June 1, 2017
June 1, 2017

ELLIS’ EEOC Complaints / SCHNEIDER Trucking re:…

Respondent and their Attorneys conspired with my Attorney, and the Court in violation of:
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


On approx. 11/30/09 Attorney David Binder called me on my cell phone, stated he wanted to discuss settling the Civil Case.  He asked if I would take Jeff Ames name off of all my web-sites, SCHNEIDER’S name also, and in exchange he would drop the Civil Suit.  I later contacted him and told him I would do so in writing.   Attorney Binder later contacted me, and asked not to be recorded as before on 1/20/10 stated his CLIENT had informed him that they wanted the names taken off the sites, my Workman Compensation Injury claim dropped, and in exchange they would drop the Civil Suit.  My reply was that if he would put in writing that SCHNEIDER would compensate me at $500,000.00 I would remove the names from the site(s), and drop the W/C claim. Attorney Binder stated he did not believe his Client would agree to that amount, but would get back to me after discussing this figure with his Client.

Attorney Binder as of this date has not replied to my counter proposal as of this date.  Instead Attorney Binder has begun to “Harass” me with threats of the Malicious Suit.

January 12, 2010


23485 VILLAGE WALK PL., #218F










(213) 439-6770

This letter informs that the above-referenced complaint that was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective January 12, 2010 because an immediate right-to-sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint.

This letter is also the Right-To-Sue Notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter.

If a federal notice of Right-To-Sue is wanted, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) must be visited to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH

earlier.  Tina Walker   District Administrator

Customer By Email (Walter Ellis)  Question Ref #111117-001202 11/17/2011
Question Reference #120219-000011 SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC                                             02/19/2012 

Cust by E-m (Walter Ellis) / SCHNEIDER DFEH Compl [Incident: 120310-000025]    03/10/2012

Judge Pacheco dismissed abuse claims as unfounded [Incident: 130912-000421] Date Created: 09/12/2013

CRS DFEH  (Right to Sue ltr  2011), see link below:

CRS PAGA Complaint / (Right to Sue)


June 24, 2011                                                      CERTIFIED MAIL

 Randall Pittman

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

RE: Employer:                                Central Refrigerated Services, Inc.

RE: Employee(s):                           Walter Ellis, et al.

RE: LWDA No:                              8345

This is to inform you that the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) received your notice of allegedLabor Code violations pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699, postmarked May 27, 2011, and after review, does notintend to investigate the allegations.

As a reminder to you, the provisions of Labor Code Section 2699(i) provides that “…civil penalties recovered byaggrieved employees shall be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the LWDA for enforcement of labor laws and education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under this code.” Labor Code Section 2699(l) specifies “[T]he superior court shall review and approve any penalties sought as part of a proposed settlement agreement pursuant to this part.”

Consequently, you must advise us of the results of the litigation, and forward a copy of the court judgment or the court-approved settlement agreement. Please be certain to reference the above LWDA assigned Case Number in any futurecorrespondence.


Doug Hoffner Undersecretary


Cc:    Central Refrigerated Services, Inc.

5175 West 2100 South West Valley City, UT 84120


CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICES, Inc., (CRS) by depriving me of my rights to an Attorney, supported by the Court.  After which the Judge ruled against me.  Prior to the Court hearing the Judge recommended Mediation.  While the Mediation was being heard by Judge Wagner, my Attorney Aviles was in the “back” room conspiring with not only CRS’ Attorneys, but also Attorneys from the Law Firm Thorpe & Howell, a firm that had filed a fictitious law suit against me for $701,000.00 for posting a DOT complaint, and the extent of discrimination against me and others working for SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, Inc. (SNI), see:

While yet being in Pro-Per I was able to successfully appeal the major portion of the SNI “fictitious lawsuit”, see

 On 1/12/2009 Ellis filed a DOT complaint against SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIER, Inc…  In retaliation SCHNEIDER filed a malicious law suit against Ellis, in the amount of $701,000.00.  Upon appealing Judge Pacheco’s decision the Appeal Court ruled against SCHNEIDER on,COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, LIBEL PER SE; AND INFRIGEMENT AND DILUTION OF SERVICE MARK,  see: Link below appeal opinion:,%20INC.%20v.%20ELLIS

