1012-00004 · Stonefield Logistics Group · Pleadings & Court Filings

declaration-of-trevor-sandoval.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

32 / 35 ← → ✕

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

DECLARATION OF TREVOR SANDOVAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION

I, Trevor Sandoval, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am the Vice President of Operations of Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. ("SLG" or the "Company"). My business address is 4200 Commerce Gateway Blvd., Suite 800, Irving, Texas 75039. I am over the age of twenty-one and am fully competent to make this declaration.

2. I make this declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, except where I indicate that statements are based on my review of SLG business records maintained in the ordinary course of business, in which case I identify the basis for my knowledge. Where I reference specific data or figures, those are derived from SLG's internal operational databases, financial records, or reports prepared at my direction by members of my operations team.

3. I submit this declaration in support of Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Marcus Delano's Motion for Conditional Certification under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The purpose of this declaration is to provide the Court with testimony regarding: (a) the operational structure of SLG's fourteen distribution hubs; (b) the material differences in operations, delivery mix, geographic conditions, and hub manager practices across those fourteen hubs; (c) the degree of autonomy exercised by independent contractor drivers engaged by SLG; (d) the significant variations in delivery types and their impact on driver experience and compensation; and (e) the differences in contractual terms among drivers operating under three distinct versions of SLG's Independent Contractor Operating Agreement. Taken together, these facts demonstrate that the approximately 1,187 drivers in the proposed collective are not similarly situated and that individualized inquiries would predominate over any common questions, rendering conditional certification inappropriate.

I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS OF DECLARANT

4. My full name is Trevor Sandoval. I currently serve as Vice President of Operations of Stonefield Logistics Group Inc., a position I have held since January 2020.

5. I joined SLG in June 2016 as a Regional Operations Manager. In that role, I was responsible for overseeing the operations of four SLG distribution hubs in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area and North Texas. I held the Regional Operations Manager position from June 2016 through December 2019, at which time I was promoted to Vice President of Operations effective January 1, 2020.

6. In my current role as Vice President of Operations, I have broad responsibility for overseeing the day-to-day operations of all fourteen SLG distribution hubs across the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas. My responsibilities include, but are not limited to: (a) managing and directing the fourteen hub managers who oversee local hub operations; (b) setting and implementing company-wide operational policies and procedures; (c) overseeing the implementation and ongoing operation of the RouteSync dispatch platform, which is SLG's proprietary logistics management and delivery assignment system; (d) coordinating delivery logistics across all of SLG's service lines, including standard last-mile delivery, regional freight delivery, and white-glove delivery; (e) reviewing and analyzing operational performance data across hubs; (f) managing relationships with key clients whose delivery needs span multiple hubs; and (g) collaborating with other members of SLG's senior leadership team on strategic and operational matters.

7. I report directly to Gerald Wynn, SLG's Chief Executive Officer. In the course of my duties, I work closely with Karen Lund, SLG's Director of Driver Relations, and Aaron Turcotte, SLG's Chief People Officer, on matters relating to driver operations, driver engagement, and the Independent Contractor Operating Agreements that govern SLG's relationships with its drivers.

8. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Supply Chain Management from the University of North Texas and a Master of Business Administration degree with a concentration in Operations and Logistics from Southern Methodist University. Prior to joining SLG, I held operations management positions at two other transportation and logistics companies over a period of approximately eight years.

9. I have direct supervisory authority over all fourteen hub managers, including Dennis Faulkner, the hub manager for SLG's Fort Worth distribution hub (designated internally as "HUB-01"), which is the hub at which the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, performed delivery services. In this capacity, I am familiar with the operations of each of SLG's fourteen hubs and the material differences among them. I visit each hub in person on a regular basis—typically at least once per quarter for each hub—and I receive weekly operational reports and performance dashboards from each hub manager.

II. OVERVIEW OF STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.

10. SLG is a Delaware-incorporated, Texas-headquartered transportation and logistics company. The Company was founded in 2011 by Gerald Wynn and two other co-founders with the objective of building a scalable last-mile delivery platform to serve major retailers, e-commerce companies, and commercial clients across the South-Central United States.

11. Since its founding, SLG has grown from a single distribution hub in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to a network of fourteen distribution hubs operating across four states. The Company specializes in three principal service lines: (a) standard last-mile residential and commercial delivery; (b) regional freight delivery; and (c) white-glove delivery, which involves premium services such as inside placement, assembly, and specialized handling of high-value or oversized items.

12. In July 2019, Ridgepoint Capital Partners Fund III, LP ("Ridgepoint") acquired a seventy-two percent (72%) equity stake in SLG for approximately $285 million. Following Ridgepoint's investment, SLG expanded its hub network, upgraded its technology platform (including the development of RouteSync 2.0), and broadened its service offerings. Ridgepoint currently maintains its majority equity position in the Company.

13. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, SLG reported total revenue of approximately $312.7 million and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") of approximately $28.4 million. SLG's revenue is generated through contracts with retailers, e-commerce platforms, furniture and appliance manufacturers, and other commercial clients that require delivery services.

14. As of the date of this declaration, SLG operates fourteen distribution hubs across four states: eight hubs in Texas, two hubs in Oklahoma, three hubs in Louisiana, and one hub in Arkansas. The Company engages approximately 1,450 drivers at any given time under Independent Contractor Operating Agreements ("ICOAs"). Based on my review of SLG's driver records, approximately 1,187 unique drivers signed ICOAs and performed delivery services for SLG during the period from April 30, 2022 through the present—the period identified in Plaintiff's Motion as the proposed collective period.

III. SLG'S 14 DISTRIBUTION HUBS — STRUCTURE AND MATERIAL DIFFERENCES

15. A central theme of this declaration is that SLG's fourteen distribution hubs are not uniform or fungible. They differ in size, geographic footprint, delivery mix, client base, management practices, and operational complexity. These differences are material to the question of whether the approximately 1,187 drivers in the proposed collective are "similarly situated" for purposes of Section 216(b) of the FLSA.

A. Hub Overview

16. The following table sets forth each of SLG's fourteen distribution hubs, including the hub identification code, location, and the approximate number of unique drivers who signed ICOAs and performed delivery services at each hub during the relevant period (April 30, 2022 through the present):

17. As the table reflects, the number of drivers at each hub varies substantially—from as few as 29 drivers at HUB-13 (Lubbock) to as many as 195 drivers at HUB-03 (Houston). This variation in hub size is not merely a function of population differences; it reflects fundamentally different operational environments, client needs, delivery volumes, and logistical challenges.

B. Variations in Hub Size and Scope

18. There is a significant disparity in hub size and operational scope across SLG's fourteen hubs. The largest hub, HUB-03 in Houston, engaged approximately 195 unique drivers during the relevant period—nearly seven times the number of drivers at HUB-13 in Lubbock, which engaged only 29 unique drivers during the same period. The five largest hubs (HUB-01 through HUB-05), all located in major Texas metropolitan areas, collectively account for approximately 724 of the 1,187 unique drivers, or roughly sixty-one percent (61%) of the total proposed collective.

19. The larger metropolitan hubs—Dallas (HUB-02), Houston (HUB-03), Fort Worth (HUB-01), San Antonio (HUB-04), and Austin (HUB-05)—serve dense, heavily populated metropolitan areas with high delivery volumes, multiple delivery types, and more complex routing and scheduling demands. These hubs typically operate under multiple client contracts simultaneously, requiring coordination across different service levels and delivery specifications. At HUB-03 in Houston, for example, the hub serves delivery territories spanning portions of Harris, Fort Bend, Montgomery, Brazoria, and Galveston counties, with distinct delivery characteristics in each area.

20. By contrast, SLG's smaller hubs—Lubbock (HUB-13), Shreveport (HUB-11), Corpus Christi (HUB-14), Little Rock (HUB-10), and El Paso (HUB-12)—serve less populated regions with a different delivery mix, lower daily delivery volumes, and fewer logistical complexities. These hubs typically serve fewer clients, offer fewer delivery types, and present different operational challenges, such as longer route distances and greater spacing between delivery stops.

21. Each hub is managed by its own hub manager, who exercises localized management discretion in day-to-day operations. The hub manager is the primary point of contact for drivers at that hub and is responsible for making operational decisions that are tailored to the specific characteristics of the hub's market, geography, client base, and driver pool. While hub managers operate within SLG's overall operational framework, they are not required to follow a single, rigid playbook for every aspect of hub operations. This is by design: the Company recognizes that what works in a dense urban market like Houston or Dallas may not be appropriate or effective in a rural or mid-market setting like Lubbock or Shreveport.

C. Variations in Delivery Mix by Hub

22. SLG offers three principal service lines: (1) standard last-mile residential delivery, which involves the pickup and delivery of packages to residential or commercial addresses; (2) regional freight delivery, which involves the transport of larger shipments between hubs or from hubs to commercial clients; and (3) white-glove delivery, which is a premium service involving inside placement, assembly, or specialized handling of items such as furniture, appliances, and medical equipment.

23. The mix of these three service lines varies substantially across SLG's fourteen hubs. This variation is not incidental—it is a function of client contracts, local market demand, geographic factors, and the availability of drivers with appropriate equipment and capabilities. The delivery mix at a given hub directly affects the compensation, hours, skill requirements, and overall work experience of drivers at that hub.

