ELLIS v SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY / CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES

Representative-Action-Complaint-2-28-18-1

("L WDA") and the employee with the LWDA receiving 75% of the penalties and the employee receiving 25%. Cal. Lab. Code§ 2699(i).

4. Plaintiff brings this cause under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) la\.v makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race. color, religion. national origin. or sex. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination. or pa1ticipated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. The law also requires that employers reasonably accommodate applicants' and employees sincerely held religious practices. unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business.

5. Plaintiff brings this action under Business and Professions Code § 17200 as encompassing any one of the following five types of business "wrongs"; (1) an "unlawful" business act or practice; (2) an "unfair" business act or practice; (3) a "fraudulent" business act or practice; ( 4) "unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising"; and ( 5) any act prohibited by Sections 17500-17577.5.

6. Plaintiff brings this action under Unruh Act which states "[ a ]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their ... race ... are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of any kind whatsoever." (Civ. Code. § 51.).

7. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all aggrieved employees presently or formerly employed by Defendant during the liability period, brings this representative action pursuant to Labor Code § 2699, et seq., Business and Professions Code §17200, and Unruh Act, seeking penalties for Defendant's violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

II.


Plaintiff WALTER ELLIS, on behalf of the people of the State of California and as an "aggrieved employee" acting as a private attorney general under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. ("PAGA") complains of Defendant(s) CENTRAL REFRGERATED SERVICES, INC. and SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INC.; ("Defendants") and each of them, as follows:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. ( collectively "Swift") is a publicly owned company incorporated in Arizona. Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company and the largest truckload carrier in North America.

2. Defendant CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES, INC. is and at all times relevant hereto, a corporation doing business in the State of California. In 2013, Defendant Central Refrigerated Services, Inc. was acquired by Defendant Swift Transportation Company, Inc.

3 . Plaintiff brings is action pursuant to Labor Code § 2699, et seq., ("PAGA") on behalf of the State of California, Plaintiff and all other individuals who hold or held the position of employee currently employed by or formerly employed by Defendants and any subsidiaries or affiliated companies and Does 1 through 50 within the State of California who worked one or more pay periods (hereafter "aggrieve employees"). The PAGA gives a private citizen the right to pursue fines that would normally only be available to the State of California. As such, it is truly allowing a private citizen to act as an attorney general. Cal. Lab. Code§ 2699(a). Any resulting civil penalties are split between the Labor and Workforce Development Agency

Plaintiff WALTER ELLIS, on behalf of the people of the State of California and as an "aggrieved employee" acting as a private attorney general under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, § 2699, et seq. ("PAGA") complains of Defendant(s) CENTRAL REFRGERATED SERVICES, INC. and SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INC.; ("Defendants") and each of them, as follows:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. ( collectively "Swift") is a publicly owned company incorporated in Arizona. Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company and the largest truckload carrier in North America.

2. Defendant CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES, INC. is and at all times relevant hereto, a corporation doing business in the State of California. In 2013, Defendant Central Refrigerated Services, Inc. was acquired by Defendant Swift Transportation Company, Inc.

3 . Plaintiff brings is action pursuant to Labor Code § 2699, et seq., ("PAGA") on behalf of the State of California, Plaintiff and all other individuals who hold or held the position of employee currently employed by or formerly employed by Defendants and any subsidiaries or affiliated companies and Does 1 through 50 within the State of California who worked one or more pay periods (hereafter "aggrieve employees"). The PAGA gives a private citizen the right to pursue fines that would normally only be available to the State of California. As such, it is truly allowing a private citizen to act as an attorney general. Cal. Lab. Code§ 2699(a). Any resulting civil penalties are split between the Labor and Workforce Development Agency

ELLIS' reply to: SWIFT TRANSPORTATION INC. / CENTRAL REFRIGERATED NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS

LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

WALTER L. ELLIS,

CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES, THE LWDA and THE GENERAL PUBLIC

Complainants In Pro Per

vs.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY Inc., (STC) /
CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES, INC. ("CRS")

DOES 1-100

Respondents.

CASE NO. 8345

COMPLAINANTS' FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES

SWIFT Transportation Co-Central Rights Violation

Private Attorney General Act of 2004

Pursuant to the rules set forth under Labor Code Sections 2698 et seq., complainant WALTER L. ELLIS ("Ellis") and , hereinafter "Complainants", hereby amend the above-entitled complaint to identify DOE 1 as SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (“STC”) of Arizona, LLC / CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES, INC. ("CRS"), Ellen M. Bronchetti, Robert Mussig, Attorneys for Defendants and DOES 1-100, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Respondents". Complainants bring this complaint on behalf of himself, current and former employees of STC / CRS, the LWDA and the general public.

