Line One
OOIDA vs. Supervalu legal notice

LEGAL NOTICE

NOTICE IS GIVEN OF THE PROPOSED ENTRY
OF AN INJUNCTION TO SETTLE A CLASS ACTION REGARDING SUPERVALU’S PROOF OF INSURANCE POLICY

TO:          All motor carriers and drivers delivering freight to SUPERVALU                                            distribution centers between March 28, 2005 and December 21, 2005

                You are advised that two individual drivers and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) (together, the “Plaintiffs”) brought an action against SUPERVALU INC. in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota (Civil No: 05-2809(JRT/JJG)) in December 2005 to enjoin certain practices of SUPERVALU in connection with its proof-of-insurance policy. The Court certified certain aspects of the case as appropriate for class treatment. The class is composed of all owners or operators of motor carriers who delivered “carrier” loads to SUPERVALU distribution centers between March 28, 2005 and December 21, 2005, who: (a) at the time of delivery, did not meet SUPERVALU’s minimum proof of insurance requirement then in effect; and (b) paid for lumping services, without reimbursement by shippers or receivers. “Carrier loads” are loads of goods delivered to SUPERVALU distribution centers where SUPERVALU is not responsible for unloading, or where the owner or operator is responsible for unloading.

                The Plaintiffs and SUPERVALU have entered into an agreement, subject to Court approval, that would resolve the litigation as to the Plaintiffs’ claims of coercion and attempted coercion. If the proposed settlement agreement is approved by the Court, an injunction will enter prohibiting SUPERVALU from requiring owners or operators who elect to unload their own trailers to present proof of insurance coverage different in type or greater in amount than is required by law as a condition to unloading. The settlement also reserves to the Plaintiffs their right to appeal certain trial court rulings, including its dismissal of their claim to be entitled to restitution in connection with fees paid to lumpers between March 28, 2005 and December 21, 2005. The question of whether and to what extent an award of attorneys’ fees is appropriate is deferred until after the anticipated appeal.

                If you are a class member, you have a right to object to the settlement. If you wish to object, your objections must be in writing, must make specific reference to the case name and number as follows: OOIDA et al. v. SUPERVALU, Inc. (Civil No: 05-2809(JRT/JJG)), and you must send your objections to all of the following:

Clerk of District Court
U.S. District Courthouse
300 South Fourth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Randall Herrick Stare, Esq.
The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC
1101 30th St., N.W.,
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20007
(attorney for Plaintiffs)
Steven J. Wells, Esq.
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
50 S. Sixth St., Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(attorney for Defendant
SUPERVALU)

 

                If you are a class member, you have a right to appear at the Final Approval hearing at which the Court will determine whether to accept the proposed settlement. The hearing to approve the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement will be held before The Honorable Judge John R. Tunheim, U.S. District Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415, on Sept. 30, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. You must give notice of your intent to appear at the hearing; you must send notice of your intent to appear to the Clerk of District Court and to the attorneys for Plaintiffs and for Defendant SUPERVALU, as indicated above. Notice must be received no later than 20 days before the date of the Final Approval hearing.

                If you desire or need more information, please contact class counsel:

Randall S. Herrick-Stare or Paul D. Cullen, Jr.
The Cullen Law Firm
1101 30th St. NW, #300
Washington, DC 20007

Ph: 888-820-6585

The form and content of this notice has been approved by the Court overseeing this matter (tentative docket number 311) and is intended to comply with the notice obligations of class settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).

March/April
Digital Edition