24. The larger metropolitan hubs—HUB-01 (Fort Worth), HUB-02 (Dallas), HUB-03 (Houston), HUB-04 (San Antonio), and HUB-05 (Austin)—handle all three delivery types. At these hubs, white-glove deliveries may constitute between fifteen percent (15%) and thirty percent (30%) of total delivery volume, depending on the hub's client contracts and seasonal demand patterns. These hubs have dedicated white-glove client relationships, including contracts with national furniture retailers and appliance manufacturers that require inside delivery, placement, and assembly services.

25. Mid-size hubs—HUB-06 (Oklahoma City), HUB-07 (Tulsa), and HUB-09 (New Orleans)—primarily handle standard last-mile and regional freight deliveries. White-glove delivery volume at these hubs is minimal, typically constituting only five percent (5%) to ten percent (10%) of total delivery volume. White-glove services at these hubs are generally limited to overflow work from larger hubs or occasional local client requests.

26. Smaller and more rural hubs—HUB-08 (Baton Rouge), HUB-10 (Little Rock), HUB-11 (Shreveport), HUB-12 (El Paso), HUB-13 (Lubbock), and HUB-14 (Corpus Christi)—focus almost exclusively on standard last-mile and regional freight deliveries. White-glove deliveries at these hubs are rare or non-existent. For example, based on my review of SLG's operational data, HUB-13 (Lubbock) performed zero white-glove deliveries during the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2025, and HUB-11 (Shreveport) performed fewer than fifty white-glove deliveries during the same period.

27. The delivery mix variation has a direct and material impact on driver compensation. White-glove drivers are compensated at the higher end of the per-delivery rate range—$28.00 to $38.00 per delivery—compared to standard last-mile drivers, who receive per-delivery rates ranging from $14.50 to $22.00. This means that drivers at hubs with a significant white-glove component have materially different compensation profiles than drivers at hubs where white-glove delivery is unavailable. Moreover, not all drivers at white-glove-capable hubs actually perform white-glove deliveries. Driver selection for white-glove assignments is based on equipment capability (the driver must have a vehicle suitable for transporting large items) and driver willingness (participation in white-glove delivery is voluntary, not mandatory).

D. Variations in Hub Manager Practices

28. Each hub manager has discretion over a range of operational decisions that directly affect the day-to-day experience of drivers at that hub. These decisions include, but are not limited to:

(a) How delivery assignments are communicated and sequenced through the RouteSync dispatch platform, including the timing of delivery postings and the order in which deliveries appear in a driver's queue;

(b) Whether and how frequently hub-level performance meetings or check-ins are held with drivers;

(c) How subcontracting requests from drivers are evaluated and processed, since the ICOA vests approval authority for subcontracting with the hub manager;

(d) Enforcement of the 85% minimum acceptance rate requirement set forth in the ICOA—some hub managers apply this threshold strictly, triggering formal performance reviews when a driver falls below the threshold, while others use informal counseling and mentoring to address low acceptance rates without initiating a formal review process;

(e) Vehicle inspection practices and frequency, including the extent to which hub-level staff visually inspect driver vehicles upon arrival at the hub;

(f) Local customer relationship management and the handling of delivery disputes or customer complaints at the hub level.

29. Hub managers are not required to follow a single, company-wide protocol for each of these decisions. SLG's operational philosophy is to provide hub managers with a framework of general guidelines and then permit them to adapt their practices to local market conditions, client requirements, geographic factors, and the characteristics of their driver pool. This approach reflects the reality that managing delivery operations in a dense urban environment like downtown Dallas is fundamentally different from managing delivery operations in a rural area like West Texas.

30. To illustrate, the Fort Worth hub (HUB-01), managed by Dennis Faulkner, operates in a large metropolitan area with high delivery density, multiple delivery types (including a significant white-glove component), and a large driver pool of approximately 142 drivers. Mr. Faulkner's management approach at HUB-01 is necessarily different from the approach taken by the hub manager at HUB-13 (Lubbock), which has only 29 drivers, handles no white-glove deliveries, and serves a geographically dispersed delivery territory. Similarly, HUB-03 (Houston), SLG's largest hub with approximately 195 drivers, presents its own unique management challenges related to the size of the Houston metropolitan area, traffic conditions, and the complexity of multi-county delivery territories.

31. The variation in hub manager practices means that drivers at different hubs experience meaningfully different operational environments, even where the same general ICOA terms apply. A driver at HUB-13 (Lubbock) who interacts with the hub manager on a near-daily basis because of the small driver pool has a fundamentally different operational relationship with SLG than a driver at HUB-03 (Houston) who may interact with the hub manager infrequently due to the large number of drivers and the geographic dispersion of the Houston delivery territory.

E. Geographic and Market Differences

32. The geographic and market characteristics of SLG's fourteen hub territories vary dramatically, and these differences have a direct impact on the driver experience in ways that are relevant to the "similarly situated" inquiry.

33. Delivery territories, route distances, and delivery density differ significantly between urban and rural hubs. At urban hubs such as Dallas (HUB-02), Houston (HUB-03), Fort Worth (HUB-01), San Antonio (HUB-04), and Austin (HUB-05), delivery routes tend to be shorter in total mileage but feature higher stop density—meaning that drivers make more delivery stops per route mile. A driver at HUB-02 in Dallas may cover thirty to fifty miles in a day but complete forty or more delivery stops. The challenges at urban hubs include navigating dense traffic, locating parking at apartment complexes, and managing tight delivery windows in congested areas.

34. At rural and mid-market hubs such as Lubbock (HUB-13), Shreveport (HUB-11), Little Rock (HUB-10), El Paso (HUB-12), and Corpus Christi (HUB-14), routes are longer in total mileage but feature lower stop density. Drivers at these hubs may cover routes spanning one hundred miles or more in a single day but complete fewer total delivery stops. The challenges at rural hubs are different: longer drive times between stops, greater vehicle wear and fuel costs, exposure to variable weather conditions over longer routes, and the need to manage time efficiently across large geographic areas.

35. These geographic differences directly affect driver hours, earnings per route, vehicle operating costs, and the degree of route discretion available to drivers. A driver at a rural hub who covers 120 miles in a day with fifteen stops has a materially different work experience than a driver at an urban hub who covers 40 miles with forty-five stops. The time spent driving versus the time spent at delivery locations, the fuel and maintenance costs incurred, and the nature of the physical demands associated with the work all differ based on geography.

36. Additionally, different hubs serve different client bases with different delivery requirements. Some hubs are heavily weighted toward e-commerce last-mile delivery for national retailers; others have a greater proportion of regional freight for commercial and industrial clients. These client-driven differences further contribute to the variation in driver experience across hubs.

IV. DRIVER AUTONOMY IN ROUTE SELECTION AND SCHEDULING

37. A central issue in this litigation is whether SLG's independent contractor drivers are "employees" under the FLSA. A key factor in that analysis is the degree of control exercised by SLG over the drivers' work. Based on my experience overseeing SLG's operations and my familiarity with the ICOA terms and operational practices, I can attest that SLG's drivers exercise substantial autonomy in multiple dimensions of their work, including route selection, delivery sequencing, scheduling, and the decision of which deliveries to accept.

A. Delivery Assignment Through RouteSync

38. RouteSync is SLG's proprietary dispatch platform, which SLG developed internally and deployed across all fourteen hubs beginning in 2019. RouteSync serves as the primary mechanism through which available delivery assignments are communicated to drivers.

39. The RouteSync platform operates as follows: available delivery assignments are posted to the system by hub operations staff, typically on a rolling basis as client orders are received and processed. Each delivery posting includes key information such as the pickup location (typically the hub), the delivery address, the estimated package weight, the delivery type (standard last-mile, regional freight, or white-glove), and the per-delivery rate applicable to that assignment.

40. Drivers access RouteSync through a mobile application installed on their personal smartphones or tablets. When delivery assignments are posted, drivers may review the available assignments and choose to accept or decline individual deliveries. RouteSync does not mandate a specific route or delivery sequence. It presents the available deliveries and allows drivers to build their own daily schedules within the general delivery window of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday.

41. Drivers have the ability to choose which deliveries to accept based on their own preferences, including vehicle capacity, geographic preference (e.g., preferring deliveries in a particular area), personal scheduling needs, and the per-delivery rate associated with each assignment. This is a key feature of SLG's operating model and reflects the independent contractor relationship contemplated by the ICOA.

B. Minimum Acceptance Rate — Context and Variability

42. The ICOA requires drivers to maintain a minimum acceptance rate of eighty-five percent (85%) per rolling thirty-day period. This provision is designed to ensure a baseline level of service reliability for SLG's clients, who depend on SLG's ability to fulfill delivery commitments. The 85% threshold means that drivers may decline up to fifteen percent (15%) of offered deliveries without consequence during any rolling thirty-day period.

43. In practice, actual acceptance rates vary significantly across drivers and across hubs. Based on my review of RouteSync data, some drivers consistently accept ninety-five percent (95%) to one hundred percent (100%) of offered deliveries, while others operate near the 85% threshold. There are also drivers whose acceptance rates occasionally dip below 85% during certain periods—for example, during holiday seasons, periods of personal scheduling constraints, or when a driver is transitioning between delivery types.

44. The enforcement of the 85% minimum acceptance rate is not uniform across hubs. Hub managers have discretion in how they apply this threshold. At some hubs, falling below the 85% threshold triggers a formal performance review process, which involves a documented meeting between the hub manager and the driver to discuss the driver's acceptance patterns and explore whether adjustments can be made. At other hubs, the hub manager addresses low acceptance rates through informal counseling—a conversation rather than a formal review. In either case, a performance review triggered by falling below the 85% threshold is not an automatic termination event. It is a consultative discussion that may result in modified delivery offerings, a reassessment of the driver's preferred delivery territory, or other adjustments. In my experience, the vast majority of performance reviews related to acceptance rates result in the driver continuing to perform delivery services for SLG.

