Eubanks v. Panther II Transportation Inc.
- Thread starter Moot
- Start date
Correct.
Panther was originally founded in 1992 as PANTHER II TRANSPORTATION. I don't know if they were initially incorporated or not, but their legal name has been PANTHER II TRANSPORTATION INC since at least 1/14/93. Their DBA (Doing Business As) name has changed once or twice over the years, and is currently PANTHER EXPEDITED SERVICES INC, but the full, legal name has not changed since they were founded.
Just want to be silly and out of subject for s second....come on to Pantene-you will shine, lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um9KsrH377A&feature=youtube_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um9KsrH377A&feature=youtube_gdata_player
So if everyone else Don't sign will my share go up?
Actually...Eubanks sold out....he let Panther off the hook......Panther did no wrong...well legally anyhow.......they just paid a settlement to avoid legal costs down the road....the court document is all accusations...no proof of guilt.....
last 3 paragraphs of page 2 on settlement papers....the sell out
last 3 paragraphs of page 2 on settlement papers....the sell out
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Huh ?
You mean they weren't legally found to have done any wrong, right ?
That's not quite the same as "having done no wrong" ...
I'd be curious to know the entire backstory on how Eubanks got the goods on them ... I'm sure it's interesting ...
This whole thing should serve as a warning to other companies ... could be they are only one error by an incompetent employee, or one intentional act by a ****ed off disgruntled former employee, from the pain and suffering of a lawsuit and having to shell out big bucks ...
I am in the middle of a class action suit against a former carrier.....public record in Canada....we are far past the point, then this one....this guy took the easy money....basically accused a big corporation of wrongdoing oh like hot coffee and the corporation paid him off....the REAL money is in PUNITIVE settlement....he took the quick cash instead of hanging in there....
moose
Veteran Expediter
may i asked what database you used to come up with this? there's a rezone. this is ONE of the big problem the FMCSA is now facing with it's legal fighting of re-accruing carriers. remember, up till the first of the year incorporated carrier {many of whom are Expediters} HAD to display the DBA name on the side of the truck. we have been fulled by the FMSCA to be happy with the removal of this requirement. we have been fulled, because like the FMCSA did so before, they first hands out the carrot, then hit you with the stick{see co-driver in the passenger seat, retaining of supporting documents, livestock exemption, HHG snitch site, to name a few}. what is going to happened next is the FMCSA digging out business records and demanding it from perspective business owners that apply for a DOT#. it is naive to think that the re-accruing carrier rule will not effect the way we do business. to the point on hand, the question is whether the DOT name is to be used in this lawsuit or the DBA- the actual financial company behind the {skimming, wrong doing, cheating, honest mistake, blood socking layers gold mine...choose your own verb...}.
guido4475
Not a Member
The copy of one of my settlement sheets posted earlier in this thread clearly proves Turtle's post is spot on.
I think Eubanks and his legal team has no choice but to settle. There were not enough "burden of proofs" to indicate that Panther had intentionally acted to cause the loss or harm.
Besides, it's going to cost Eubanks and his teams in millions if it drag on. What's in their wallet? Lol. Settlement was a smart deal.
Sure, Panther had made errors in some driver's reimbursements........but, but, but, they were unintentional, lol
Besides, it's going to cost Eubanks and his teams in millions if it drag on. What's in their wallet? Lol. Settlement was a smart deal.
Sure, Panther had made errors in some driver's reimbursements........but, but, but, they were unintentional, lol
I was contracted to Panther from September 2007 to mid December 2007. Still waiting for my Escrow to be returned.
Not sure which contract you had but I believe for that time period you wouldn't have had a full escrow. Probably have to find out if there was a charge for something.
This is from one of my statements from Panther. Escrow $30.00 a week. At the very bottom it say's "This is for information purposes only. Payment of pros, and deductions, occur only when an actual check is cut."
It's not the end of the world. When I used to inquire about it I was always told "please call back next week"
It's not the end of the world. When I used to inquire about it I was always told "please call back next week"
Last edited:
For us ex-Cons detention was paid after the first hour. As soon as we signed a Panther contract that all changed. I held on to my Con-Way contract for 4 years before signing a Panther contract so my share of this settlement will be less than had I signed a Panther contract early on.It has always been two hours for us regardless of the customer. Who knows....maybe I got a free cruise coming?
That would be in a canoe, Missy.If Moot does any cruising, I'm betting it would be in a kayak, but whatever floats yer watercraft, eh?
You are automatically part of this suit unless you decide to opt out.
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.