EMAILS received 4/5/2016

RE: Walter Ellis v. Central Refrigerated et al. (Case No. 77-20-1300-0139) 

EMAILS received 4/6/2016

RE: Walter Ellis v. Central Refrigerated et al. (Case No. 77-20-1300-0139)   Apr 6, 2016 7:22

From CCMC Patrick Tatum
To ‘Drew R. Hansen’
Cc Alex G. Brizolis, markw,

From: Drew R. Hansen []
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:05 PM
To: CCMC Patrick Tatum; AAA Patrick Tatum
Cc: Alex G. Brizolis;; Walter Ellis
Subject: RE: Walter Ellis v. Central Refrigerated et al. (Case No. 77-20-1300-0139)

Dear Patrick:

Respondents likewise request that you forward the below email to Arbitrator Spieczny.  Please kindly confirm that this has been done as well.

Thank you.  Drew

 Dear Arbitrator Spieczny:

 The stay referenced in the below email does not apply to Mr. Ellis because he is not represented by Getman & Sweeney and is not part of that litigation.  Nor have Respondents agreed to stay Mr. Ellis’ individual arbitration or mediate with him.  As you are aware, Respondents believe Mr. Ellis’ individual arbitration should be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons explained in their pending motion to dismiss. 

 Thank you.  Drew

From: Walter Ellis []
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 2:37 PM
To:; Drew R. Hansen;
Cc: Alex G. Brizolis;; Walter Peña;;; Seth M. Goldstein;
Subject: Re: Walter Ellis v. Central Refrigerated et al. (Case No. 77-20-1300-0139)

Re:     AAA / Central Mediation Scheduled – Posted 4/4/16

To: Patrick Tatum / Arbitrator Spieczny:

Explain if and why this stay and mediation does not apply to me?:   Re: Walter Ellis v. Central Refrigerated et al. (Case No. 77-20-1300-0139).



Please pass this e-mail to Arbitrator Spieczny. Please reply that this e-mail has been forwarded to the Arbitrator.


Walter L. Ellis

Status Reports from

Mediation Scheduled – Posted 4/4/16

The parties have agreed to mediate all current cases involving Lease Operators for Central Refrigerated. The parties have agreed to hold the mediation on June 20 in Atlanta and to have Hunter Hughes as mediator. Mr. Hughes is nationally recognized as a very effective mediator. All activities and deadlines in the individual arbitrations are now stayed until after the mediation. This means that depositions that were previously scheduled are now on hold until after the mediation. In order to prevent unnecessary delays if a settlement is not reached at mediation, the parties will submit their final summary judgment briefs by the end of April to Arbitrator Irvine in the collective action on issues such as whether the drivers were misclassified as independent contractors. Arbitrator Irvine will hold up his summary judgment decision though and will not issue it until after the mediation if it is unsuccessful. If the mediation is successful and the parties reach a tentative agreement to resolve all claims, the settlement will be presented to Drivers for their approval. It has been a long road getting here with many complicated issues handled by briefs and motions. We are pleased to now have an opportunity to try to reach a resolution. We thank all the drivers for their participation in these cases. We do not yet know anyone’s individual recovery at this time should we be successful at the mediation.

Drew R. Hansen, Attorney at Law


Walter Ellis v. Central Refrigerated et al. (Case No. 77-20-1300-0139) 

CCMC Patrick Tatum                                                                                                                           4/6/2016

Good Morning,

Per Arbitrator Spieczny:

“Please inform Mr. Ellis and counsel for Respondents of the following with regard to Mr. Ellis’ 4/5/16 e-mail inquiry:
If Claimant Walter Ellis believes his case should be stayed based upon an action taken in another case he should file a request for stay on that basis. Respondents will then be given an opportunity to respond and a ruling will then be issued.”

Thank you,

Stacey Coe for   American Arbitration Association,  CCMC Patrick Tatum, Director

Comments are closed.


Pin It on Pinterest