C. Route Discretion and Delivery Sequencing

45. Once a driver accepts a set of deliveries for a given day or delivery session, the driver—not SLG—determines the order in which to complete those deliveries and the route to follow in completing them. This is a critical aspect of driver autonomy under SLG's operating model.

46. RouteSync provides a suggested routing sequence based on an algorithm that considers geographic proximity and estimated traffic conditions. However, drivers are expressly not required to follow the suggested route. Drivers exercise their own judgment regarding traffic conditions, customer availability, efficient sequencing, and personal preferences in determining the order and route for their deliveries.

47. GPS data collected through SLG's telematics system confirms that drivers frequently deviate from RouteSync's suggested routes. Based on an analysis of GPS data conducted by my operations team in connection with this litigation, covering a sample of approximately 8,500 delivery sessions across multiple hubs during the six-month period from October 2024 through March 2025, drivers deviated from the suggested RouteSync routing in approximately sixty-eight percent (68%) of delivery sessions. These deviations ranged from minor resequencing of stops to entirely different routing approaches. This data demonstrates that drivers exercise meaningful and regular discretion over how they complete their accepted deliveries.

48. The ability to determine route and delivery sequence is a key element of driver autonomy and differentiates SLG's model from traditional employer-directed route assignments, where a dispatcher assigns a fixed route and sequence that the driver is required to follow.

D. Scheduling Flexibility

49. SLG's independent contractor drivers are not required to work a set number of hours per day, a minimum number of hours per week, or a minimum number of days per week. The ICOA establishes a delivery window of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, during which deliveries may be performed, but does not require drivers to be available or active during the entire window or on any particular day. Drivers self-select the days and hours during which they wish to perform delivery services.

50. In practice, driver work patterns vary enormously across the driver population. Some drivers work six days per week and accept the maximum number of available deliveries; others work only three or four days per week. Some drivers concentrate their work in the early morning hours; others prefer to work later in the day. Some drivers take extended breaks during the day between delivery sessions; others work continuously throughout the delivery window.

51. The variation in weekly hours worked across SLG's driver population is stark. Based on data analyzed by Dr. Priya Ramanathan of Corbin Risk Advisors—an expert retained by SLG in connection with this litigation—weekly hours worked by SLG drivers during the relevant period vary widely. Some drivers average twenty-five to thirty hours per week; others average fifty-five to sixty hours per week. The distribution of weekly hours does not cluster around any single norm but instead spans a broad range, reflecting the diverse work patterns of individual drivers who exercise genuine scheduling discretion.

52. This variation in hours worked is itself evidence that SLG's drivers exercise meaningful autonomy over their schedules. If SLG exercised the type of control over driver schedules that characterizes an employment relationship, one would expect to see much less variation in hours worked and a much tighter clustering of work patterns around a company-mandated schedule. The data shows the opposite.

V. DELIVERY TYPES AND THEIR IMPACT ON DRIVER EXPERIENCE

53. As discussed above, SLG offers three principal delivery types: standard last-mile delivery, regional freight delivery, and white-glove delivery. Each delivery type involves different work requirements, different equipment, different skill sets, and different compensation. The mix of delivery types performed by individual drivers varies significantly, and these variations are material to the "similarly situated" analysis.

A. Standard Last-Mile Delivery

54. Standard last-mile delivery is SLG's most common delivery type and is performed at all fourteen hubs. It involves picking up packages at a distribution hub and delivering them to residential or commercial addresses within the hub's delivery territory.

55. Standard last-mile delivery requires the driver to use a cargo van or box truck with a model year of 2015 or newer that has passed SLG's safety inspection. The vehicle must be driver-owned; SLG does not own or lease vehicles for drivers. Per-delivery rates for standard last-mile deliveries range from $14.50 to $22.00, with the rate varying based on package weight, delivery distance, and other factors specified in the ICOA rate schedule.

56. Standard last-mile delivery is the baseline delivery type and accounts for the majority of delivery volume across SLG's hub network. It does not require specialized training beyond the standard initial training and quarterly refresher training required by the ICOA.

B. Regional Freight Delivery

57. Regional freight delivery involves transporting larger shipments between SLG hubs or from hubs to commercial clients. This delivery type is distinct from standard last-mile delivery in several respects: the shipments are typically larger and heavier, the delivery distances may be longer, and the work may involve loading and unloading at commercial docks or warehouses.

58. Regional freight delivery generally requires a box truck and may involve different physical demands than standard last-mile delivery. Per-delivery rates for regional freight vary but generally fall in the range of $18.00 to $30.00 per delivery, depending on shipment size, weight, distance, and other factors. Regional freight delivery is more common at larger hubs with established commercial client relationships and is less prevalent at smaller, more rural hubs.

C. White-Glove Delivery

59. White-glove delivery is SLG's premium service offering. It involves inside placement, assembly, or specialized handling of items such as furniture, large appliances, medical equipment, and other high-value or oversized goods. White-glove deliveries are qualitatively different from standard last-mile and regional freight deliveries in multiple respects.

60. Per-delivery rates for white-glove deliveries range from $28.00 to $38.00, reflecting the higher skill, equipment, and time requirements associated with this delivery type. White-glove delivery often requires a two-person team, and the ICOA permits drivers performing white-glove deliveries to arrange for a helper at the driver's own expense. This introduces an additional dimension of variation, as white-glove drivers incur labor costs that standard last-mile drivers do not.

61. White-glove delivery requires additional training beyond the standard training required under the ICOA. Drivers who perform white-glove deliveries must complete supplemental training modules covering safe handling techniques, assembly procedures for specific product categories, customer interaction protocols for in-home delivery, and damage prevention and reporting.

62. Critically, white-glove delivery is only available at certain hubs—primarily HUB-01 through HUB-05 (the five large Texas metropolitan hubs). At the remaining nine hubs, white-glove delivery is minimal or non-existent. Moreover, even at hubs where white-glove delivery is available, driver participation is voluntary. Not all drivers at white-glove-capable hubs choose to perform white-glove deliveries, and not all drivers at those hubs have vehicles suitable for white-glove work.

D. Impact on "Similarly Situated" Analysis

63. The variation in delivery types performed by individual drivers has a direct and material impact on whether the proposed collective members can be considered "similarly situated."

64. The mix of delivery types performed by each driver varies significantly. Some drivers perform only standard last-mile deliveries throughout the relevant period. Others perform a combination of standard last-mile and regional freight deliveries. Still others—primarily at the larger Texas metropolitan hubs—perform a combination of all three delivery types, including white-glove deliveries. And among drivers who perform white-glove deliveries, the proportion of white-glove work relative to other delivery types varies based on individual driver preferences, equipment capability, and hub-level demand.

65. This variation in delivery type directly affects: (a) compensation—a driver whose delivery mix includes a significant proportion of white-glove deliveries will have materially higher per-delivery earnings than a driver who performs only standard last-mile deliveries; (b) hours worked—white-glove deliveries typically take longer per stop due to inside placement and assembly, affecting the number of deliveries a driver can complete per day; (c) equipment investment—white-glove drivers must have vehicles capable of transporting large items and may need to invest in assembly tools and protective materials; (d) skill requirements—white-glove drivers must complete additional training and possess skills (such as furniture assembly) that standard last-mile drivers do not need; and (e) the overall nature of the work performed—carrying a package to a doorstep is a fundamentally different activity from carrying a sofa into a third-floor apartment and assembling it.

66. These differences make it inappropriate to treat all 1,187 drivers as a single, undifferentiated collective. A standard last-mile driver at HUB-13 (Lubbock) who covers 120 miles of rural West Texas delivering packages to residential doorsteps is not "similarly situated" to a white-glove driver at HUB-02 (Dallas) who carries furniture into apartments in Uptown Dallas and assembles it on site. The work is different, the compensation is different, the equipment is different, the skills are different, and the hub-level operational environment is different.

VI. DEGREE OF CONTROL — VARIATIONS ACROSS HUBS

67. Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification rests on the assertion that SLG exercises a uniform degree of control over its drivers that is sufficient to establish an employment relationship under the FLSA. Based on my direct knowledge of SLG's operations across all fourteen hubs, that characterization is inaccurate. While SLG maintains certain baseline standards that apply across hubs—as any reputable logistics company must to ensure service quality and safety—the actual degree and nature of operational involvement varies materially across hubs and across drivers.

A. Uniform and Branding Requirements

68. The ICOA requires drivers to use SLG-branded uniforms and vehicle placards when performing deliveries. This requirement exists to maintain brand consistency and professionalism in customer-facing interactions and is a common feature of independent contractor agreements in the logistics and delivery industry.

69. However, the enforcement and practical implementation of this requirement varies across hubs. Some hubs provide drivers with SLG-branded polo shirts at no cost; others make branded apparel available for purchase at cost. The vehicle placards are magnetic and removable—they are affixed to the driver's personal vehicle during deliveries and can be removed at any time when the driver is not performing SLG deliveries. Drivers use their own vehicles, which are not owned, leased, or titled by SLG. When a driver is not performing deliveries for SLG, the driver's vehicle bears no SLG branding.

70. I note that the branding requirement is limited in scope. SLG does not dictate what drivers wear outside of the branded polo shirt, does not require drivers to maintain their vehicles in any particular color or appearance standard beyond the SLG placard, and does not restrict drivers from performing delivery services for other companies when not engaged in SLG deliveries.

