Eubanks v. Panther II Transportation Inc.

[Turtle]

may i asked what database you used to come up with this?

From the FMCSA's DOT/MC# Details page.

Go to this page and on the far right hand side under View Details click the "Report" button (the HTML report gives very few details, don't click that one). When you click the "Report" button you will get a PDF containing all of the details, including the history. On the first page of the 10-page document you will see under the comments where they filed for their General Commodity Authority on 1/14/93 under PANTHER II TRANSPORTATION INC.

On this page from Panther's Website it states, "PES [Panther Expedited Services] was established in 1992 as Panther II Transportation by Daniel Sokolowski."

The same information can be found in all of Panther's SEC filings where they list their name, their DBA, and their subsidiaries and subsidiary trademarks.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

One could look at it that way. One could also say Mr. Eubanks had the testicular fortitude to go after a company that did him and others wrong.



Or the $2.5 million was a deal because it was less than the total of their ill gotten gains over the years.

just the cost to dig out every drivers settlement for re calculation the 1,000's of drivers and statements over that time period just the cost of the discovery procedure alone...2.5 million$ was again a steal for Panther....

Eubanks at least did something about or tried....not like the ones that coming running in here crying my carrier ripped me off and do nothing about it because they claim it is not worth the time.....but they seem to have the time to cry like babies........kudos to Mr. Eubanks

 

[Turtle]

I'd be curious to know the entire backstory on how Eubanks got the goods on them ... I'm sure it's interesting ...

In the court papers it lists specific examples of the wrongdoing and references Exhibits to prove it. The Exhibits are actual customer bills and settlement sheets that show customers were billed for certain things and then those charges were not paid to the driver.

I had more than one BOL where it showed the customer was billed for something that I wasn't going to get paid because nothing was said about those charges when I was given the load offer. In some cases a raised the issue while I was on the load, and in others I raised the issue after I didn't get paid at settlement time. In ever case I got the money I was due. But I also knew that it was very likely these things happened and I didn't know about them.

There were several times when I was offered a load that would normally have Layover Pay included, but the dispatcher made no mention of it. I had dispatchers tell me there was no Layover Pay in the load, that the customer wasn't billed for any layover, and then I'd turn the load down only to have them suddenly see the Layover Pay right there on the screen that they previously didn't see. Whoops.

Panther settled not because they didn't do any wrong, but because if they fought it then all BOLs and line haul bills and telephone conversations and settlement sheets would be thoroughly audited, costing them millions. And when that was over the actual damages would likely be considerably higher than the settled $2.5 million, and the punitive damages would have been just ridiculous because of the scope of their ongoing and systemic willful obfuscation. In addition, a thorough audit would have opened up possible criminal charges with respect to SEC filings for the IPO and in the sale of Panther to ABF.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Panther settled not because they didn't do any wrong, but because if they fought it then all BOLs and line haul bills and telephone conversations and settlement sheets would be thoroughly audited, costing them millions. And when that was over the actual damages would likely be considerably higher than the settled $2.5 million, and the punitive damages would have been just ridiculous because of the scope of their ongoing and systemic willful obfuscation. In addition, a thorough audit would have opened up possible criminal charges with respect to SEC filings for the IPO and in the sale of Panther to ABF.

That is it in a nut shell....LOL "nut shell" talking to the shelled one....hehehehe.....anyways yes the punitive damages once the systematic rip off that was in place would be huge for them...

 

[paullud]

It seems like you might be better off opting out of the class action and filing in small claims on your own without a lawyer. Panther already knows what they are facing and may pay you just to go away.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[OntarioVanMan]

at the bottom of documents..."distribution of funds"..Mr Eubanks has a nice little quaranteed flat rate sum of $5,000 negotiated into it....being the initiator of the suit....

 

[Turtle]

at the bottom of documents..."distribution of funds"..Mr Eubanks has a nice little quaranteed flat rate sum of $5,000 negotiated into it....being the initiator of the suit....

That's probably close to what he lost in just one year of non-payments of stuff he should have been paid.

 

[underdog777]

Everyone that gets this please think it out! I mean they offered this money
. So they feel they where wrong. So if you opt out you can go after them separately!! If you don't opt out you get what ever they want to give you. Just my look at it.!!!! ILL WAIT AND SEE WHAT PANS OUT DIGGING FOR GOLD YES I WILL

 

[zorry]

Do you have access to docs that can prove you were shorted ?
Will you get enough extra to be worth the effort ?

 

[cheri1122]

at the bottom of documents..."distribution of funds"..Mr Eubanks has a nice little quaranteed flat rate sum of $5,000 negotiated into it....being the initiator of the suit....

