named plaintiffs were SWA drivers and another was an MWA driver; although excluded from the class, the MWA driver continued in the litigation individually seeking a determination of employment status. Decision, pp. 2-3.
On July 26, 2004, after a nine-week bench trial with forty-six witnesses, the California Superior Court issued its Statement of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kremers v. Coca-cola Co., Civil No. 09-333-GPM.
...in Plaintiff's complaint that might satisfy that requirement are those in support of her consumer fraud claim, but the court has 712 F.Supp.2d 776 already dismissed that claim.”); DigaComm, LLC v. Vehicle Safety & Compliance, LLC, No. 08 C 338, 2009 WL 509736, at *8 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 2, 2009) ......
-
RLP Ventures v. All Hands Instruction NFP, 19 C 3276
...issue and thus, the issue is not barred by issue preclusion. See In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Employment Practices Litig., 712 F. Supp. 2d 776, 792 (N.D. Ind. 2010) (holding that when the underlying factual conditions change from the time of the first decision, itPage 9 cannot be ......
-
Ronald R. Peterson, Not Individually But for the Bankrupt Estates of Lancelot Investors Fund, L.P. v. Eide Bailly, LLP, 10 C 8038
...issue decided in the prior proceeding in the same or comparable way. See In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc. Emp't Practices Litig., 712 F. Supp. 2d 776, 796-98 (N.D. Ind. 2010). Wright and Miller state that the Court should "careful[ly] examin[e] . . . the controlling legal principles," ......