B. GPS Tracking — Purpose and Limitations

71. SLG provides telematics devices for installation in driver vehicles. When the driver is within the delivery window and has accepted active deliveries, the GPS tracking function is active. The GPS data serves several purposes: (a) providing customer-facing delivery tracking, including estimated arrival times communicated to customers through SLG's client portals; (b) safety monitoring, including identification of potential unsafe driving patterns; and (c) dispute resolution, such as confirming delivery times and locations when customers dispute whether a delivery was made.

72. The GPS data is not used to micromanage driver movements in real time. At most hubs, drivers are not monitored in real time by dispatchers or hub staff. GPS data is stored in SLG's systems and reviewed retrospectively only when specific issues arise—such as customer complaints about missed deliveries, delivery timing disputes, or safety incidents. There is no "control room" at any hub where dispatchers track driver movements on a live map and direct drivers to particular locations or routes.

73. The extent of GPS data review varies across hubs based on hub manager practices. Some hub managers review GPS data more frequently—for example, to assess route efficiency or to investigate patterns in customer complaints—while others review GPS data only in response to specific incidents. This variation is another example of the hub-level management discretion described in Section III.D above.

C. Training Requirements

74. The ICOA requires all drivers to complete sixteen hours of initial training and four hours of quarterly refresher training. This training covers safety protocols, customer service standards, and equipment handling procedures. The training is designed to ensure that drivers meet baseline standards for safe and professional delivery service.

75. The content and delivery method of training vary across hubs. Some hubs conduct initial training through in-person sessions led by the hub manager or a designated training coordinator. Other hubs use online training modules that drivers complete at their own pace. Some hubs combine in-person and online training elements. The quarterly refresher training likewise varies in format and emphasis across hubs.

76. In addition, hubs that offer white-glove delivery provide specialized supplemental training to drivers who elect to perform white-glove services. This training covers topics specific to white-glove delivery, including safe handling of large and fragile items, furniture assembly techniques, in-home delivery protocols, and customer communication standards for premium services. Not all drivers receive this supplemental training—only those who have opted to perform white-glove deliveries and have been assessed as having appropriate equipment and capabilities.

77. The variation in training content and delivery method means that drivers at different hubs—and drivers performing different delivery types within the same hub—receive different training. This further undermines the assertion that all 1,187 drivers share a sufficiently common experience to warrant collective treatment.

D. Subcontracting.

78. The ICOA expressly permits drivers to subcontract their delivery obligations to third parties, subject to obtaining prior written approval from SLG. The approval authority for subcontracting requests rests with the hub manager at the driver's assigned hub.

79. I acknowledge that subcontracting approvals are infrequent on a company-wide basis. However, based on my review of subcontracting records across all fourteen hubs, I believe this is largely because relatively few drivers request subcontracting authorization rather than because SLG has a policy or practice of blanket denials. The subcontracting provision in the ICOA is a meaningful contractual right, and SLG does not discourage drivers from exercising it.

80. At certain hubs, subcontracting has been approved for drivers who needed coverage during personal absences, such as medical leave, family obligations, or vacation. In those cases, the hub manager evaluated the proposed substitute driver's qualifications, including the substitute's driving record, vehicle condition, and insurance coverage, and approved the subcontracting arrangement. Hub managers exercise independent judgment on subcontracting requests, and the approval standards and processes may vary from hub to hub based on the hub manager's assessment of the specific circumstances.

81. The existence and exercise of the subcontracting right is relevant to the classification analysis because it is a hallmark of independent contractor status. Employees generally cannot subcontract their job duties to third parties; independent contractors can.

E. Rate-Setting.

82. Per-delivery rates are set by SLG based on delivery type, package weight, delivery distance, service level, and other factors specified in the ICOA rate schedule. Drivers do not individually negotiate per-delivery rates, and rates are standardized within each delivery type and rate tier.

83. However, the rate structures produce meaningfully different compensation outcomes across hubs due to the differences in delivery mix, geographic factors, and client contracts described above. A driver at a hub with a high proportion of white-glove deliveries and short urban routes will have a different effective hourly earnings rate than a driver at a hub with exclusively standard last-mile deliveries and long rural routes, even though both are compensated under the same rate schedule.

84. Rate-setting by the service platform is consistent with independent contractor arrangements in the logistics industry, where a platform or logistics company establishes rates for services and independent contractors choose whether to accept or decline work at those rates. This is analogous to ride-sharing platforms, freelance marketplaces, and other gig-economy models where the platform sets the price and the independent contractor exercises discretion over whether to accept assignments at the offered rate.

VII. DIFFERENCES IN ICOA VERSIONS AND THEIR IMPACT

85. During the relevant period (April 30, 2022 through the present), SLG's drivers have operated under three different versions of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement. These three versions contain material differences in their contractual terms, creating distinct legal frameworks that govern the driver-SLG relationship for different subsets of the proposed collective.

86. The three ICOA versions are:

(a) ICOA v1.0 (2018). This is the original ICOA template drafted by SLG's outside counsel, Pennfield & Daye LLP, and first deployed in 2018. ICOA v1.0 does not contain an arbitration clause and does not contain a class or collective action waiver. It sets forth the basic terms of the independent contractor relationship, including delivery obligations, compensation structure, vehicle requirements, and termination provisions.

(b) ICOA v2.0 (August 2020). ICOA v2.0 was a revised version of the agreement introduced in August 2020. It incorporated modifications to the subcontracting provisions, including more detailed requirements for substitute driver qualifications, and updated the branding provisions to address SLG's rebranding initiative. Like ICOA v1.0, ICOA v2.0 does not contain an arbitration clause or a class/collective action waiver.

(c) ICOA v3.0 (January 2023). ICOA v3.0 was introduced in January 2023 and contains significant additions, including: (i) an arbitration clause requiring that disputes between the driver and SLG be resolved through binding individual arbitration administered by JAMS; (ii) a class and collective action waiver, under which the driver agrees not to participate in any class, collective, or representative action against SLG; and (iii) updated non-competition terms providing for a twelve-month, fifty-mile-radius restriction from the driver's assigned hub following termination of the agreement.

87. Based on my review of SLG's driver records, approximately 640 of the 1,187 unique drivers who performed delivery services during the relevant period signed ICOA v3.0. The remaining approximately 547 drivers operated under either ICOA v1.0 or ICOA v2.0 and were not subject to the arbitration clause or collective action waiver.

88. The existence of three different contractual frameworks governing the driver-SLG relationship during the relevant period is itself a material difference that undermines the assertion that all 1,187 drivers are similarly situated. Drivers operating under ICOA v3.0 are subject to different dispute resolution procedures, different non-competition obligations, and different subcontracting and branding terms than drivers operating under the earlier versions. These contractual differences may affect the merits of individual drivers' claims and the defenses available to SLG with respect to particular subsets of drivers.

89. I defer to the declaration of Karen Lund, SLG's Director of Driver Relations, for a more detailed comparison of the specific ICOA terms across the three versions and the implications of those differences for the proposed collective.

VIII. NAMED PLAINTIFF MARCUS DELANO — SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES

90. Marcus Delano, the named Plaintiff in this action, performed delivery services out of HUB-01 (Fort Worth, Texas) from approximately March 2021 through September 2024. I am familiar with Mr. Delano's tenure at SLG based on my oversight of HUB-01 operations and my review of SLG's driver records.

91. Mr. Delano signed the original ICOA v1.0 (the 2018 template) when he began performing delivery services for SLG in March 2021. He did not subsequently sign ICOA v2.0 or ICOA v3.0. As a result, Mr. Delano is not subject to the arbitration clause or collective action waiver contained in ICOA v3.0. This places Mr. Delano in a different contractual posture than the approximately 640 drivers who signed ICOA v3.0 and who may be subject to mandatory individual arbitration.

92. Mr. Delano's experience at HUB-01 is not representative of drivers at SLG's other hubs. HUB-01 is one of SLG's five largest metropolitan hubs and offers all three delivery types—standard last-mile, regional freight, and white-glove delivery. Many drivers at other hubs operate in materially different environments, with different delivery mixes, different geographic conditions, different hours patterns, and different compensation profiles.

93. Based on my review of SLG's operational records, Mr. Delano's average weekly hours during calendar year 2023 were approximately 58 hours, and his average weekly gross pay during the same period was approximately $1,247. These figures are specific to Mr. Delano's individual work pattern—including the delivery types he chose to accept, the number of days per week he chose to work, and his own route and scheduling preferences—and they should not be extrapolated to represent the experience of the broader driver population. As noted above, weekly hours worked across SLG's driver population vary widely, from approximately 25 to 60 hours per week, and compensation varies based on delivery type mix, hub location, and individual driver choices.

94. I defer to the declaration of Dennis Faulkner, the hub manager for HUB-01, for hub-specific details regarding Mr. Delano's performance history, his delivery type mix, and the operational practices at HUB-01 during Mr. Delano's tenure.

IX. CONCLUSION

95. Based on my nine years of experience with SLG's operations—including nearly four years as Regional Operations Manager and over five years as Vice President of Operations overseeing all fourteen hubs—it is my considered judgment that the approximately 1,187 drivers in Plaintiff's proposed collective are not similarly situated for purposes of conditional certification under Section 216(b) of the FLSA.

96. Material differences exist across the proposed collective in multiple dimensions, including:

(a) Hub size, geography, and market characteristics. SLG's fourteen hubs range from 29 drivers (Lubbock) to 195 drivers (Houston) and serve dramatically different geographic territories, from dense urban environments to sprawling rural areas.

