Case: In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation

3:05-md-00527 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

Filed Date: Aug. 26, 2005

Closed Date: Oct. 17, 2019

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This Multi-District Litigation case included over 40 cases arising in more than half of the states in the U.S. Together, those cases challenged various aspects of the decision by FedEx Ground to classify its drivers as independent contractors under a variety of theories and statutes that included (depending on the case) both state and federal law. During the litigation’s long and complex procedural history, several of the cases were certified as class actions, at least in part, and over 2,000 p…

The history of this MDL case began in 1998 when FedEx acquired Roadway Package Services, Inc. (RPS) and adopted its independent contractor business model. FedEx adopted the RPS business model without modification and continued to engage its local drivers as independent contractors using the RPS Operating Agreement. FedEx re-branded RPS as FedEx Ground in 2000, but its fundamental business model and relationship with the drivers—including the substantive terms of the contract and the terms and conditions of the drivers' employment—remained unchanged.

RPS's early business decision to conduct its core business operation with the services of workers classified as independent contractors has long faced legal scrutiny. In 1988 and 1989, the NLRB decided two cases case finding the RPS drivers to be employees under the common law agency test in Roadway Package Service, Inc. 288 NLRB 196 (1988) and Roadway Package Service, Inc.292 NLRB 376, 378 (1989) enf'd 902 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990).

Since acquiring RPS, FedEx had steadfastly stood by and defended the independent contractor model in every state and federal legal forum, including a group of class action cases filed between 2004 and 2009 asserting various statutory and common law claims under the laws of over 40 states as well as federal claims arising under the FLSA, ERISA and the FMLA.

The first of the court cases to go to trial was Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., which was filed in California in 2000. Liability issues were tried in 2004, and the litigation was finally completed nine years after it started following a merits appeal and completion of the damage computation in early 2009. The plaintiffs' primary claim was for reimbursement of employment related expenses under California Labor Code § 2802. In the nine-year litigation, a class was certified (over FedEx's objection that its relationship with every driver was different, precluding class adjudication), the drivers were held to be employees by the trial and appellate courts under California's Borello standard (a common law agency test with an "economic realities" overlay), and a judgment was entered awarding substantial damages to each class member. The liability issues are discussed in Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. 354 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2007). In its opinion, the California Court of Appeals detailed the substantial right of control reserved to FedEx in the drivers' operating agreement taking account of the substantial class-wide evidence presented by the plaintiff drivers of the actual control FedEx exercised—in conformance with its written policies and procedures—over every "exquisite detail" of the drivers' work.

While Estrada was winding its way through the courts, drivers all over the country filed employment law class actions, as well as individual discrimination and wrongful termination claims in over 40 states. These cases all posed the identical threshold legal question: are the FedEx Ground drivers FedEx's employees, or are they independent contractors who run their own businesses? On FedEx Ground's initiative—over the plaintiffs' strong objections—in 2005 these cases were coordinated into a multi-district litigation docket entitled In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, MDL 1700 and transferred for all pretrial proceedings to Judge Robert Miller in the Northern District of Indiana. Except for the nationwide ERISA claim pleaded in the Kansas case, and a nationwide FMLA claim pleaded in the California case, virtually all of the claims in these cases were asserted on behalf of statewide classes and pleaded state claims.

The plaintiffs in the class action cases characterized as "Wave 1," "Wave 2" and "Wave 3" moved the district court for class action certification. In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Prac. Litig., F.Supp.2d (N.D. Ind. March 25, 2008). As the court summarized, these class actions "assert that although FedEx Ground represents to its drivers that they are only partnering with FedEx Ground and will essentially own their own businesses, all FedEx Ground drivers sign the FedEx Ground Operating Agreement, which actually reserves to FedEx Ground the right to exercise pervasive control over the method, manner, and means of the drivers' work." FedEx opposed class action treatment, arguing that "the plaintiffs' claims turn on individualized issues, including whether contractors should be classified as employees under the states' statutory tests, and whether any individual contractor can meet the high bar for rescission of his individual contract." In a 164-page opinion, the district court certified the Wave 1, Wave 2 and Wave 3 cases as class actions with respect to cases involving drivers from Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin; the court denied class action treatment for drivers from Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota and Virginia. The district court noted that it had previously granted class action certification with respect to drivers from Kansas, bringing to 20 the total number of states for which class action treatment had been approved.