That's what I said, 52 posts ago - glad you finally caught up, lol.
Seriously, I hope this has a 'chilling effect' [as the lawyers & judges like to call it] on the business of skimming & scamming.
I wonder: the rewards are waaaay higher for whistleblowers who can point to a company defrauding the government, so, if someone [O/O or IC] could prove they were cheated on a load for the government, could they go for the whistleblower jackpot? Because if the carrier cheated the O/O or IC, I think it could be argued that they simultaneously cheated the government/customer as well, by overcharging. Interesting thought.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Everyone that gets this please think it out! I mean they offered this money
. So they feel they where wrong. So if you opt out you can go after them separately!! If you don't opt out you get what ever they want to give you. Just my look at it.!!!! ILL WAIT AND SEE WHAT PANS OUT DIGGING FOR GOLD YES I WILL

If you can wait 5-7 yrs.... You might get a few bucks more....

 

[Turtle]

Do you have access to docs that can prove you were shorted ?
Will you get enough extra to be worth the effort ?

That's exactly it. You can certainly opt out and go after them separately, but you have to have your own exhibits, your own proof, otherwise you're gonna get squat.

 

[Mailer]

Everyone that gets this please think
it out! I mean they offered this money
. So they feel they where wrong. So if you opt out you can go after them separately!! If you don't opt out you get what ever they want to give you. Just my look at it.!!!! ILL WAIT AND SEE WHAT PANS OUT DIGGING FOR GOLD YES I WILL

Not so fast underdog. No gold in sight

Goto Moot's link, 2nd post of this thread. Click on it and it will take you to the stipulation of settlements link. Read the Recitals on page 2....sell your shovel, lol.

 

[davekc]

Up until now, these types of lawsuits were aimed primarily at the truckload industry. Not any longer. Any carrier that has or perceived to have resources will be a wide open target. Lawyers love no hassle large settlements. Look how they go after large suits now. They even run tv commercials on the hour to gin up business.
In this case, any carrier refusing to provide BOL's and rate sheets is going to be vulnerable among other items. Easy money for a law firm that knows this business and sees a contract breach.
Or......a disgruntled office employee knows they have some dirt to use to their advantage.
The weak link every time will be the threat of the carrier having to open their books for scrutinizing.
Some may welcome it (I doubt it), but considering how the expedite side of the industry operates, they are an open target for a law firm looking for a easy slam dunk.
As I have posted for years, gaming by carriers will come back on them. This certainly won't be the only round. Another on of those...."follow the money".

 

[Mailer]

[QUOTE=davekc;642904
As I have posted for years, gaming by carriers will come back on them. This certainly won't be the only round. Another on of those...."follow the money.


Dave, I agree. My belief is that karma is on duty 24/7. Good brings good and bad
brings_____________(Well, I'll let everyone interpret his own, lol). It would be nice if these
individuals can spend a bit more times on their spiritual side v. Materialistic side

 

[zorry]

Dave, any carrier refusing to show bol is vulnerable..?
Since the truth in leasing law they are required to show bol. Those who don't must have something to hide..
A local haz-mat hauler in Chgo is showing the bill and then terminating your lease.
They're probably next. And they have very deep pockets. I taught one of their first drivers to drive and went to grammar school with their first O/O.

 

[davekc]

Dave, any carrier refusing to show bol is vulnerable..?
Since the truth in leasing law they are required to show bol. Those who don't must have something to hide..
A local haz-mat hauler in Chgo is showing the bill and then terminating your lease.
They're probably next. And they have very deep pockets. I taught one of their first drivers to drive and went to grammar school with their first O/O.

They certainly can but as drivers get smarter and the pool gets smaller, at some point they likely will have to rethink that. If they show the bill and it is in error and they fire someone over it, well....we know what happens after that. In many cases, it would require the driver to ask for a rate sheet. They can go to the company that the load was hauled for and bypass the carrier completely. Many include the rate sheet with their loads so you don't have to ask anyone anything. As in this case, it only takes a couple to open a pondora's box.

 

[BillChaffey]

Do you think Mr. Eubanks would have sued Panther before it was taken over by a larger carrier?

 

[davekc]

Maybe maybe not. Most of that is driven by what the lawyers think they can make. As far as ABF taking them over....no. This was filed before that ever happened.

 

[underdog777]

what about this,ive been kicking this idea around also.Because it is worded that they failed to properly compensate truck owners.Could you say that they where also understaffed in the dispatch dept!! Thats why you would sit for days and lose money because they failed to staff there end of the bargain!!