(b) Delivery type mix. Drivers perform different combinations of standard last-mile, regional freight, and white-glove deliveries, with some hubs offering all three types and others offering only one or two. These delivery type differences affect compensation, hours, equipment requirements, and the nature of the work.

(c) Hub manager practices and enforcement of ICOA provisions. Hub managers exercise localized discretion over operational decisions, including delivery assignment communication, performance review processes, subcontracting approval, and vehicle inspection practices. These practices are not uniform across hubs.

(d) Driver autonomy in scheduling, route selection, and delivery acceptance. Drivers exercise substantial individual discretion over which deliveries to accept, how many days and hours to work, and the routes and sequences they follow in completing their deliveries. This individual autonomy produces wide variation in work patterns across the driver population.

(e) ICOA version. Approximately 640 drivers signed ICOA v3.0, which contains an arbitration clause and collective action waiver, while approximately 547 drivers operate under earlier versions that do not contain these provisions. The existence of three different contractual frameworks creates material differences in the legal rights and obligations of drivers within the proposed collective.

(f) Individual driver hours worked, earnings, and engagement patterns. Weekly hours range from approximately 25 to 60 hours, and compensation varies significantly based on delivery type mix, hub location, and individual driver choices.

97. Given these material differences, individualized inquiries would predominate over any common questions if the proposed collective were certified. Resolving the classification question for each driver would require examination of that driver's specific hub, delivery type mix, work patterns, scheduling choices, route discretion, ICOA version, and hub-level management practices. Adjudicating these issues on a collective-wide basis would be unmanageable and would not promote judicial economy.

98. For these reasons, I respectfully submit that Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification should be denied.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on August 11, 2025, at Irving, Texas.

________________________________________

Trevor Sandoval Vice President of Operations Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. 4200 Commerce Gateway Blvd., Suite 800 Irving, TX 75039

Date: ________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 11, 2025, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Declaration of Trevor Sandoval in Support of Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification to be served on all counsel of record via the Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send notification of such filing to all parties registered to receive electronic notice in this case, including:

Claudia Hartwell HARTWELL & BRASHEAR PLLC 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 1750 Dallas, TX 75201 Counsel for Plaintiff Marcus Delano

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________

Bernard Crawford CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-7800 Facsimile: (214) 555-7801 bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com

Counsel for Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.

Date: August 11, 2025

MARCUS DELANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.,

Defendant.	Hon. Rebecca Chen
Hub ID	Location	Approximate No. of Unique Drivers (Relevant Period)
HUB-01	Fort Worth, TX	142
HUB-02	Dallas, TX	168
HUB-03	Houston, TX	195
HUB-04	San Antonio, TX	121
HUB-05	Austin, TX	98
HUB-06	Oklahoma City, OK	87
HUB-07	Tulsa, OK	64
HUB-08	Baton Rouge, LA	53
HUB-09	New Orleans, LA	71
HUB-10	Little Rock, AR	46
HUB-11	Shreveport, LA	34
HUB-12	El Paso, TX	41
HUB-13	Lubbock, TX	29
HUB-14	Corpus Christi, TX	38
Total	1,187