Because it had previously granted class action treatment on behalf of the Kansas drivers, the district court used its prior ruling as a benchmark against which it considered the new class action certification motions. The court held that class action complaints containing only former drivers as named plaintiffs could still proceed as class actions on behalf of former and current drivers because "courts have held that former employees have standing to represent a class consisting of both current and past employees." But with respect to defense efforts to defeat class action treatment on the ground that individual inquiries would be required to determine whether the Operating Agreements were valid and the manner and extent to which the "right to control" will impact the validity of the Operating Agreements, the federal court rejected this argument with respect to the laws of certain states, but agreed with FedEx Ground that common questions would not predominate under the laws of other states. That presented the primary basis for the difference among states for which the court certified class actions and states for which it denied motions for class certification.

In 2009 and 2010, while the MDL docket was still active, the Eighth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit were both called on to decide cases addressing the employment status of FedEx drivers who worked under a nearly identical operating agreement as the plaintiffs in the MDL docket. The two Circuit courts reached different conclusions.

The first case, FedEx Home Delivery v. National Labor Relations Board, 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009) was a petition to enforce an NLRB order directing FedEx bargain with a Teamsters local that had been certified to represent drivers at FedEx's Wilmington, Massachusetts terminal. In the administrative proceedings, the NLRB again concluded that the FedEx drivers are employees. The D.C. Circuit denied the enforcement petition. A divided panel of the court agreed with FedEx that the drivers are properly classified as independent contractors. To get there, the majority applied a novel—and now controversial—formulation of traditional common law agency test. Rather than focusing on FedEx's reserved right to control the method and means of the drivers' work, the Circuit instead focused on the drivers' asserted "entrepreneurial opportunities".

The second case, Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. 592 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2010), was a negligence case arising from a trucking accident in which FedEx was sued by the injured plaintiff. The Eighth Circuit reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, finding that a triable issue of fact existed under Missouri's common law agency test as to whether the over-the-road driver who caused the accident was a FedEx employee so that liability could be imputed to FedEx under the respondeat superior doctrine. The court's analysis was founded on the premise that the "touchstone" of the traditional agency test is "the right of control." While the court noted that the driver who caused the accident did not have a direct relationship with FedEx but instead was employed by a FedEx contractor, it concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a reasonable inference that FedEx had a right to control his performance and was therefore his employer under the common law test.

Status of In Re Fedex

On August 11, 2010, the court granted summary judgment with respect to the claims of FedEx’s Kansas drivers. Applying Kansas law, and focusing on the “right of control,” the court concluded the terms of the FedEx operating agreements under which the drivers worked did not render them employees. Finding the agreement to be controlling, the court largely rejected arguments by the plaintiffs regarding the control they claimed that the company actually exercised, and drew a distinction between the company’s requirements as to results versus the manner and means by which work was to be performed. Following that decision, the court directed the parties to brief the same issues regarding the cases in states other than Kansas.

On December 13, 2010, the district court issued an opinion granting summary judgment for FedEx in most of the other states. Even after granting so much of FedEx’s summary judgment motion, however, several large cases remained. For example, the FLSA and FMLA claims remained as well as certain state law tort or statutory claims. The court did grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for a few claims, such as the Kentucky Wage Payment statute claim. 758 F.Supp.2d 638 (N.D. Ind. 2010).

The cases involving claims which were not certified for class adjudication, that include a mixture of certified and uncertified claims, or that pleaded individual claims only but which were transferred to the MDL docket have been—or are in the process of being—remanded to the transferor courts for trial or other further proceedings. These include cases that pleaded class claims which were not certified by the Court such as those from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia.

On August 27, 2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed the MDL court and ruled that FedEx driers in California and Oregon were employees. 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014). On June 12, 2015, FedEx settled with the drivers in California and agreed to pay $228 million. The settlement covered approximately 2,300 drivers in California only, and covered the time period 2000-07 only. It did not resolve the myriad of other misclassification lawsuits that had been filed by FedEx Ground drivers in other states.

