Case Status

Case Status and Documents

February 25, 2019


A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED to settle all claims asserted in the Lawsuit including the Class Claims. If you meet the definition of a Class Member, you are eligible to participate in this Settlement.

A tentative settlement was reached in November 2018 and a formal settlement agreement was drafted and signed by the parties and their attorneys in December 2018, before trial was scheduled to begin in January 2019. Because the claims have been certified by the federal judge as FLSA collective claims and class claims under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the settlement has to be approved by the court.  

Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the judge presiding over the lawsuit on February 8, 2019. The court approved a notice of the settlement to be sent to all Intelliquick delivery drivers who made deliveries in Arizona at any time between April 9, 2009 and July 7, 2018 and appointed a settlement administrator to send out notices of the settlement to class members.

If You Are a Class Member, You Must Submit a Claim Form By April 23, 2019 In Order to Receive Your Individual Settlement Amount.

Instructions on how to submit a Claim Form are found in the Notice of Class Action Settlement you should have received in the mail. 

If you have not received the Notice of Class Action Settlement, you can obtain one from the Settlement Administrator’s website: http://www.intelliquickclassactionsettlement.com

You can also find more information about the Settlement, submit your Claim Form, and fill out a Change of Information Form on the Settlement Administrator’s website: http://www.intelliquickclassactionsettlement.com. You may also contact the Settlement Administrator at (833) 200-6669.

Simpluris, Inc. of Costa Mesa, California has been appointed Settlement Administrator. Notices of the Settlement were mailed on February 22, 2019 to the last known address of those delivery drivers Intelliquick identified as having made deliveries in Arizona at any time between April 9, 2009 and July 7, 2018. This includes route, freight and on-demand drivers. For those drivers for whom e-mail addresses and cell phones numbers are available, electronic notices of the settlement were also sent. If you were a delivery driver for Intelliquick and made deliveries in Arizona during this time but have not received a Notice of Class Action Settlement from the Settlement Administrator, you should contact the Settlement Administrator or Class Counsel whose contact information is set out below.  

More information about the Settlement is available by contacting the Settlement Administrator or visiting the website at http://www.intelliquickclassactionsettlement.com 

Settlement Administrator:
Simpluris, Inc.

Class Counsel:
Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C.





September 13, 2018

TRIAL by JURY on the remaining issues in the case is scheduled to begin on JANUARY 14, 2019, at the Sandra Day O’Connor United States District Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona, at 9:30 AM and is anticipated to conclude by FEBRUARY 1, 2018. The final pre-trial conference will be held on JANUARY 14, 2019, at 9:00 AM in Phoenix, Arizona. Additional pre-trial deadlines can be found in the Court's September 12, 2018 Order, available here.


February 26, 2018

On January 8, 2018, the federal judge presiding over the case decided the parties’ summary judgment motions and motions related to  expert witnesses in a lengthy written opinion and order initially kept under seal which prevented public disclosure of its contents. Plaintiffs subsequently asked the judge to unseal the order which the Court agreed to do on February 15, 2018.

The Court’s January 8, 2018 Order is now a matter of public record and is available for review here.

The Court made several important determinations in the Order including finding that Defendant, Keith Spizzirri, “is individually liable for IntelliQuick’s FLSA violations” and is also  an “employer” for purposes of the FLSA. The judge made a specific finding that “as the owner, CEO, President, and sole Director of IntelliQuick, Spizzirri had complete economic power over the drivers’ employment relationship and ultimate control over the nature and structure of that relationship. . . Spizzirri is an employer of the drivers who work for him as a matter of economic reality.” This determination is important because it means that if a judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and Class Members, IntelliQuick and Spizzirri are each jointly and severally liable for money damages for IntelliQuick’s FLSA violations.

The Court also found as a matter of law that “IntelliQuick’s FLSA violations were willful[.]” This means that the appropriate statute of limitations for violations under the FLSA in this case will be three years, thereby allowing a longer period for recovery of unpaid or underpayment of wages.  It also allows for potential recovery of liquidated damages—double or possibly triple the amount of some or all of the unpaid wages actually owed.

