Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc.
Decision Date | 16 December 2014 |
Docket Number | 11 C 6594 |
Citation | 76 F.Supp.3d 715 |
Parties | Thomas Mervyn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc., Newesco, Inc., Nelson Westerberg International, and Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Marvin Alan Miller, Andrew Szot, Lori Ann Fanning, Matthew E. Van Tine, Miller Law LLC, Chicago, IL, Edward Dennis McNamara, Jr., McNamara & Evans, Springfield, IL, for Plaintiff.
David H. Levitt, Steven M. Puiszis, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
In this putative class action against Nelson Westerberg, Inc., Newesco, Inc., Nelson Westerberg International (collectively “Newesco”), and Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Thomas Mervyn alleges violations of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12, a provision of the Truth-in-Leasing regulations promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to implement the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, Pub.L. No. 96–296, 94 Stat. 793 ( ), as well as common law unjust enrichment. Docs. 1, 27. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), except insofar as the complaint sought the remedies of disgorgement, restitution, or constructive trust for the § 376.12 claims. Docs. 108–09 (reported at Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc., 2012 WL 6568338 (N.D.Ill.Dec. 17, 2012) ). After Defendants moved for summary judgment, Doc. 135, the court granted Mervyn's request for additional discovery under Rule 56(d), Doc. 156. Defendants then supplemented and renewed their summary judgment motion. Doc. 168. The motion is denied.
The following facts are set forth as favorably to Mervyn as the record and Local Rule 56.1 permit. See Hanners v. Trent, 674 F.3d 683, 691 (7th Cir.2012). Only those facts pertinent to the legal issues discussed below or that provide appropriate background are included.
Mervyn is an independent owner-operator of a moving truck who has driven trucks and leased them to various entities for decades. Doc. 216 at ¶ 1. In February 2010, Mervyn entered into a Contractor Agreement and Lease (“Lease”) with Newesco to haul shipments for Atlas, with Newesco designated as “Agent,” Mervyn designated as “Contractor,” and Atlas designated as “Carrier.” Doc. 176 at ¶ 1; Doc. 216 at ¶¶ 13–14. The Lease sets forth the terms and conditions of Mervyn's relationship with Newesco and Atlas, including compensation. Docs. 177–1, 177–2. Mervyn hauled thirty-three shipments before terminating the Lease in January 2011. Doc. 176 at ¶¶ 1, 18.
Mervyn's § 376.12 claims allege that Defendants, by violating various provisions of the Lease, also violated § 376.12. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 24–52.
Defendants' first ground for summary judgment on the § 376.12 claims is purely legal; they contend that § 376.12 governs only the content of the Lease and does not require actual compliance therewith, and that because Mervyn alleges only that Defendants did not comply with the Lease, Mervyn has no § 376.12 claim. Doc. 137 at 6–9. Defendants are right that Mervyn challenges only their compliance with the Lease and does not allege that the Lease's content fails to comply with § 376.12. But Defendants are wrong to argue that § 376.12 governs only the Lease's content, for it also plainly requires compliance with the Lease's terms.
It is true that the individual subsections of § 376.12 referenced in the complaint and Mervyn's briefs address only the required content of a lease:
49 C.F.R. § 376.12(d), (g), (h), (k) (emphasis added). However, right after stating that “the written lease ... shall contain the following provisions,” the introductory paragraph of § 376.12 plainly requires the carrier to actually comply with those provisions: “The required lease provisions shall be adhered to and performed by the authorized carrier.” 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 (emphasis added). That the regulation requires compliance with the lease's terms is clear from its text; there is no other conceivable way to read it.
This conclusion regarding the scope of § 376.12 finds support in Owner–Operator Independent Drivers Association v. Mayflower Transit, LLC, 615 F.3d 790 (7th Cir.2010). There, the Seventh Circuit cited § 376.12(j)(1) for the proposition that “[f]ederal regulations require motor carriers to have insurance for the protection of the public, which may be injured by collisions on the highway.” Id . at 791.
Section 376.12(j)(1) itself provides only that “[t]he lease shall clearly specify the legal obligation of the authorized carrier to maintain insurance coverage for the protection of the public,” that “[t]he lease shall further specify who is responsible for providing any other insurance coverage for the operation of the leased equipment,” and that “the lease shall specify the amount which will be charged-back to the lessor.” 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(j)(1) (emphasis added). Yet the Seventh Circuit read that provision as imposing a substantive obligation to comply with the lease provisions whose inclusion § 376.12(j)(1) requires; as Judge Barker recognized in handling the case in the district court, the source of that substantive obligation is the introductory language quoted above. See Owner–Operators Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Mayflower...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dunn v. Chicago Transit Auth.
...56.1 statements and responses” and prohibits the parties from “cit[ing] to raw records materials.” Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc., 76 F.Supp.3d 715, 719 (N.D. Ill. 2014). The requirements of Local Rule 56.1 “are not mere formalities, ” and district courts are entitled to “strictly enforc......
-
Locascio v. Lend Lease (US) Constr., Inc.
...to support the plaintiff's opposition to the entry of summary judgment in defendant's favor. See, e.g., Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 715, 720-21 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (denying summary judgment because the movant had violated Local Rule 56.1 by filing briefs that cited direct......
-
Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc.
...carriers and their agents to "adhere[] to and perform[]" all required provisions of their leases with owner-operators. 76 F. Supp. 3d 715, 717 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Mervyn performed several jobs for Newesco (and, through Newesco, for Atlas) between February and December of 2010. Doc. 397 at ¶ 6......
-
Simpson v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 13-CV-02453
...Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. 6-7, ECF No. 161. This defeats the purpose of the Local Rule 56.1 statements. See Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 715, 720 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (explaining that "the value of the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses is largely lost if those mat......