Cases

PER CURIAM. FedEx Ground (“FedEx”) provides small package pick-up and delivery services through a network of pick-up and delivery drivers. The plaintiffs are current and former drivers for FedEx who allege that they were employees rather than independent contractors under the laws of the states in which they worked and under federal law. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigat

McFadden, Judge. This is an action for personal injuries, which Lester Carr sustained while working at a FedEx facility. His wife, Charlene Carr — individually and as his guardian and the conservator over his person and property — appeals from the grant of summary judgment to FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FedEx”). FedEx contends that the action is barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Ac

KATHERINE A. ROBERTSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I. Introduction In this proposed nationwide collective action, the remaining plaintiffs, Jordan Roy ("Roy") and Justin Trumbull ("Trumbull") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), each assert a single claim against the defendant, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("Defendant" or "FedEx Ground"), for unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Ac

258 S.W.3d 532 (2008) Frank HORNER and Cherrie Horner, Respondents, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC., Appellant. No. WD 68043. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. July 15, 2008. *534 Anthony F. Rupp, Jay Heidrick (Cocounsel), Overland Park, KS, William E. Quirk (Co-counsel), Kansas City, MO, for Appellant. Mich

925 So.2d 907 (2006) Carolyn Ann GRICE, Appellant v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Rick Rutland, Dean Garland and Sedrick Richardson, Appellees. No. 2005-CA-00029-COA. Court of Appeals of Mississippi. April 4, 2006. *909 Ron L. Woodruff, Jim Waide, Tupelo, attorneys for appellant. Craig Alan Cowart, James R. Mulroy, a

ORDER ROBERT W. PRATT, District Judge. Kevin Gurley (“Plaintiff’) filed a motion to remand on June 14, 2012. Clerk’s No. 5. FedEx Ground Package Systems (“FedEx”), Jennifer Porter (“Porter”), and Scott Cowles (“Cowles”) (collectively “Defendants”) filed a response in opposition to the motion on June 26, 2012. Clerk’s No. 6. Plaintiff has not filed a reply. The matter is fully submitted. Pl

662 F.Supp.2d 1069 (2009) In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: 3:05-CV-596 (Slayman—Oregon) 3:07cv120 (Nevada) 3:07cv272 (Arizona) 3:07cv322 (Connecticut) 3:07cv324 (Givens—FLSA) 3:07cv325 (Vargas—MCSA) 3:07cv326 (North Carolina) 3:07cv328 (Leighter—Oregon) 3:08cv336 (Ohio) 3:07cv411 (Georgia) 3:07cv412 (Vermont) 3:07cv478 (Colorado) 3:08cv193 (Boudreaux—Louisiana) 3:08c

SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., ADAMS and MCFADDEN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. (Court of Appeals Rule 4 (b) and Rule 37 (b), February 21, 2008) http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

520 F.Supp.2d 904 (2007) SOLECTRON USA, INC., for the Use and Benefit of FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. No. 2:07-CV-2438 JPM-TMP. United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division. October 11, 2007. *905 *906

141 F.Supp.2d 1005 (2001) Albert PLUTE, Plaintiff, v. ROADWAY PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., dba RPS Inc., FDX Inc., dba FedEx Ground Inc., Stacy Shoun, Mark Freel and Does 1-20, Defendants. No. C 01-0353 SI. United States District Court, N.D. California. April 18, 2001. *1006 Christopher B. Dolan, CBD The Dolan Law Firm, San Francisco, C

FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON AUGUST 8, 2024 IN CLERK’S OFFICE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON AUGUST 8, 2024 ERIN L. LENNON

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 21-1227 JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. STONEHILL COLLEGE, INC., Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Leo T. Sorokin, U.S. District Judge]

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCIT _____________ Nos. 14-4174 & 14-4277 _____________ AVAYA INC., RP Appellant in 14-4174 v. TELECOM LABS, INC.; TEAMTLI.COM CORP., CONTINUANT, INC., SCOTT GRAHAM; DOUGLAS GRAHAM; BRUCE SHELBY Telecom Labs Inc., Continuant Inc.,

Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Travis L. Kinder's Motion for Conditional Certification, Expedited Opt-in Discovery, and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs. ECF No. 11. Defendants MAC Manufacturing Inc. and MAC Trailer Enterprises, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff replied. ECF No. 21-3. For the reasons

SECOND DIVISION MILLER, P. J., RICKMAN and REESE, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules March 9, 2020

17-1993-cv (L) New York v. United Parcel Service, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2018 Argued: March 8, 2019 Decided: November 7, 2019 Docket Nos. 17-1993-cv; 17-2107-cv; 17-2111-cv THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ROBERT J. SHELBY, United States District Judge This is a putative class action brought against two affiliated trucking companies by drivers once associated with those companies. Plaintiffs Charles Roberts and Kenneth McKay allege that Defendants C.R. England, Inc. and Opportunity Leasing, Inc. developed a fraudulent plan to induce thousands of people to enroll in England’s dr

ORDER VANESSA D. GILMORE, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the KBR Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Seventh Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), filed on March 30, 2012 (Instrument No. 217). On August 16, 2012, the Court entered an Order denying Defendants’ Motion (Instrument No. 392). That Order (Instrument No. 392) is revised to clarify the legal standa

719 F.Supp.2d 1115 (2009) AURORA WORLD, INC., Plaintiff, v. TY INC., Defendant. Case No. CV 09-08463 MMM (Ex). United States District Court, C.D. California. December 15, 2009. *1121 Raymond B. Kim, Vincent Henry Chieffo, Wendy M. Mantell, Courtney J. Chai, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Robert L. Meylan, Shaunt T. Arevian, Murphy Rosen

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. In this putative class action, the Defendant Collecto Inc., d/b/a EOS/CCA (“Collecto”) seeks reconsideration of the Court’s previous denial of its motion to compel the Plaintiffs Victoria Butto and Lakesha Houser to arbitrate their present claims, pursuant to an agreement to which Collecto is not a signatory. For the reasons that follow, the Court denie