Swift to give oral… arguments…

Oral Argument Date Set – Posted January 9, 2018

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has set March 16, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. PST to hear oral arguments on Swift’s appeal of the District Court’s January 2017 ruling that this case cannot go to arbitration because the named-plaintiff drivers were/are employees—not independent contractors—as a matter of law. Each side will have 20 minutes to present their argument and respond to the Judges’ questions.

Swift’s appeal does not dispute that the District Court reached the correct decision—that the Plaintiff drivers are employees under the law. Instead, Swift argues that the District Court erred by considering the Lease as well as the “Contractor Agreement” and the parties’ relationship in reaching its decision.

The Court will also hear arguments regarding Swift’s mandamus petition; Swift contends that the District Court should not have lifted the stay on discovery, granting Plaintiffs access to Defendant’s records of those drivers who may have claims in the case.

Drivers had argued, successfully, that because this case has been slowed down, hindered, and repeatedly delayed for years by the Defendant, the information in Swift’s records would not be current or useful if, or when, a Collective Action is certified and Plaintiffs asked for the records so that we could begin the process of ensuring that the contact information in those records is up-to-date and accurate in order to send notice to a group of over 16,000 drivers who may be eligible to join this case, if and when that should occur.

Typically, cases such as these are certified (or not) fairly early after filing and if certification is granted notice is mailed to all the people who might be eligible to join. Plaintiffs moved for collective action back in May of 2010— but this process was stopped in the summer of 2010 by Swift’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. Now that the Arizona District Court has ruled against Swift’s arbitration motion, and said that the case must remain in federal court, the next step after these appeals will be to revisit the class and collective action motions.

The 9th Circuit live-streams oral arguments, and archives them for viewing afterward. When a link to the live stream is available, we will post it here so drivers can watch the hearing live, or later, at a convenient time.


Average cost per driver mile increases

A study done shows that the average cost for a company to run a truck is up to $1.68/mile. According to other studies the average freight rate is $2.01/mile. That is a difference of $0.33/mile of profit.

Swift claims to only make $0.017/mile(1.7¢/mile) in profit. Hmm… Can you say bullshit on Swift?

I get paid about $1.347/mile (93.5¢/mile mileage + 41.2¢/mile Fuel Surcharge). Wow… Really Swift? I don’t know how much Target pays but I know they pay well. If they pay average that means Swift makes $0.663/mile ($1,989/week) off me. Razor thin margins you say? Again I call bullshit. Times like this I think about my brother’s offer to join him on the dark side and get my cookies from Schneider.

Securities fraud against Swift

Swift Transportation – National Securities Law Firm Encourages Shareholders With Significant Losses To Contact Law Firm

July 28, 2014: 12:06 PM ET

NEW YORK, July 28, 2014/PRNewswire/ — Tripp Levy PLLC, a leading national securities law firm, announces that it is investigating potential securities fraud claims against Swift Transportation Co. (NYSE: SWFT) (“Swift” or the “Company”) resulting from allegations that Swift may have made false and misleading disclosures concerning its business and financial condition.

On July 25, 2014, Swift tumbled the most since its 2010 initial public offering, after the Company forecast third-quarter financial results below that of analysts’ estimates due to a “shortage” of drivers.  Swift said that it was “constrained” by a challenging driver market in the second quarter and that turnover was higher than anticipated.

Following this announcement, the stock fell over $4.60 per share to $21.20 per share on July 25, 2014. 

Tripp Levy PLLC is looking at filing a potential action that seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Swift publicly traded securities during the period January 27, 2014 through and including July 25, 2014 (the “Class Period”).  

If you purchased shares of Swift during the Class Period and suffered significant losses on your investment, and wish to discuss this matter at no cost or expense, please contact Tripp Levy PLLC via e-mail at contact@tripplevy.com or call us toll free at 1-800-511-7037 or visit our website at www.tripplevy.com.

Tripp Levy PLLC is a leading national securities and shareholder rights law firm with offices across the country representing both individual and institutional shareholders and, along with its affiliates, has recovered billions of dollars for shareholders.  Tripp Levy PLLC is affiliated with Milberg LLP. Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not indicate a similar outcome

Email: contact@tripplevy.com 

Toll free: 1-800-511-7037

International:  602.241.2841