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
DECLARATION OF TREVOR SANDOVAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION
I, Trevor Sandoval, hereby declare as follows:
1.  I am the Vice President of Operations of Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. ("SLG" or the "Company"). My business address is 4200 Commerce Gateway Blvd., Suite 800, Irving, Texas 75039. I am over the age of twenty-one and am fully competent to make this declaration.
2.  I make this declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, except where I indicate that statements are based on my review of SLG business records maintained in the ordinary course of business, in which case I identify the basis for my knowledge. Where I reference specific data or figures, those are derived from SLG's internal operational databases, financial records, or reports prepared at my direction by members of my operations team.
3.  I submit this declaration in support of Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Marcus Delano's Motion for Conditional Certification under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The purpose of this declaration is to provide the Court with testimony regarding: (a) the operational structure of SLG's fourteen distribution hubs; (b) the material differences in operations, delivery mix, geographic conditions, and hub manager practices across those fourteen hubs; (c) the degree of autonomy exercised by independent contractor drivers engaged by SLG; (d) the significant variations in delivery types and their impact on driver experience and compensation; and (e) the differences in contractual terms among drivers operating under three distinct versions of SLG's Independent Contractor Operating Agreement. Taken together, these facts demonstrate that the approximately 1,187 drivers in the proposed collective are not similarly situated and that individualized inquiries would predominate over any common questions, rendering conditional certification inappropriate.
I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS OF DECLARANT
4.  My full name is Trevor Sandoval. I currently serve as Vice President of Operations of Stonefield Logistics Group Inc., a position I have held since January 2020.
5.  I joined SLG in June 2016 as a Regional Operations Manager. In that role, I was responsible for overseeing the operations of four SLG distribution hubs in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area and North Texas. I held the Regional Operations Manager position from June 2016 through December 2019, at which time I was promoted to Vice President of Operations effective January 1, 2020.
6.  In my current role as Vice President of Operations, I have broad responsibility for overseeing the day-to-day operations of all fourteen SLG distribution hubs across the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas. My responsibilities include, but are not limited to: (a) managing and directing the fourteen hub managers who oversee local hub operations; (b) setting and implementing company-wide operational policies and procedures; (c) overseeing the implementation and ongoing operation of the RouteSync dispatch platform, which is SLG's proprietary logistics management and delivery assignment system; (d) coordinating delivery logistics across all of SLG's service lines, including standard last-mile delivery, regional freight delivery, and white-glove delivery; (e) reviewing and analyzing operational performance data across hubs; (f) managing relationships with key clients whose delivery needs span multiple hubs; and (g) collaborating with other members of SLG's senior leadership team on strategic and operational matters.
7.  I report directly to Gerald Wynn, SLG's Chief Executive Officer. In the course of my duties, I work closely with Karen Lund, SLG's Director of Driver Relations, and Aaron Turcotte, SLG's Chief People Officer, on matters relating to driver operations, driver engagement, and the Independent Contractor Operating Agreements that govern SLG's relationships with its drivers.
8.  I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Supply Chain Management from the University of North Texas and a Master of Business Administration degree with a concentration in Operations and Logistics from Southern Methodist University. Prior to joining SLG, I held operations management positions at two other transportation and logistics companies over a period of approximately eight years.
9.  I have direct supervisory authority over all fourteen hub managers, including Dennis Faulkner, the hub manager for SLG's Fort Worth distribution hub (designated internally as "HUB-01"), which is the hub at which the named Plaintiff, Marcus Delano, performed delivery services. In this capacity, I am familiar with the operations of each of SLG's fourteen hubs and the material differences among them. I visit each hub in person on a regular basis—typically at least once per quarter for each hub—and I receive weekly operational reports and performance dashboards from each hub manager.
II. OVERVIEW OF STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.
10.  SLG is a Delaware-incorporated, Texas-headquartered transportation and logistics company. The Company was founded in 2011 by Gerald Wynn and two other co-founders with the objective of building a scalable last-mile delivery platform to serve major retailers, e-commerce companies, and commercial clients across the South-Central United States.
11.  Since its founding, SLG has grown from a single distribution hub in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to a network of fourteen distribution hubs operating across four states. The Company specializes in three principal service lines: (a) standard last-mile residential and commercial delivery; (b) regional freight delivery; and (c) white-glove delivery, which involves premium services such as inside placement, assembly, and specialized handling of high-value or oversized items.
12.  In July 2019, Ridgepoint Capital Partners Fund III, LP ("Ridgepoint") acquired a seventy-two percent (72%) equity stake in SLG for approximately $285 million. Following Ridgepoint's investment, SLG expanded its hub network, upgraded its technology platform (including the development of RouteSync 2.0), and broadened its service offerings. Ridgepoint currently maintains its majority equity position in the Company.
13.  For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, SLG reported total revenue of approximately $312.7 million and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") of approximately $28.4 million. SLG's revenue is generated through contracts with retailers, e-commerce platforms, furniture and appliance manufacturers, and other commercial clients that require delivery services.
14.  As of the date of this declaration, SLG operates fourteen distribution hubs across four states: eight hubs in Texas, two hubs in Oklahoma, three hubs in Louisiana, and one hub in Arkansas. The Company engages approximately 1,450 drivers at any given time under Independent Contractor Operating Agreements ("ICOAs"). Based on my review of SLG's driver records, approximately 1,187 unique drivers signed ICOAs and performed delivery services for SLG during the period from April 30, 2022 through the present—the period identified in Plaintiff's Motion as the proposed collective period.
III. SLG'S 14 DISTRIBUTION HUBS — STRUCTURE AND MATERIAL DIFFERENCES
15.  A central theme of this declaration is that SLG's fourteen distribution hubs are not uniform or fungible. They differ in size, geographic footprint, delivery mix, client base, management practices, and operational complexity. These differences are material to the question of whether the approximately 1,187 drivers in the proposed collective are "similarly situated" for purposes of Section 216(b) of the FLSA.
A. Hub Overview
16.  The following table sets forth each of SLG's fourteen distribution hubs, including the hub identification code, location, and the approximate number of unique drivers who signed ICOAs and performed delivery services at each hub during the relevant period (April 30, 2022 through the present):
17.  As the table reflects, the number of drivers at each hub varies substantially—from as few as 29 drivers at HUB-13 (Lubbock) to as many as 195 drivers at HUB-03 (Houston). This variation in hub size is not merely a function of population differences; it reflects fundamentally different operational environments, client needs, delivery volumes, and logistical challenges.
B. Variations in Hub Size and Scope
18.  There is a significant disparity in hub size and operational scope across SLG's fourteen hubs. The largest hub, HUB-03 in Houston, engaged approximately 195 unique drivers during the relevant period—nearly seven times the number of drivers at HUB-13 in Lubbock, which engaged only 29 unique drivers during the same period. The five largest hubs (HUB-01 through HUB-05), all located in major Texas metropolitan areas, collectively account for approximately 724 of the 1,187 unique drivers, or roughly sixty-one percent (61%) of the total proposed collective.
19.  The larger metropolitan hubs—Dallas (HUB-02), Houston (HUB-03), Fort Worth (HUB-01), San Antonio (HUB-04), and Austin (HUB-05)—serve dense, heavily populated metropolitan areas with high delivery volumes, multiple delivery types, and more complex routing and scheduling demands. These hubs typically operate under multiple client contracts simultaneously, requiring coordination across different service levels and delivery specifications. At HUB-03 in Houston, for example, the hub serves delivery territories spanning portions of Harris, Fort Bend, Montgomery, Brazoria, and Galveston counties, with distinct delivery characteristics in each area.
20.  By contrast, SLG's smaller hubs—Lubbock (HUB-13), Shreveport (HUB-11), Corpus Christi (HUB-14), Little Rock (HUB-10), and El Paso (HUB-12)—serve less populated regions with a different delivery mix, lower daily delivery volumes, and fewer logistical complexities. These hubs typically serve fewer clients, offer fewer delivery types, and present different operational challenges, such as longer route distances and greater spacing between delivery stops.
21.  Each hub is managed by its own hub manager, who exercises localized management discretion in day-to-day operations. The hub manager is the primary point of contact for drivers at that hub and is responsible for making operational decisions that are tailored to the specific characteristics of the hub's market, geography, client base, and driver pool. While hub managers operate within SLG's overall operational framework, they are not required to follow a single, rigid playbook for every aspect of hub operations. This is by design: the Company recognizes that what works in a dense urban market like Houston or Dallas may not be appropriate or effective in a rural or mid-market setting like Lubbock or Shreveport.
C. Variations in Delivery Mix by Hub
22.  SLG offers three principal service lines: (1) standard last-mile residential delivery, which involves the pickup and delivery of packages to residential or commercial addresses; (2) regional freight delivery, which involves the transport of larger shipments between hubs or from hubs to commercial clients; and (3) white-glove delivery, which is a premium service involving inside placement, assembly, or specialized handling of items such as furniture, appliances, and medical equipment.
23.  The mix of these three service lines varies substantially across SLG's fourteen hubs. This variation is not incidental—it is a function of client contracts, local market demand, geographic factors, and the availability of drivers with appropriate equipment and capabilities. The delivery mix at a given hub directly affects the compensation, hours, skill requirements, and overall work experience of drivers at that hub.
24.  The larger metropolitan hubs—HUB-01 (Fort Worth), HUB-02 (Dallas), HUB-03 (Houston), HUB-04 (San Antonio), and HUB-05 (Austin)—handle all three delivery types. At these hubs, white-glove deliveries may constitute between fifteen percent (15%) and thirty percent (30%) of total delivery volume, depending on the hub's client contracts and seasonal demand patterns. These hubs have dedicated white-glove client relationships, including contracts with national furniture retailers and appliance manufacturers that require inside delivery, placement, and assembly services.
25.  Mid-size hubs—HUB-06 (Oklahoma City), HUB-07 (Tulsa), and HUB-09 (New Orleans)—primarily handle standard last-mile and regional freight deliveries. White-glove delivery volume at these hubs is minimal, typically constituting only five percent (5%) to ten percent (10%) of total delivery volume. White-glove services at these hubs are generally limited to overflow work from larger hubs or occasional local client requests.
26.  Smaller and more rural hubs—HUB-08 (Baton Rouge), HUB-10 (Little Rock), HUB-11 (Shreveport), HUB-12 (El Paso), HUB-13 (Lubbock), and HUB-14 (Corpus Christi)—focus almost exclusively on standard last-mile and regional freight deliveries. White-glove deliveries at these hubs are rare or non-existent. For example, based on my review of SLG's operational data, HUB-13 (Lubbock) performed zero white-glove deliveries during the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2025, and HUB-11 (Shreveport) performed fewer than fifty white-glove deliveries during the same period.
27.  The delivery mix variation has a direct and material impact on driver compensation. White-glove drivers are compensated at the higher end of the per-delivery rate range—$28.00 to $38.00 per delivery—compared to standard last-mile drivers, who receive per-delivery rates ranging from $14.50 to $22.00. This means that drivers at hubs with a significant white-glove component have materially different compensation profiles than drivers at hubs where white-glove delivery is unavailable. Moreover, not all drivers at white-glove-capable hubs actually perform white-glove deliveries. Driver selection for white-glove assignments is based on equipment capability (the driver must have a vehicle suitable for transporting large items) and driver willingness (participation in white-glove delivery is voluntary, not mandatory).
D. Variations in Hub Manager Practices
28.  Each hub manager has discretion over a range of operational decisions that directly affect the day-to-day experience of drivers at that hub. These decisions include, but are not limited to:
(a) How delivery assignments are communicated and sequenced through the RouteSync dispatch platform, including the timing of delivery postings and the order in which deliveries appear in a driver's queue;
(b) Whether and how frequently hub-level performance meetings or check-ins are held with drivers;