The Court also found that six provisions of IntelliQuick’s Owner/Operator Agreements many of the drivers were forced to sign as a condition of employment are unconscionable and unenforceable. While the judge found that IntelliQuick was allowed to take certain deductions from drivers’ paychecks to cover certain expenses (e.g. device fees, secondary insurance fees, uniform fees, etc.), it could not do so if the deductions cause drivers’ pay to fall below the applicable minimum wage.

The Court did not decide the amount of money damages Plaintiffs and Class Members are owed but instead ruled that there are factual questions for a jury to decide regarding the amount of damages that may be recovered.  This will be decided by a jury if we have to proceed to a trial absent reaching an agreement or settlement.

Plaintiffs’ damages expert will be allowed to testify regarding his calculations of the amounts owed to Plaintiffs and Class Members, but the judge has determined that Defendants’ expert witness will be much more limited in terms of what he may testify about regarding the claim for money damages. Among other things, the Court precluded Defendants’ expert witness from opining on the average duration of drivers’ stops and using multiple weeks to estimate IntelliQuick’s overtime liability, which must be decided on a week to week basis.

The next steps in the case will be to request a date for a scheduling conference so the Court can set a trial date and time for filing pre-trial motions.  In the interim, attempts are underway to explore settlement without the need for a trial.

We will continue to update this website with any case developments as they occur.


August 25, 2017

On July 14, 2017, the federal judge presiding over the case agreed with the Plaintiffs and denied a request by IntelliQuick’s attorneys to extend certain deadlines that would have further delayed the case. See the Court’s July 14 Order.

Discovery in the case, which is a formal fact-gathering and information exchange process between the Plaintiffs and Defendants, ended on June 30, 2017.

At the end of discovery, Plaintiffs and Defendants each filed summary judgment motions. This is a procedural process where the parties ask the judge to rule on certain legal issues where the facts are not really in dispute. In addition, both sides filed motions to keep the other side’s expert witness from testifying in the event there is a trial. These are referred to as “Daubert motions,” named after a U.S. Supreme Court case with that name.

Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion asking the judge to exclude Defendants’ expert witness is available here.

The Plaintiffs represent those freight, route and on-demand drivers the Court has certified as members of the Class of Drivers who are considered part of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion asks the judge to rule as a matter of law that the Drivers are entitled to unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, and reimbursement of amounts deducted from Drivers’ pay for certain scanner, secondary insurance, weekly uniform/laundry, and paycheck processing fees and to determine the amounts owed without the need for a trial. The Defendants have opposed this motion. See Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Each party has a chance to respond to the other party’s motions. This will take place over the next several weeks, after which the judge will rule on each of the motions. It generally takes several months for judges to make decisions on these kind of motions. The motions can be decided all at once or one at a time.

Rulings on each motion and future scheduling will be posted on this website along with other important information about the lawsuit.

March 27, 2017

In the Court’s March 23, 2015 Order on Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court found that IntelliQuick drivers have been misclassified as independent contractors when they are actually employees for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act (see March 23, 2015, update below).

Since then, the parties have engaged in merits discovery.
  • On December 2, 2016, based on information obtained from Defendants, Plaintiffs’ expert, David M. Breshears, completed his Expert Report regarding the calculation of recoverable damages.
  • Defendants deposed Mr. Breshears on February 22, 2017.
  • Defendants’ expert witness completed his report on March 23, 2017.
  • Plaintiffs will depose Defendants’ expert witness and then submit their rebuttal expert report on April 23, 2017.
Merits discovery will be completed by May 23, 2017, after which dispositive motions will be filed on or before June 23, 2017. If no dispositive motion is pending, the parties will submit a proposed pretrial order on July 21, 2017 and a trial date will be set.

If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact us.

March 23, 2015

Court Rules that Drivers Were Misclassified. The District Court granted, in part, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment finding that IntelliQuick drivers have been misclassified as independent contractors when they are actual employees for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act. The Court found that:

Even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants, it is clear that IntelliQuick exercises a great deal of control over the manner in which its drivers perform their work. The details of its drivers’ jobs do not display the hallmarks of independent contractor status, such as significant capital investments, the employment of helpers, or opportunities for profit or loss based on the drivers’ industry or judgment. Further, as plaintiffs observe, all of the delivery work available to the drivers is routed to them by IntelliQuick—there is no independent market for their services. Ultimately, as a matter of economic reality, the drivers are dependent upon IntelliQuick. They have been misclassified as independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA.

