Rocha v. Fedex Corp.
15 F. Supp. 3d 796
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Rocha worked as a FedEx Chicago package driver/contractor (2005–2010); he formed Arize 11 and alleges loss of routes/trucks and improper deductions after disputes with FedEx managers.
- Plaintiffs assert a long-running FedEx scheme: classifying drivers as independent contractors while exercising employer-like control via ambiguous SOAs and mandatory Business Support Package (BSP) purchases.
- Plaintiffs allege coerced transfers of routes/vehicles (including to Stephens/RJC 80), threats, investigations, and other conduct to maintain control and extort contractors.
- Plaintiffs sued under federal law (RICO, Sherman Act §1, Clayton Act §3, NLRA retaliation) and multiple Illinois state-law claims; Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court found the 127‑page complaint violative of Rule 8 and, on the merits, dismissed all federal claims for failure to state a claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; plaintiffs given limited leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO — enterprise and pattern | Alleged ‘‘FHD Enterprise’’ (FedEx, FHD managers, contractors) carried out racketeering to defraud contractors | Plaintiffs merely allege conduct by corporate family/agents; no separate enterprise or common purpose; no RICO paradigm | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to allege an association‑in‑fact enterprise or required common purpose; garden‑variety corporate conduct not RICO |
| Antitrust — Sherman §1 conspiracy | FedEx and select contractors/vendors conspired to restrain trade and force purchases | Officers/employees of a single firm cannot constitute §1 conspiracy; allegations of unnamed co‑conspirators are conclusory | Dismissed: no plausible allegation of a conscious agreement among distinct economic actors |
| Antitrust — tying (Sherman §1 and Clayton §3) | SOA/route acquisition was the tying product forcing purchase of specified trucks and BSP items | An employment/contract relationship (SOA) is not a tying product; plaintiffs agreed to BSP in the SOA; no market power shown | Dismissed: SOA not a tying product; plaintiffs fail to plead market power and coercive tying |
| NLRA preemption / retaliatory discharge | Rocha was retaliated against for supporting class action and concerted activity; seeks relief in court | Claims alleging discharge for concerted activity are within NLRA protection and NLRB jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction: Labor Act/NLRB preemption applies |
| State law claims / supplemental jurisdiction | Plaintiffs’ pendent Illinois claims seek relief for the same misconduct | Federal claims dismissed, so federal court should decline to retain state claims | Dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court; usual practice to dismiss supplemental claims when federal claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (association‑in‑fact enterprise requires purpose, relationships, and longevity)
- Fitzgerald v. Chrysler Corp., 116 F.3d 225 (7th Cir. 1997) (corporate family/agents do not automatically form a RICO enterprise)
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984) (a single firm’s officers/employees cannot conspire under §1 of the Sherman Act)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (antitrust pleading requires factual allegations showing plausible agreement)
- Reifert v. S. Cent. Wis. MLS Corp., 450 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 2006) (elements of an unlawful tying claim)
- De Jesus v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 87 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1996) (employment/independent‑contractor status is not a tying product)
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (NLRB has primary jurisdiction over activities arguably covered by the NLRA)