(c) How subcontracting requests from drivers are evaluated and processed, since the ICOA vests approval authority for subcontracting with the hub manager;
(d) Enforcement of the 85% minimum acceptance rate requirement set forth in the ICOA—some hub managers apply this threshold strictly, triggering formal performance reviews when a driver falls below the threshold, while others use informal counseling and mentoring to address low acceptance rates without initiating a formal review process;
(e) Vehicle inspection practices and frequency, including the extent to which hub-level staff visually inspect driver vehicles upon arrival at the hub;
(f) Local customer relationship management and the handling of delivery disputes or customer complaints at the hub level.
29.  Hub managers are not required to follow a single, company-wide protocol for each of these decisions. SLG's operational philosophy is to provide hub managers with a framework of general guidelines and then permit them to adapt their practices to local market conditions, client requirements, geographic factors, and the characteristics of their driver pool. This approach reflects the reality that managing delivery operations in a dense urban environment like downtown Dallas is fundamentally different from managing delivery operations in a rural area like West Texas.
30.  To illustrate, the Fort Worth hub (HUB-01), managed by Dennis Faulkner, operates in a large metropolitan area with high delivery density, multiple delivery types (including a significant white-glove component), and a large driver pool of approximately 142 drivers. Mr. Faulkner's management approach at HUB-01 is necessarily different from the approach taken by the hub manager at HUB-13 (Lubbock), which has only 29 drivers, handles no white-glove deliveries, and serves a geographically dispersed delivery territory. Similarly, HUB-03 (Houston), SLG's largest hub with approximately 195 drivers, presents its own unique management challenges related to the size of the Houston metropolitan area, traffic conditions, and the complexity of multi-county delivery territories.
31.  The variation in hub manager practices means that drivers at different hubs experience meaningfully different operational environments, even where the same general ICOA terms apply. A driver at HUB-13 (Lubbock) who interacts with the hub manager on a near-daily basis because of the small driver pool has a fundamentally different operational relationship with SLG than a driver at HUB-03 (Houston) who may interact with the hub manager infrequently due to the large number of drivers and the geographic dispersion of the Houston delivery territory.
E. Geographic and Market Differences
32.  The geographic and market characteristics of SLG's fourteen hub territories vary dramatically, and these differences have a direct impact on the driver experience in ways that are relevant to the "similarly situated" inquiry.
33.  Delivery territories, route distances, and delivery density differ significantly between urban and rural hubs. At urban hubs such as Dallas (HUB-02), Houston (HUB-03), Fort Worth (HUB-01), San Antonio (HUB-04), and Austin (HUB-05), delivery routes tend to be shorter in total mileage but feature higher stop density—meaning that drivers make more delivery stops per route mile. A driver at HUB-02 in Dallas may cover thirty to fifty miles in a day but complete forty or more delivery stops. The challenges at urban hubs include navigating dense traffic, locating parking at apartment complexes, and managing tight delivery windows in congested areas.
34.  At rural and mid-market hubs such as Lubbock (HUB-13), Shreveport (HUB-11), Little Rock (HUB-10), El Paso (HUB-12), and Corpus Christi (HUB-14), routes are longer in total mileage but feature lower stop density. Drivers at these hubs may cover routes spanning one hundred miles or more in a single day but complete fewer total delivery stops. The challenges at rural hubs are different: longer drive times between stops, greater vehicle wear and fuel costs, exposure to variable weather conditions over longer routes, and the need to manage time efficiently across large geographic areas.
35.  These geographic differences directly affect driver hours, earnings per route, vehicle operating costs, and the degree of route discretion available to drivers. A driver at a rural hub who covers 120 miles in a day with fifteen stops has a materially different work experience than a driver at an urban hub who covers 40 miles with forty-five stops. The time spent driving versus the time spent at delivery locations, the fuel and maintenance costs incurred, and the nature of the physical demands associated with the work all differ based on geography.
36.  Additionally, different hubs serve different client bases with different delivery requirements. Some hubs are heavily weighted toward e-commerce last-mile delivery for national retailers; others have a greater proportion of regional freight for commercial and industrial clients. These client-driven differences further contribute to the variation in driver experience across hubs.
IV. DRIVER AUTONOMY IN ROUTE SELECTION AND SCHEDULING
37.  A central issue in this litigation is whether SLG's independent contractor drivers are "employees" under the FLSA. A key factor in that analysis is the degree of control exercised by SLG over the drivers' work. Based on my experience overseeing SLG's operations and my familiarity with the ICOA terms and operational practices, I can attest that SLG's drivers exercise substantial autonomy in multiple dimensions of their work, including route selection, delivery sequencing, scheduling, and the decision of which deliveries to accept.
A. Delivery Assignment Through RouteSync
38.  RouteSync is SLG's proprietary dispatch platform, which SLG developed internally and deployed across all fourteen hubs beginning in 2019. RouteSync serves as the primary mechanism through which available delivery assignments are communicated to drivers.
39.  The RouteSync platform operates as follows: available delivery assignments are posted to the system by hub operations staff, typically on a rolling basis as client orders are received and processed. Each delivery posting includes key information such as the pickup location (typically the hub), the delivery address, the estimated package weight, the delivery type (standard last-mile, regional freight, or white-glove), and the per-delivery rate applicable to that assignment.
40.  Drivers access RouteSync through a mobile application installed on their personal smartphones or tablets. When delivery assignments are posted, drivers may review the available assignments and choose to accept or decline individual deliveries. RouteSync does not mandate a specific route or delivery sequence. It presents the available deliveries and allows drivers to build their own daily schedules within the general delivery window of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday.
41.  Drivers have the ability to choose which deliveries to accept based on their own preferences, including vehicle capacity, geographic preference (e.g., preferring deliveries in a particular area), personal scheduling needs, and the per-delivery rate associated with each assignment. This is a key feature of SLG's operating model and reflects the independent contractor relationship contemplated by the ICOA.
B. Minimum Acceptance Rate — Context and Variability
42.  The ICOA requires drivers to maintain a minimum acceptance rate of eighty-five percent (85%) per rolling thirty-day period. This provision is designed to ensure a baseline level of service reliability for SLG's clients, who depend on SLG's ability to fulfill delivery commitments. The 85% threshold means that drivers may decline up to fifteen percent (15%) of offered deliveries without consequence during any rolling thirty-day period.
43.  In practice, actual acceptance rates vary significantly across drivers and across hubs. Based on my review of RouteSync data, some drivers consistently accept ninety-five percent (95%) to one hundred percent (100%) of offered deliveries, while others operate near the 85% threshold. There are also drivers whose acceptance rates occasionally dip below 85% during certain periods—for example, during holiday seasons, periods of personal scheduling constraints, or when a driver is transitioning between delivery types.
44.  The enforcement of the 85% minimum acceptance rate is not uniform across hubs. Hub managers have discretion in how they apply this threshold. At some hubs, falling below the 85% threshold triggers a formal performance review process, which involves a documented meeting between the hub manager and the driver to discuss the driver's acceptance patterns and explore whether adjustments can be made. At other hubs, the hub manager addresses low acceptance rates through informal counseling—a conversation rather than a formal review. In either case, a performance review triggered by falling below the 85% threshold is not an automatic termination event. It is a consultative discussion that may result in modified delivery offerings, a reassessment of the driver's preferred delivery territory, or other adjustments. In my experience, the vast majority of performance reviews related to acceptance rates result in the driver continuing to perform delivery services for SLG.
C. Route Discretion and Delivery Sequencing
45.  Once a driver accepts a set of deliveries for a given day or delivery session, the driver—not SLG—determines the order in which to complete those deliveries and the route to follow in completing them. This is a critical aspect of driver autonomy under SLG's operating model.
46.  RouteSync provides a suggested routing sequence based on an algorithm that considers geographic proximity and estimated traffic conditions. However, drivers are expressly not required to follow the suggested route. Drivers exercise their own judgment regarding traffic conditions, customer availability, efficient sequencing, and personal preferences in determining the order and route for their deliveries.
47.  GPS data collected through SLG's telematics system confirms that drivers frequently deviate from RouteSync's suggested routes. Based on an analysis of GPS data conducted by my operations team in connection with this litigation, covering a sample of approximately 8,500 delivery sessions across multiple hubs during the six-month period from October 2024 through March 2025, drivers deviated from the suggested RouteSync routing in approximately sixty-eight percent (68%) of delivery sessions. These deviations ranged from minor resequencing of stops to entirely different routing approaches. This data demonstrates that drivers exercise meaningful and regular discretion over how they complete their accepted deliveries.
48.  The ability to determine route and delivery sequence is a key element of driver autonomy and differentiates SLG's model from traditional employer-directed route assignments, where a dispatcher assigns a fixed route and sequence that the driver is required to follow.
D. Scheduling Flexibility
49.  SLG's independent contractor drivers are not required to work a set number of hours per day, a minimum number of hours per week, or a minimum number of days per week. The ICOA establishes a delivery window of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, during which deliveries may be performed, but does not require drivers to be available or active during the entire window or on any particular day. Drivers self-select the days and hours during which they wish to perform delivery services.
50.  In practice, driver work patterns vary enormously across the driver population. Some drivers work six days per week and accept the maximum number of available deliveries; others work only three or four days per week. Some drivers concentrate their work in the early morning hours; others prefer to work later in the day. Some drivers take extended breaks during the day between delivery sessions; others work continuously throughout the delivery window.
51.  The variation in weekly hours worked across SLG's driver population is stark. Based on data analyzed by Dr. Priya Ramanathan of Corbin Risk Advisors—an expert retained by SLG in connection with this litigation—weekly hours worked by SLG drivers during the relevant period vary widely. Some drivers average twenty-five to thirty hours per week; others average fifty-five to sixty hours per week. The distribution of weekly hours does not cluster around any single norm but instead spans a broad range, reflecting the diverse work patterns of individual drivers who exercise genuine scheduling discretion.
52.  This variation in hours worked is itself evidence that SLG's drivers exercise meaningful autonomy over their schedules. If SLG exercised the type of control over driver schedules that characterizes an employment relationship, one would expect to see much less variation in hours worked and a much tighter clustering of work patterns around a company-mandated schedule. The data shows the opposite.
V. DELIVERY TYPES AND THEIR IMPACT ON DRIVER EXPERIENCE
53.  As discussed above, SLG offers three principal delivery types: standard last-mile delivery, regional freight delivery, and white-glove delivery. Each delivery type involves different work requirements, different equipment, different skill sets, and different compensation. The mix of delivery types performed by individual drivers varies significantly, and these variations are material to the "similarly situated" analysis.
A. Standard Last-Mile Delivery
54.  Standard last-mile delivery is SLG's most common delivery type and is performed at all fourteen hubs. It involves picking up packages at a distribution hub and delivering them to residential or commercial addresses within the hub's delivery territory.
55.  Standard last-mile delivery requires the driver to use a cargo van or box truck with a model year of 2015 or newer that has passed SLG's safety inspection. The vehicle must be driver-owned; SLG does not own or lease vehicles for drivers. Per-delivery rates for standard last-mile deliveries range from $14.50 to $22.00, with the rate varying based on package weight, delivery distance, and other factors specified in the ICOA rate schedule.
56.  Standard last-mile delivery is the baseline delivery type and accounts for the majority of delivery volume across SLG's hub network. It does not require specialized training beyond the standard initial training and quarterly refresher training required by the ICOA.
B. Regional Freight Delivery
57.  Regional freight delivery involves transporting larger shipments between SLG hubs or from hubs to commercial clients. This delivery type is distinct from standard last-mile delivery in several respects: the shipments are typically larger and heavier, the delivery distances may be longer, and the work may involve loading and unloading at commercial docks or warehouses.