On June 15, 2016, parties in the cases pending in twenty states (Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) moved for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement. The twenty class settlements proposed to the court were the product of mediation. Judge Robert J. Miller, Jr. found that the amount of the proposed settlements were within the range of possible approval and should be preliminarily approved. The court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlements on August 17, 2016.

On February 9, 2017, Judge Miller denied an emergency injunction request by co-lead counsel for the class and the defendant, which would have limited the communications of members of the class in the New Jersey case who objected to the proposed settlement to other members of the class. Judge Miller found that the class representatives did not misrepresent their objections about the proposed settlement, and that they had the right to inform other members of the class about their misgivings. Despite this, he found the New Jersey settlement agreement to be valid on February 14, 2017, finding it to be sufficiently fair despite the misgivings of the class representatives.

On March 15, 2017, Judge Miller granted the motions for indicative ruling granting final approval of the class action settlements in the remaining states, including New Jersey. The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit granted the motion for limited remand on March 22, 2017. The various settlements were approved on April 28, May 1, and June 19, 2017, and attorneys' fees were partially awarded. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on October 16, 2017.

The ERISA class action settlement was preliminarily approved on September 5, 2018. The settlement included a $13,325,000 fund to resolve all ERISA claims, with a maximum of $4,377,062 from the fund going to attorney's fees. 52% of the remaining money was apportioned to resolve life insurance claims to legal heirs and estates, and 48% was allocated to resolve ERISA benefits claims. On March 22, 2019, the Court gave final approval to the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The plaintiffs' attorneys disputed how the settlement allocated attorney's fees amongst themselves, but they resolved their issues with the help of a special master, and the court approved a modified fee award on October 17, 2019. This case is now closed.

	Document
3:06-cv-00528	Docket [PACER] Lynch v. Buss	Dec. 22, 2006	Dec. 22, 2006 Docket
3:05-md-00527	Docket Sheet In re FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Employment Practices Litigation No. II	Oct. 17, 2019	Oct. 17, 2019 Docket
6 3:05-md-00527	Defendant's Statement of Facts and Critical Factual & Legal Issues In Re FedEx Ground Package System Inc Employment Practices Litigation	Sept. 20, 2005	Sept. 20, 2005 Pleading / Motion / Brief
18 3:05-cv-00390	Order Riewe v. Fedex Corporation	Sept. 21, 2005	Sept. 21, 2005 Order/Opinion
35 15-01700	Conditional Transfer Order In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE LITIGATION U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)	Oct. 11, 2005	Oct. 11, 2005 Order/Opinion
45 3:05-md-00527	Proposed Case Management Order In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION	Nov. 7, 2005	Nov. 7, 2005 Pleading / Motion / Brief
52 3:05-md-00527	Initial Scheduling Order In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION	Nov. 15, 2005	Nov. 15, 2005 Order/Opinion
58 3:05-md-00527	Supplemental Scheduling Order In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION	Nov. 29, 2005	Nov. 29, 2005 Order/Opinion
300 3:05-md-00527	Motion to Withdraw In Re FedEx Ground Package System Inc Employment Practices Litigation	June 22, 2006	June 22, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief
299 3:05-md-00527	Third Amended Class Action Complaint In Re Fedex Ground Package System, Inc, Employment Practices Litigation	June 26, 2006	June 26, 2006 Complaint

