XML 34 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.6.0.2

Legal Matters | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Legal Matters | NOTE 15. Legal Matters Robles On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary, Comtrak Logistics, Inc., now known as Hub Group Trucking, Inc. Mr. Robles drove a truck for Hub Group Trucking in California, first as an independent contractor and then as an employee. The action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former California-based truck drivers for Hub Group Trucking who were classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to August 2014. The complaint alleges Hub Group Trucking has misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. The complaint asserts various violations of the California Labor Code and claims that Hub Group Trucking has engaged in unfair competition practices. The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages and attorney’s fees. In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims based on Mr. Robles’ status as an employed company driver. These additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class. The Company believes that the California independent contractor truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors at all times. Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming and could interrupt our business operations, Hub Group Trucking decided to make settlement offers to individual drivers with respect to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, without admitting liability. As of September 30, 2016, 93% of the California drivers have accepted the settlement offers. In late 2014, Hub Group Trucking decided to convert its model from independent contractors to employee drivers in California. In early 2016, Hub Group Trucking closed its operations in Southern California. On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division) in Memphis. In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles case filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which names 334 current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as “interested putative class members.” In addition to reasserting their existing claims, the SAC includes claims post-conversion, added two new plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the settlement agreements are unenforceable. In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and on July 19, 2016, Hub Group Trucking’s motion to dismiss was granted in part, and denied in part, by the District Court. The motion to dismiss was granted for the claims of all purported class members who have signed settlement agreements and on plaintiffs’ claims based on quantum merit and it was denied with respect to federal preemption and choice of law. On August 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify whether the Court’s dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with or without prejudice and, if the dismissal was with prejudice, Plaintiffs moved the Court to revise and reconsider the order. Plaintiffs’ motion to clarify is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision by the Court. Adame, Et Al. v Hub Group, Inc., Et Al. On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs’ law firm in the Robles case filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County, California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group Trucking and five Company employees. The lawsuit alleges claims similar to those being made in Robles and seeks monetary penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Of the 63 named Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted the settlement offers referenced above. On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of removal to remove the case from state court in San Bernardino to federal court in the Central District of California. On November 19, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to federal court in Memphis, Tennessee and also filed a motion to dismiss the case pursuant to a clause in the independent contractor agreement stating that Tennessee law applies. Also on November 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, claiming that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the case. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand to the state court in San Bernardino County on April 7, 2016, mooting Defendants’ motions to transfer and dismiss. On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed several motions in state court, asking the court to dismiss and/or stay the Plaintiffs’ suit for various reasons. On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed several motions in state court, asking the court to dismiss and/or stay the Plaintiffs’ suit for various reasons. During a hearing on October 5, 2016, the judge issued an oral tentative ruling stating that the choice of forum provision was unenforceable. On Defendants’ motion to dismiss the individual defendants, the court allowed for supplemental briefing for additional arguments regarding individual liability under PAGA. The court did not reach a decision regarding the motion to stay pending the outcome in Robles. Plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief on November 9, 2016 to which Defendants responded on December 6, 2016. The court had scheduled a hearing for January 19, 2017, which was continued until February 21, 2017. Lubinski On September 12, 2014, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) by Christian Lubinski against Hub Group Trucking. The action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former owner-operators providing delivery services in Illinois for Hub Group Trucking. The complaint alleged Hub Group Trucking misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. The complaint also alleged that Hub Group Trucking made illegal deductions from the drivers’ pay and failed to properly compensate the drivers for all hours worked, reimburse business expenses, pay employment taxes, and provide workers’ compensation and other employment benefits. The complaint asserted various violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act and claimed that Hub Group Trucking was unjustly enriched. The complaint sought, among other things, monetary damages for the relevant statutory period and attorneys’ fees. On October 24, 2014, the Lubinski case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division), in Memphis. On September 22, 2015, the court granted Hub Group Trucking’s motion to dismiss Lubinski’s Illinois law claims with prejudice based on the contractual choice of law provision, which provided that Tennessee law governed. The court denied as moot Hub Group Trucking’s motion to dismiss based on federal preemption. On October 2, 2015, Lubinski appealed this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. On December 17, 2015, Lubinski filed his brief in support of his appeal of the motion to dismiss, asserting for the first time that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case due to a lack of diversity of citizenship. Hub Group Trucking filed its response brief on January 19, 2016, in part arguing that Lubinski had himself alleged diversity of citizenship in his complaint. Lubinski filed his reply brief on February 5, 2016. On April 1, 2016, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court—without ruling on the merits—for the district court “to consider the argument and admit the evidence necessary to determine the question of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.” On July 11, 2016, with his federal district court case still pending, Lubinski filed an additional putative class action Complaint, with the same claims, in Illinois state court. On the same day, Hub Group Trucking filed a declaratory judgment complaint in Tennessee state court, seeking a declaration that Lubinski’s claims must be heard in Tennessee (based on the contractual choice-of-forum provision) and that the claims must be dismissed because Tennessee law controls and Lubinski’s claims are preempted by federal law. The parties agreed to stay all proceedings in Illinois and Tennessee state court until the federal court jurisdiction question is decided. On October 26, 2016, Lubinski filed a motion to dismiss for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, attempting to “clarify” the putative class definition and arguing that the Class Action Fairness Act’s exceptions to jurisdiction apply. Hub Group Trucking filed its response to the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on November 29, 2016, and Lubinski filed his reply on December 13, 2016. On January 3, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Lubinski’s motion to dismiss. On January 9, 2017, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the citizenship of the putative class as of the date the complaint was filed in September 2014. We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from the remaining unresolved claims in the above mentioned lawsuits. We are a party to other litigation incident to our business, including claims for personal injury and/or property damage, bankruptcy preference claims, and claims regarding freight lost or damaged in transit, improperly shipped or improperly billed. Some of the lawsuits to which we are party are covered by insurance and are being defended by our insurance carriers. Some of the lawsuits are not covered by insurance and we defend those ourselves. We do not believe that the outcome of this litigation will have a materially adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration