Cole

Cole v. CRST, Inc.

Good Law
150 F. Supp. 3d 1163·2015 WL 9241331·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170369
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 15, 2015EDCV 08-1570-VAP (SPx)California2,829 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Phillips, J.

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff James Cole (“Plaintiff’) filed a motion ¡for partial summary judgment (“Motion” '(Doc. No. 162).) After reviewing and considering all papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the Motion, as well as the arguments advanced at the Motion hearing, the Court DENIES the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of the compensation system of Defendant CRST Van Expedited, Inc. (“CRST” or “Defendant”), a motor carrier that transports freight to customers in the United States, Canada, and Mexico; CRST employs truck drivers to transport dry freight in vehicles owned by Defendant. CRST' is based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and operates terminals across the United States, including in Fon-tana, California. (Declaration of Michael Gannon (“Gannon Decl.”), Ex. ,G ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant uses a uniform compensation system to pay. Plaintiff and a putative class of nearly 4,200 current and former California-based truck drivers.

On October 6, 2008, Plaintiff filed a putative class action in California Superior Court for the County, of San Bernardino. On November 5, 2008, Defendant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.