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	Case transferred in from Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation; Case Number MDL-1700, certified copy of transfer order. (Attachments: # 1 Transfer letter to Clerk# 2 Order Adopting Rules of Procedure# 3 Panel Attorney Service List)(lpw) (Entered: 08/26/2005)	Aug. 10, 2005	Aug. 10, 2005
2	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ORDER UPON TRANSFER UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1407(a) First Pretrial Conference set for 9/26/2005 03:00 PM in South Bend before Judge Robert L Miller Jr.. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 8/30/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) Modified on 9/13/2005 to reflect correct contact number for case management deputy to Chief Judge Miller Jr. (arl, ). (Entered: 08/31/2005)	Aug. 30, 2005	Aug. 30, 2005
3	RECEIPT of entire record of case from District Court of South Dakota; case #4:05cv4056(new Northern District of Indiana case #3:05cv539) (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)	Sept. 9, 2005	Sept. 9, 2005
4	RECEIPT of entire record from Eastern District of Virginia; case #2:03cv4790 (new Northern District of Indiana case #3:05cv541) (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)	Sept. 12, 2005	Sept. 12, 2005
16	Letter from District of Kansas acknowledging transfer of MDL case (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 15, 2005	Sept. 15, 2005
11	RECEIPT of record from District of Minnesota. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 16, 2005	Sept. 16, 2005
7	RECEIPT of record from Western District of Texas. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 19, 2005	Sept. 19, 2005
8	RECEIPT of record from District of Massachusetts. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 19, 2005	Sept. 19, 2005
9	RECEIPT of certified docket sheet and disk with entire record from Western District of Washington. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 19, 2005	Sept. 19, 2005
10	RECEIPT of ORIGINAL record from Northern District of California. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 19, 2005	Sept. 19, 2005
14	Letter from District of New Jersey regarding tranfer of case (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 19, 2005	Sept. 19, 2005
15	Letter from District of New Jersey acknowledging tranfer of MDL case (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 19, 2005	Sept. 19, 2005
5	NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas J Brunner Jr on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc( Western District of Texas 1:05cv155), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119), FedEx Ground System Inc(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), FedEx Ground System Inc(District of Minnesota 0:05cv814) (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2005)	Sept. 20, 2005	Sept. 20, 2005
6	STATEMENT of Facts and Critical Factual and Legal Issues on Behalf of FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., FedEx Corporation and FedEx Express. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Pending Related Cases and Motions)(Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2005)	Sept. 20, 2005	Sept. 20, 2005 Clearinghouse
12	PLAINTIFFS' JOINT STATEMENT OF COMMON FACTS & Legal Issues Regarding Employment Status of Fedex Ground Drivers as to member case #'2 3:05cv528 & 3:05cv538 (sdf, ) Modified on 9/21/2005 (sdf, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 9/21/2005 (sdf, ). (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 20, 2005	Sept. 20, 2005
13	. RECEIPT of letter and certified copy of docket sheet from Northern District of Illinois.(sdf, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/21/2005 (sdf, ). (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 20, 2005	Sept. 20, 2005
19	Certified copy of Conditional Tranfer Order for addtional MDL 1700 cases 3:05cv593, 3:05cv595, 3:05cv596, 3:05cv597, 3:05cv598, 3:05cv599, 3:05cv600, 3>05cv601 (Attachments: # 1 Letter of Tranfer to Clerk)(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)	Sept. 20, 2005	Sept. 20, 2005
17	AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Amendment to 12 Statement of Material Facts. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)	Sept. 21, 2005	Sept. 21, 2005
18	ORDER : The court orders that this case be consolidated with case 3:05md527(MDL 1700).. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 9/21/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)	Sept. 21, 2005	Sept. 21, 2005
21	RECEIPT of letter acknowledging MDL transfer from Eastern District of Wisconsin. (Attachments: # 1 Certified copy of docket sheet)(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)	Sept. 22, 2005	Sept. 22, 2005
20	NOTICE of Appearance by Alison G Fox on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of New Hampshire 1:05cv145), FedEx Ground, Tyrone Gaskins, Albert Rettinger, Jim Gelhausen, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of New York 1:04cv4935), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Southern District of New York 1:04cv9795), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of South Dakota 4:05cv4056), FedEx Ground Package System Inc( Western District of Texas 1:05cv155), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Northern District of California 3:05cv38), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Western District of Washington 2:05 cv 119), John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski, FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Nortern District of Mississippi 2:05cv142), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(District of New Jersey 1:05cv2930), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Oregon 3:05cv1127), Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc(Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:05cv3836), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:05cv737), FedEx Ground System Inc(Northern District of Illinois 1:05cv2326), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Kansas 5:03cv4197), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(District of Massachusetts 1:05cv10936), FedEx Ground Package System Inc(Eastern District of Michigan 1:04 cv 10055), FedEx Ground System Inc(District of Minnesota 0:05cv814) (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 09/23/2005)	Sept. 23, 2005	Sept. 23, 2005
22	NOTICE of Appearance by John C Hamilton on behalf of all plaintiffs (Hamilton, John) (Entered: 09/26/2005)	Sept. 26, 2005	Sept. 26, 2005