The Court went on to find that “there is no functional difference between the economic realities test described above and the common law agency test adopted by Arizona” and so the same factors, and particularly “the extensive control that IntelliQuick exercises over its drivers” support a finding that the drivers are misclassified under Arizona state law.

Read the court’s Order and Opinion (Dkt # 343), which discusses in detail the factors under Federal and State law used to decide whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, and the facts supporting finding that IntelliQuick drivers are misclassified.

This order does not resolve the lawsuit, and Plaintiffs continue to litigate their claims.

March 23, 2015

Court Grants Class Certification. The District Court granted class certification with regards to the plaintiffs’ claims for minimum wage and overtime violations under A.R.S. § 23-351 and plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants’ standardized payroll deductions violate A.R.S. § 23-352, and with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim that the “Independent Contractor Owner/Operator Agreement” is substantively unconscionable. Read the Court’s order granting class certification as to these claims.

The Court certified a class action that includes:

All current and former drivers or couriers who made pick-ups or deliveries for or on behalf of IntelliQuick Deliveries, Inc. as a Freight Driver, Route Driver, or On-Demand Driver within the State of Arizona and who were or are classified or paid as independent contractors or not classified or paid as employees at any time on or after April 9, 2009;

Within this group, the Court identified four subclasses of plaintiffs who may participate in the class action.

Subclass A – Freight Drivers: All drivers who use vehicles or vans that are owned or leased by IntelliQuick or Majik Leasing, LLC to make deliveries and pick-ups for or on behalf of IntelliQuick or its customers.

 Subclass B – Route Drivers: All drivers who generally use their own vehicles to make deliveries and pick-ups on an assigned route for or on behalf of IntelliQuick or its customers.

Subclass C – On-Demand Drivers: All drivers who generally use their own vehicles to make specific deliveries and pick-ups for or on behalf of IntelliQuick or its customers and who have not been assigned a regular route.

Subclass D – All drivers who are parties to the “Independent Contractor Owner/Operator Agreement.”

The Court has approved a Notice to Current and Former IntelliQuick Drivers to inform them of their rights and obligations in the class action.

April 15, 2013

Case Management Plan. The parties filed a proposed Joint Case Management Plan with the Court. Please click here to read the Case Management Plan. This document, among other things, sets forth a schedule for completing discovery and explains the factual and legal basis of plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ defenses in this action. A telephonic conference was held with the Court on April 16, 2013 in which the Court discussed and approved the proposed Case Management Plan. Read the Court’s minute entry regarding the hearing. On April 22, 2013, the Court issued a confirming order which adopts the case management plan. Read the Court’s Order.

December 31, 2012

Answer to Amended Complaint. Defendants IntelliQuick Delivery, Inc., Keith Spizzirri, Miriam Spizzirri, Majik Leasing, LLC, Felicia Tavison, Jason Mittendorf, Jane Doe Mittendorf, Jeffrey Lieber, William “Bill” Cocchia, Jane Doe Cocchia, Steven Anastase and Jane Doe Anastase filed their Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Read the IntelliQuick Defendants’ Answer.

December 12, 2012

Amended Complaint. According to the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs’ filed their Amended Complaint. Read the Amended Complaint. If you believe you were forced to resign or that you were otherwise retaliated against for exercising your rights under the FLSA, please contact us immediately so we may evaluate your possible claim(s).

December 11, 2012

Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ proposed Amended Complaint contained a factual basis to support the retaliation claim, and “Plaintiffs could win a FLSA retaliation lawsuit under § 215(a)(3) by proving that they were forced to resign or that they were discriminated against in some other matter in retaliation for exercising rights under the FLSA.” The Court also concluded that “[g]iven the fact that the case is still in the early stages, that there has not been an unreasonable delay, and that this is the first request to amend the complaint, the court concludes that adding new defendants is not overly burdensome or unreasonable.” The Court also determined that the “proposed additional facts flesh out plaintiffs’ allegations in more detail and may avoid future motion work related to the sufficiency of the pleadings.” Finally, the Court found that the proposed amendments will not prejudice defendants nor significantly delay this litigation and rejected defendants’ demand for fees and costs. Read the Court’s Order.