Complainants are informed, believe, and thereon allege that each Respondent acted in all pertinent respects as the agent of one or more of the other Respondent and/or carried out a joint scheme, business plan or policy, and the acts of each Respondent are legally attributable to one or more of the other Respondents.

Complainants allege that Respondents, and each of them, continue to willfully violate the following Labor Code Sections:

Subdivision (k) of Section 96, Section 98.3, 98.6, 201, 201.5, 201.7, 202, 203,203.1, 203.5, 204, 204a, 204b, 204.1, 204.2, 205, 205.5, 206, 206.5, 207,208,209, or 212, subdivision (d) of Section 213,215,216,218, 219a, Section 221,222,222.5, 223, or 224, subdivision (a) of Section 226, Section 226.7, 227,227.3, 230,230.1, 230.2, 230.3, 230.4, 230.7, 230.8, or 231, subdivision (c) of Section 232, subdivision (c) of Section 232.5, Section 233, 234, 351, 353, or 403, subdivision (b) of Section 404, Section 432.2, 432.5, 432.7, 432.8, 435, 450, 510, 511, 512, 513, 551, 552, 601, 602, 603, 604, 750, 751.8, 800, 850, 851, 851.5, 852, 921, 922, 923, 970, 973, 976, 1021, 1021.5, 1025, 1026, 1050, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1101, 1102, 1102.5, or 1153, subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 1174, Section 119 2804, 24, 1197, 1197.1, 1197.5, or 1198, subdivision (b) of Section 1198.3, Section 1199, 1199.5, 1290, 1292, 1293, 1293.1, 1294, 1294.1, 1294.5, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1301, 1308, 1308.1, 1308.7, 1309, 1309.5, 1391, 1391.1, 1391.2, 1392, 1683, or 1695, subdivision (a) of Section 1695.5, Section 1695.55, 1695.6, 1695.7, 1695.8, 1695.9, 1696, 1696.5, 1696.6, 1697.1, 1700.25, 1700.26, 1700.31, 1700.32, 1700.40, or 1700.47, paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of or subdivision(e) of Section 1701.4 , subdivision (a) of Section 1701.5, Section 1701.8, 1701.10, 1701.12, 1735, 1771, 1774, 1776, 1777.5, 1811, 1815, 2651, or 2673, subdivision (a) of Section 2673.1, Section 2695.2, 2800, 2801, 2802, 806, or 2810, subdivision (b) of Section 2929, or Section 3095, 6310, 6311, or 6399.7. SEE [AAA] LWDA Demand for Civil Penalties

Status Updates

NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE;

INTRODUCTION

Defendant s Swift Transportation Company (now known as Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. (" Swift") and Central Refrigerated Service, LLC (now known as Swift Refrigerated Service , LLC) (" Central Refrigerated") (together, “Defendants") ask the Court to end the latest chapter in Walter Ellis' s ongoing campaign of harassment against Central Refrigerated and its officers, employees and affiliates and promptly dismiss his frivolous claims with prejudice.

As if this were not enough, Mr. Ellis’ claims also fail for other reasons. First, although all of Mr. Eilis's claims here are subject to limitations periods of four years or less and, according to his own allegations, Central Refrigerated terminated him in 2008, he did not file his complaint until February 2018, ten years later. Accordingly, his claims are time-barred. Second, to the extent that Mr. Ellis' claims against Swift are not barred by res judicata or applicable statutes of limitations, they fail because Mr. Ellis has alleged no facts to support them. Indeed by alleging that Swift acquired Central Refrigerated in 2013, long after the events of which he complains. Mr. Ellis effectively admits that he has no claims against Swift.

This allegation is false and is Defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentation of dates in which SWIFT purchased Central, see:

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

The Compensation Committee is currently comprised of Duane Acklie, Porter Hall, and Gordan W. Winburne. No current member of the Compensation Committee is or has been an officer or employee of the Company. Prior to our initial public offering, our Compensation Committee consisted of Jerry Moyes and Earl H. Scudder. Mr. Scudder resigned as a director and member of the Compensation Committee on September 19, 2003. Mr. Moyes ceased to be a member of the Compensation Committee on December 11, 2003. From time to time, we have engaged in transactions with Mr. Moyes, parties affiliated with Mr. Moyes, and parties affiliated with Mr. Scudder.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/central-freight-lines-inc/def-14a-proxy-statement-definitive/2004/04/23/Section13.aspx

Other information in Plaintiff’s possession will indicate and prove the fraud committed by Mr. Moyes and his affiliates, see:

http://aaaarbitrationcomplaint.blogspot.com/2017/09/swift-transportation-co-inc-central.html
http://aaaarbitrationcomplaint.blogspot.com/2016/03/complaints-regarding-refrigerated.html

My Top Videos

Pin It on Pinterest

X