Detmar Logistics

Answers to Common Questions - Updated July 5, 2024

Which drivers are included in the proposed class?

Plaintiff Stears filed his TILA claims on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated Owner Operators—current and former drivers who signed an Owner Operator Agreement with Detmar Leasing within the last four years.

Plaintiff Wilson filed her Texas state law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment on behalf of herself and all current and former employee Company Drivers of Detmar Logistics who were paid on a percentage basis.

What claims are covered in this case?

Plaintiff Stears’ claims seek unpaid compensation under the federal Truth in Leasing Act (“TILA”) on behalf of himself and a class of Owner Operators. Detmar’s Owner Operator Agreement provides that Detmar Leasing will pay Owner Operators a percentage of the final gross revenue Detmar Leasing receives for each load Owner Operators haul. Because Owner Operators’ pay is based on a percentage of the final gross revenue for loads, the TILA requires that Detmar provide a copy of the rated freight bill or other form of documentation used for a load containing the same information. Plaintiff alleges that neither Detmar Leasing nor Detmar Logistics provided him or other Owner Operators with that documentation, or any other documentation that would allow Owner Operators to verify that they were being paid the correct percentage of the final gross revenue. As a result, Detmar violated the TILA and Owner Operators did not have the documents necessary to determine the validity of their computed pay and lost compensation.

Plaintiff Wilson’s Texas state law breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims seek unpaid compensation. For the breach of contract claim, Plaintiff Wilson alleges that Detmar Logistics contracted with her and a class of Company Drivers and agreed to pay them at least 25% of the gross revenue for each load they hauled for Detmar Logistics. Plaintiff Wilson alleges that Detmar Logistics violated the contract with Company Drivers by paying them on a percentage basis using an amount that was less than the actual gross revenue for the loads Company Drivers hauled for Detmar Logistics. As a result, Plaintiff Wilson and Company Drivers sustained financial damages and Company Drivers are entitled to the additional pay Detmar Logistics promised.

If Detmar Logistics disputes whether a valid contract exists, Plaintiff Wilson’s unjust enrichment claims allege that it would be inequitable for Detmar Logistics to retain the benefit of paying Company Drivers on a percentage basis using an amount that was less than the actual gross revenue for the loads. Plaintiff Wilson alleges that Detmar Logistics has been unjustly enriched by this conduct and seeks restitution of any unjust profits conferred upon Detmar Logistics.

What damages are sought?

Plaintiff Stears alleges that Detmar’s failure to disclose the information required by the TILA caused him and other Owner Operators to suffer financial damages, because they were not able to determine if they were paid correctly and to demand more money if they were not. The damages sought under the TILA equal the difference between (i) the amount Detmar should have paid Owner Operators based on the freight bills and the compensation promised in Detmar’s Owner Operator Agreement, and (ii) the amount that Detmar actually paid Owner Operators. Under the TILA, Plaintiff Stears also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiff Wilson alleges that Detmar Logistics’ breach of contract caused her and other Company Drivers to suffer financial damages, because Detmar Logistics paid them on a percentage basis using an amount that was less than the actual gross revenue for the loads they hauled for Detmar Logistics. Plaintiff Wilson seeks damages for the breach of contract claim equal to the difference between (i) the amount Detmar Logistics should have paid Company Drivers under the contract based on the actual gross revenue for the loads, and (ii) the amount that Detmar Logistics actually paid Company Drivers. Plaintiff Wilson also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs under the breach of contract claims.

In the alternative to the breach of contract claim, Plaintiff Wilson alleges that Detmar Logistics was unjustly enriched at Company Drivers’ expense by paying them on a percentage basis using an amount that was less than the actual gross revenue for the loads Company Drivers hauled. Plaintiff Wilson’s unjust enrichment claim seeks restitution of all the benefits Detmar Logistics retained, including the disgorgement of any unjust profits.

How do I join the case?

As the litigation proceeds, Plaintiff expects to ask the Court to certify the TILA claims and Texas state law claims for class treatment. If the Court grants Plaintiff’s request, all potential class members will be part of the case and a notice of the class action will be sent to the class members, notifying them of their right to opt out of the class.

How far back do the claims go?

Under the TILA, the statute of limitations is 4 years. As a class action, Plaintiff Stears’ and potential Owner Operator class members’ TILA claims were tolled once the original complaint was filed on May 31, 2024. This means that the clock has stopped running on the 4-year time limit for Plaintiff Stears and class members to file their TILA claims.

Under Texas state law, the statute of limitations for breach of contract is 4 years and the statute of limitations for unjust enrichment is 2 years. As a class action, Plaintiff Wilson’s and potential Company Driver class members’ breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims were tolled when the amended complaint was filed on July 1, 2024, which added the Texas state law claims. Accordingly, the clock has stopped running on the time limits for Plaintiff Wilson and Company Driver class members to file their breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.