Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McNutt v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

June 28, 2009

MARY MCNUTT, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant. RICHARD D. WOECK JR., an individual, Plaintiff,
v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant

          NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: June 21, 2019 No. 3:19-cv-05342-BHS

         JOINT STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS

          Joshua H. Haffner, WSBA 53292 Graham G. Lambert, Pro Hac Vice Pending Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated

          Babak Yousefzadeh, Cal. Bar No. 235974 Paul Cowie, Cal. Bar No. 250131 SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Darin M. Sands, LANE POWELL PC Attorneys for Defendant Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC

          JOINT STIPULATED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND STIPULATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE I. INTRODUCTION.

          BENJAMIN H. SETTLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         As set forth more fully below, plaintiffs Mary McNutt and Richard D. Woeck (collectively “Plaintiffs”), plaintiffs in McNutt v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, USDW, Western District, No. 3:18-cv-05668-BHS (“McNutt Action”) and Woeck v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, USDW, Western District, No. 3:19-cv-05342-BHS (“Woeck Action”), respectively, and Defendant Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (“Defendant” or “Swift”), the defendant in both actions, hereby stipulate to the consolidation of the above-captioned matters.

         Additionally, as required by Local Rule 42(b), the parties have met and conferred regarding scheduling for the consolidated action, and agree and stipulate as follows: (1) the consolidated action will follow the schedule of the Woeck Action, which the parties request the Court to set at a Case Management Conference after the pleadings for the consolidated action are settled; and (2) the schedule currently set in the McNutt Action be vacated.

         II. STATEMENT OF PERTINENT FACTS

         The McNutt Action was filed on August 15, 2018 in the Western District of Washington. The initial complaint asserted a Washington class action against Defendant Swift for (1) failure to pay rest breaks, (2) failure to pay minimum wage, (3) failure to pay overtime, and (4) willful refusal to pay wages arising out of Defendant's per-mile compensations scheme for its truck drivers.

         Thereafter, Plaintiff McNutt was advised by Defendant Swift that Hedglin v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, USDC, Western District of Washington No. 3:16-Cv-05127-BHS (the “Hedglin Action”) had been preliminarily approved as a class action settlement, and would release the Washington claims pled in this case. Therefore, on April 1, 2019, Plaintiff McNutt opted-out of the Hedglin Action settlement and filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint to allege a nation-wide FLSA claim and drop her Washington state law claims. Plaintiff McNutt's motion for leave to amend was granted on May 31, 2019, and she filed her First Amended Complaint on June 3, 2019.

         While the motion to amend in the McNutt Action was pending, the Woeck Action was filed on April 25, 2019 as a nation-wide FLSA action. Plaintiff Woeck simultaneously opted-out of the Hedglin Action's settlement. As set forth further below, the nation-wide claims asserted in the Woeck Action are substantially the same as those asserted in the McNutt Action.

         III. REASONING FOR CONSOLIDATION

         The central allegation in both actions is that Defendant Swift fails to pay minimum wage for all hour worked because Plaintiffs are paid by the mile and thus are not compensated for on-duty time other than driving.[1] Both Plaintiffs were employee truck drivers for Swift and their respective lawsuits involve a significant (if not near total) overlap of legal and factual questions. Thus, consolidation will avoid duplicate filings of the same or similar papers, including class certification proceedings, which will save the Court and the parties significant resources.

         Second, consolidation will avoid duplicative discovery. Given the overlap in the factual allegations and the legal issues, relevant evidence in both actions - e.g., the applicable per-mile compensation scheme, the Plaintiff's job duties and functions, the uncompensated on-duty time - will only have to be produced once. This will save the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.