23	APPLICATION for Attorney Robert Schwartz to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc ; Receipt #3327089. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)	Sept. 26, 2005	Sept. 26, 2005
25	(MOTION) Defendant's Notice of Designation of Liaison Counsel: Requesting the Attorney Thomas J Brunner be approved as liaison counsel for all defendants. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)	Sept. 26, 2005	Sept. 26, 2005
26	ATTORNEY CORPORATE PARTY DISCLOSURE by all Defendants(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)	Sept. 26, 2005	Sept. 26, 2005
27	DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS SERVICE LIST (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)	Sept. 26, 2005	Sept. 26, 2005
3306	TRANSCRIPT of Pretrial Conference held on 9/26/2005, before Judge Robert L Miller, Jr. Court Reporter Debra Bonk, Telephone 574-246-8039, E-mail debra_bonk@innd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. IMPORTANT: Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above matter. The parties have 7 calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Redaction Request - Transcript shall be e-filed with the Court. Access to this request will be restricted to the Court and attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Redaction Request are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public without redaction. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the Court Reporter. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule. Notice of Intent to Redact due 10/3/2005. Redaction Request due 10/17/2005. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/27/2005. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/27/2005. (kmt) (Entered: 06/08/2023)	Sept. 26, 2005	Sept. 26, 2005
24	ORDER granting 23 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Robert Schwartz for Defendant FedEx Ground Package System Inc. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/27/05. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)	Sept. 27, 2005	Sept. 27, 2005
28	ORDER: Joint Discovery Plan due by 10/11/2005. Document outlining the agreed upon counsel structure for Plaintiffs and Defendants due by 10/11/05. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 10/24/2005 11:00 AM in South Bend before Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein with the court initiating the call. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/27/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)	Sept. 27, 2005	Sept. 27, 2005
29	OPINION AND ORDER denying any pending motion to stay and/or motion for enlargement of time in anticipation of the upcoming scheduling conference. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller Jr on 9/27/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RL M-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3: 05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN(sdf, )	Sept. 27, 2005	Sept. 27, 2005 RECAP
30	APPLICATION for Attorney Karen P Kruse to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of FedEx Ground Package System Inc ; Receipt #3327106. (sdf, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)	Sept. 27, 2005	Sept. 27, 2005
31	ORDER concerning telephone contact list. Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/28/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)	Sept. 28, 2005	Sept. 28, 2005
33	ORDER granting 30 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Karen P Kruse for FedEx Ground Package System Inc . Signed by Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 9/28/05. (sdf, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)	Sept. 28, 2005	Sept. 28, 2005
32	NOTICE of Appearance by Philip Stephen Fuoco on behalf of Derek D Willis (sdf, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)	Sept. 30, 2005	Sept. 30, 2005
34	Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Case Management Order by Defendants FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc, Fedex Ground Package Systems Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground Package System Inc, FedEx Ground System Inc. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 10/07/2005)	Oct. 7, 2005	Oct. 7, 2005
35	CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (certified copy). Signed by Michael J Beck, Clerk of the MDL Panel on 10/4/05. Associated Cases: 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00390-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00528-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00529-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00531-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00532-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00533-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00534-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00535-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00536-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00537-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00538-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00539-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00540-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00541-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00542-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00593-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00595-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00596-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00597-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00598-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00599-RLM-CAN,3:05-cv-00600-RLM-CAN, 3:05-cv-00601-RLM-CAN(sdf, ) (Entered: 10/12/2005)	Oct. 11, 2005	Oct. 11, 2005
36	REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Fox, Alison) (Entered: 10/17/2005)	Oct. 17, 2005	Oct. 17, 2005
37	STATEMENT by Plaintiffs Regarding Proposed Case Management Order. (Harwood, Robert) (Entered: 10/19/2005)	Oct. 19, 2005	Oct. 19, 2005
38	STATEMENT of Defendants regarding 36 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Brunner Jr, Thomas) (Entered: 10/19/2005)	Oct. 19, 2005	Oct. 19, 2005 RECAP
39	NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel O Myers on behalf of Jeffrey Hart, Clyde E Woomer (Myers, Daniel) (Entered: 10/24/2005)	Oct. 24, 2005	Oct. 24, 2005

Case: In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation

3:05-md-00527 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details