September 7, 2012

Defendants Disclosure of List of Potential Class Members. Defendants IntelliQuick Delivery, Inc., Keith Spizzirri and Miriam Spizzirri, Majik Leasing, LLC, Felicia Tavison, Jason Mittendorf and Jeffrey Lieber sent Plaintiffs a list of potential class members. The list included the names and addresses of over 475 potential class members.

August 30, 2012

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs requested leave from the Court to file an Amended Complaint. Please click here to read the Motion. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint includes, among other things, additional factual allegations and defendants as well as a claim for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). Read a red-lined copy of the Amended Complaint, showing the revisions and additions to the original Complaint.

Any employee who is discharged or otherwise retaliated against because he or she has complained to her employer, filed a complaint or lawsuit, joined or opted-in to a lawsuit, or cooperated in an investigation, may file a retaliation complaint with the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division or may file a private cause of action seeking appropriate remedies including, but not limited to, employment reinstatement, lost wages and an additional equal amount of liquidated damages. Please contact us, if you believe that you may have been retaliated against. See more information regarding retaliation.

August 1, 2012

Court’s Order on Motion for Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ arguments were not ripe for consideration and suggested that “the appropriate course of action would be to amend the complaint to add additional claims for retaliation or to file a separate lawsuit.” Read the complete Court Order.

July 31, 2012

Court’s Order on Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification. The Court ordered conditionally certifying a class that includes All current and former drivers or couriers, who made pick-ups or deliveries for or on behalf of IntelliQuick Deliveries, Inc. as a Freight Driver, Route Driver, or On-Demand Driver within the State of Arizona and who were or are classified or paid as independent contractors or not classified or paid as employees at any time on or after April 9, 2009. 2) Defendants shall provide to plaintiffs’ counsel the last known contact information for potential class members. 3) Plaintiffs’ proposed notice is approved provided the opt-in period is amended to sixty days. 4) Because contact information for current employees who are potential class members will be provided to plaintiffs, the court declines to require that IntelliQuick post the notice and consent forms at its business locations. Read the complete Court Order.

July 5, 2012

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Equitable Tolling. Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Further Support of Motion for Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations. Read Plaintiffs’ Reply.

June 28, 2012

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification. Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Court-Supervised Notice of Pending Collective Action. Read Plaintiffs’ Reply.

June 25, 2012

Defendants’ Response to Motion for Equitable Tolling. Defendants filed their response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Equitable Tolling of Statute of Limitations. Read Defendants’ Response.

June 18, 2012

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification. Defendants filed their response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Court-Supervised Notice of Pending Collective. Read Defendants’ Response.

June 13, 2012

Court’s Order on Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time. The Court ordered Defendants to file their response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Court-Supervised Notice of Pending Collective action no later than June 18, 2012.

June 7, 2012

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Equitable Tolling. Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Equitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations. Plaintiffs ask the Court to toll or suspend the deadline for current and former drivers’ to join FLSA collective action as of the date the lawsuit was filed, April 19, 2012. Read Plaintiffs’ Motion.

June 7, 2012

Answer to Complaint. Defendants IntelliQuick Delivery Inc., Keith Spizzirri, Majik Leasing, LLC, Felicia Tavison, Jason Mittendorf, and Jeffrey Lieber also filed their Answer to the Complaint. Read Defendants’ Answer.

June 7, 2012

Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time and Plaintiffs’ Opposition. Defendants IntelliQuick Delivery Inc., Keith Spizzirri, Majik Leasing, LLC, Felicia Tavison, Jason Mittendorf, and Jeffrey Lieber filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Class Action Certification and Court-Supervised Notice of Pending Collective Action, requesting a thirty-day extension. Read Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion. Read Plaintiffs’ Opposition.

May 25, 2012

Entry of Default against Defendants.The Clerk of Court entered default, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), against Defendants Transportation Authority, LLC and Robert F. Lorgeree because these Defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. See a copy of the Entry of Default.

May 22, 2012

Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Claims in this Case as a "Collective Action." Plaintiffs made a motion to certify the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime claims in this case as a “collective action.” The motion seeks court approval to mail a notice about the case to all current and former IntelliQuick drivers or couriers who were Route, Freight or On-Demand Drivers within the State of Arizona and who were classified or paid as independent contractors at any time on or after April 9, 2009. See a copy of the motion.

April 19, 2012

Plaintiffs' Complaint Is Filed. Read the Complaint.

Share by: