Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

10-899 - Doe et al v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
10-899 - Doe et al v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. et al
September 30, 2010
PDF | More
ORDER and OPINION granting 127 Motion to Compel Arbitration and all of plaintiffs' claims are referred to arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4. Further ORDERED that this action is STAYED pending the outcome of arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3 and further order of this court. Denying without prejudice the following motions: 162 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; 166 Motion to Stay; 192 Motion for Hearing on Motion; 220 Motion to Supplement; 108 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 9/30/10.(DMT)
September 7, 2011
PDF | More
ORDER that plaintiff's motion at 315 is GRANTED insofar as it seeks an order certifying an interlocutory appeal of the court's order at (Doc. 223), and DENIED insofar as it requests this court to reconsider its order at (Doc. 223). Plaintiffs' motion at 277 is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 9/6/11.(DMT)
January 22, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER AND OPINION denying 566 Defendant's Motion. Each of the deadlines in the order at (Doc. 548) is extended by 7 months. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 1/22/15.(LSP)
February 17, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER, the court does not find the motion 612 is frivolous and that sanctions are warranted; this court declines to comment further on any issue regarding the appealability of the court's order at 605, that will be left for resolution by the Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 2/17/15.(REW)
July 15, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 631 Motion to Compel. Defendants are directed to respond to the requests listed in Exhibit E in compliance with the guidance provided in this order, but Defendants need not provide documents specifically related to drivers not involved in this litigation. Given that the motion has been denied in part, the court concludes that the sanctions requested by both parties are not warranted. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 7/15/15.(JWS)
November 13, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 644 Motion to Compel. Defendants are directed to designate and produce corporate witnesses to testify at a deposition in accordance with the guidance provided in this order. Defendants' motions at docket 652 and 654 are denied as moot. Given that none of the motions have been granted in full, the court concludes that the requested sanctions are not warranted. The court recognizes that the parties will need additional time to complete the rule 30(b)(6) depositions as the discovery deadline was November 11, 2015. The parties are directed to confer and provide the court with a proposed deadline for completing the remaining depositions. The proposed deadline shall be set out in a stipulation to be filed within 7 days. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 11/13/15.(SJF)
November 13, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER granting 646 Motion to Compel and granting 649 Motion to Compel. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) and based on counsel's supporting declaration at docket 647, the court concludes that attorney's fees in the amount of $7,500 is reasonable for counsel's work on the motion. Given that the current deadline was November 11, 2015, the court recognizes that Plaintiffs will need additional time to substantively respond to Defendants' requests and that Defendants may need more time to conduct any follow up discovery. The parties are directed to confer and provide the court with a proposed deadline for Plaintiffs' response and any further discovery on the part of Defendants. The proposed deadline shall be set out in a stipulation to be filed within 7 days. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 11/13/15.(SJF)
December 18, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER denying 684 Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiffs' motion at docket 684 for sanctions is DENIED. In an effort to facilitate completion of discovery, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants provide the discovery materials and discovery log as more fully described in this order on or before January 15, 2016. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 12/18/15.(JWS)
December 28, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER granting 696 Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs shall appear for deposition in Arizona on or before February 29, 2016. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 12/28/15.(JWS)
January 6, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER AND OPINION - Plaintiffs' motion at docket 771 is GRANTED. Defendants' motions for summary judgment as to each individual Plaintiff at dockets 744, 751, 757, 763, and 768 are DENIED. The preceding discussion shows that even without considering the evidence obtained in discovery, Plaintiffs had contracts of employment. Accordingly, Defendants' motion at docket 820 for reconsideration of the case management order or certification of an interlocutory appeal is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 01/05/2017. (ATD)
February 24, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER re 885 Motion for TRO and 885 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs motion at docket 885 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs request that Defendants send a curative notice is granted. Defendants are directed to send via Qualcomm the notice attached as Exhibit A to this order to those drivers who have been instructed to sign Swifts new ICOA. The Qualcomm message with the notice shall be sent on three consecutive days, starting February 27, 2017. Defendants are also directed to send a copy of the notice via first class mail to those same drivers. Plaintiffs request to enjoin Defendants from engaging in future contact with putative class members regarding matters in this suit is denied as unnecessarily restrictive. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 2/24/17.(JWS)
February 24, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER re 879 Motion to Stay; 883 Motion to Certify Class; 884 Motion to Certify Class; 884 Motion to Amend/Correct. Defendants' motion at docket 879 is GRANTED. This case is stayed pending appeal. Plaintiffs' motions at docket 883 and 884 are denied without prejudice to renewal if appropriate following conclusion of the appeal. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 2/24/17. (JWS)