58.  Regional freight delivery generally requires a box truck and may involve different physical demands than standard last-mile delivery. Per-delivery rates for regional freight vary but generally fall in the range of $18.00 to $30.00 per delivery, depending on shipment size, weight, distance, and other factors. Regional freight delivery is more common at larger hubs with established commercial client relationships and is less prevalent at smaller, more rural hubs.
C. White-Glove Delivery
59.  White-glove delivery is SLG's premium service offering. It involves inside placement, assembly, or specialized handling of items such as furniture, large appliances, medical equipment, and other high-value or oversized goods. White-glove deliveries are qualitatively different from standard last-mile and regional freight deliveries in multiple respects.
60.  Per-delivery rates for white-glove deliveries range from $28.00 to $38.00, reflecting the higher skill, equipment, and time requirements associated with this delivery type. White-glove delivery often requires a two-person team, and the ICOA permits drivers performing white-glove deliveries to arrange for a helper at the driver's own expense. This introduces an additional dimension of variation, as white-glove drivers incur labor costs that standard last-mile drivers do not.
61.  White-glove delivery requires additional training beyond the standard training required under the ICOA. Drivers who perform white-glove deliveries must complete supplemental training modules covering safe handling techniques, assembly procedures for specific product categories, customer interaction protocols for in-home delivery, and damage prevention and reporting.
62.  Critically, white-glove delivery is only available at certain hubs—primarily HUB-01 through HUB-05 (the five large Texas metropolitan hubs). At the remaining nine hubs, white-glove delivery is minimal or non-existent. Moreover, even at hubs where white-glove delivery is available, driver participation is voluntary. Not all drivers at white-glove-capable hubs choose to perform white-glove deliveries, and not all drivers at those hubs have vehicles suitable for white-glove work.
D. Impact on "Similarly Situated" Analysis
63.  The variation in delivery types performed by individual drivers has a direct and material impact on whether the proposed collective members can be considered "similarly situated."
64.  The mix of delivery types performed by each driver varies significantly. Some drivers perform only standard last-mile deliveries throughout the relevant period. Others perform a combination of standard last-mile and regional freight deliveries. Still others—primarily at the larger Texas metropolitan hubs—perform a combination of all three delivery types, including white-glove deliveries. And among drivers who perform white-glove deliveries, the proportion of white-glove work relative to other delivery types varies based on individual driver preferences, equipment capability, and hub-level demand.
65.  This variation in delivery type directly affects: (a) compensation—a driver whose delivery mix includes a significant proportion of white-glove deliveries will have materially higher per-delivery earnings than a driver who performs only standard last-mile deliveries; (b) hours worked—white-glove deliveries typically take longer per stop due to inside placement and assembly, affecting the number of deliveries a driver can complete per day; (c) equipment investment—white-glove drivers must have vehicles capable of transporting large items and may need to invest in assembly tools and protective materials; (d) skill requirements—white-glove drivers must complete additional training and possess skills (such as furniture assembly) that standard last-mile drivers do not need; and (e) the overall nature of the work performed—carrying a package to a doorstep is a fundamentally different activity from carrying a sofa into a third-floor apartment and assembling it.
66.  These differences make it inappropriate to treat all 1,187 drivers as a single, undifferentiated collective. A standard last-mile driver at HUB-13 (Lubbock) who covers 120 miles of rural West Texas delivering packages to residential doorsteps is not "similarly situated" to a white-glove driver at HUB-02 (Dallas) who carries furniture into apartments in Uptown Dallas and assembles it on site. The work is different, the compensation is different, the equipment is different, the skills are different, and the hub-level operational environment is different.
VI. DEGREE OF CONTROL — VARIATIONS ACROSS HUBS
67.  Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification rests on the assertion that SLG exercises a uniform degree of control over its drivers that is sufficient to establish an employment relationship under the FLSA. Based on my direct knowledge of SLG's operations across all fourteen hubs, that characterization is inaccurate. While SLG maintains certain baseline standards that apply across hubs—as any reputable logistics company must to ensure service quality and safety—the actual degree and nature of operational involvement varies materially across hubs and across drivers.
A. Uniform and Branding Requirements
68.  The ICOA requires drivers to use SLG-branded uniforms and vehicle placards when performing deliveries. This requirement exists to maintain brand consistency and professionalism in customer-facing interactions and is a common feature of independent contractor agreements in the logistics and delivery industry.
69.  However, the enforcement and practical implementation of this requirement varies across hubs. Some hubs provide drivers with SLG-branded polo shirts at no cost; others make branded apparel available for purchase at cost. The vehicle placards are magnetic and removable—they are affixed to the driver's personal vehicle during deliveries and can be removed at any time when the driver is not performing SLG deliveries. Drivers use their own vehicles, which are not owned, leased, or titled by SLG. When a driver is not performing deliveries for SLG, the driver's vehicle bears no SLG branding.
70.  I note that the branding requirement is limited in scope. SLG does not dictate what drivers wear outside of the branded polo shirt, does not require drivers to maintain their vehicles in any particular color or appearance standard beyond the SLG placard, and does not restrict drivers from performing delivery services for other companies when not engaged in SLG deliveries.
B. GPS Tracking — Purpose and Limitations
71.  SLG provides telematics devices for installation in driver vehicles. When the driver is within the delivery window and has accepted active deliveries, the GPS tracking function is active. The GPS data serves several purposes: (a) providing customer-facing delivery tracking, including estimated arrival times communicated to customers through SLG's client portals; (b) safety monitoring, including identification of potential unsafe driving patterns; and (c) dispute resolution, such as confirming delivery times and locations when customers dispute whether a delivery was made.
72.  The GPS data is not used to micromanage driver movements in real time. At most hubs, drivers are not monitored in real time by dispatchers or hub staff. GPS data is stored in SLG's systems and reviewed retrospectively only when specific issues arise—such as customer complaints about missed deliveries, delivery timing disputes, or safety incidents. There is no "control room" at any hub where dispatchers track driver movements on a live map and direct drivers to particular locations or routes.
73.  The extent of GPS data review varies across hubs based on hub manager practices. Some hub managers review GPS data more frequently—for example, to assess route efficiency or to investigate patterns in customer complaints—while others review GPS data only in response to specific incidents. This variation is another example of the hub-level management discretion described in Section III.D above.
C. Training Requirements
74.  The ICOA requires all drivers to complete sixteen hours of initial training and four hours of quarterly refresher training. This training covers safety protocols, customer service standards, and equipment handling procedures. The training is designed to ensure that drivers meet baseline standards for safe and professional delivery service.
75.  The content and delivery method of training vary across hubs. Some hubs conduct initial training through in-person sessions led by the hub manager or a designated training coordinator. Other hubs use online training modules that drivers complete at their own pace. Some hubs combine in-person and online training elements. The quarterly refresher training likewise varies in format and emphasis across hubs.
76.  In addition, hubs that offer white-glove delivery provide specialized supplemental training to drivers who elect to perform white-glove services. This training covers topics specific to white-glove delivery, including safe handling of large and fragile items, furniture assembly techniques, in-home delivery protocols, and customer communication standards for premium services. Not all drivers receive this supplemental training—only those who have opted to perform white-glove deliveries and have been assessed as having appropriate equipment and capabilities.
77.  The variation in training content and delivery method means that drivers at different hubs—and drivers performing different delivery types within the same hub—receive different training. This further undermines the assertion that all 1,187 drivers share a sufficiently common experience to warrant collective treatment.
D. Subcontracting.  
78.  The ICOA expressly permits drivers to subcontract their delivery obligations to third parties, subject to obtaining prior written approval from SLG. The approval authority for subcontracting requests rests with the hub manager at the driver's assigned hub.
79.  I acknowledge that subcontracting approvals are infrequent on a company-wide basis. However, based on my review of subcontracting records across all fourteen hubs, I believe this is largely because relatively few drivers request subcontracting authorization rather than because SLG has a policy or practice of blanket denials. The subcontracting provision in the ICOA is a meaningful contractual right, and SLG does not discourage drivers from exercising it.
80.  At certain hubs, subcontracting has been approved for drivers who needed coverage during personal absences, such as medical leave, family obligations, or vacation. In those cases, the hub manager evaluated the proposed substitute driver's qualifications, including the substitute's driving record, vehicle condition, and insurance coverage, and approved the subcontracting arrangement. Hub managers exercise independent judgment on subcontracting requests, and the approval standards and processes may vary from hub to hub based on the hub manager's assessment of the specific circumstances.
81.  The existence and exercise of the subcontracting right is relevant to the classification analysis because it is a hallmark of independent contractor status. Employees generally cannot subcontract their job duties to third parties; independent contractors can.
E. Rate-Setting.  
82.  Per-delivery rates are set by SLG based on delivery type, package weight, delivery distance, service level, and other factors specified in the ICOA rate schedule. Drivers do not individually negotiate per-delivery rates, and rates are standardized within each delivery type and rate tier.
83.  However, the rate structures produce meaningfully different compensation outcomes across hubs due to the differences in delivery mix, geographic factors, and client contracts described above. A driver at a hub with a high proportion of white-glove deliveries and short urban routes will have a different effective hourly earnings rate than a driver at a hub with exclusively standard last-mile deliveries and long rural routes, even though both are compensated under the same rate schedule.
84.  Rate-setting by the service platform is consistent with independent contractor arrangements in the logistics industry, where a platform or logistics company establishes rates for services and independent contractors choose whether to accept or decline work at those rates. This is analogous to ride-sharing platforms, freelance marketplaces, and other gig-economy models where the platform sets the price and the independent contractor exercises discretion over whether to accept assignments at the offered rate.
VII. DIFFERENCES IN ICOA VERSIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
85.  During the relevant period (April 30, 2022 through the present), SLG's drivers have operated under three different versions of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement. These three versions contain material differences in their contractual terms, creating distinct legal frameworks that govern the driver-SLG relationship for different subsets of the proposed collective.
86.  The three ICOA versions are:
(a) ICOA v1.0 (2018). This is the original ICOA template drafted by SLG's outside counsel, Pennfield & Daye LLP, and first deployed in 2018. ICOA v1.0 does not contain an arbitration clause and does not contain a class or collective action waiver. It sets forth the basic terms of the independent contractor relationship, including delivery obligations, compensation structure, vehicle requirements, and termination provisions.
(b) ICOA v2.0 (August 2020). ICOA v2.0 was a revised version of the agreement introduced in August 2020. It incorporated modifications to the subcontracting provisions, including more detailed requirements for substitute driver qualifications, and updated the branding provisions to address SLG's rebranding initiative. Like ICOA v1.0, ICOA v2.0 does not contain an arbitration clause or a class/collective action waiver.
(c) ICOA v3.0 (January 2023). ICOA v3.0 was introduced in January 2023 and contains significant additions, including: (i) an arbitration clause requiring that disputes between the driver and SLG be resolved through binding individual arbitration administered by JAMS; (ii) a class and collective action waiver, under which the driver agrees not to participate in any class, collective, or representative action against SLG; and (iii) updated non-competition terms providing for a twelve-month, fifty-mile-radius restriction from the driver's assigned hub following termination of the agreement.
87.  Based on my review of SLG's driver records, approximately 640 of the 1,187 unique drivers who performed delivery services during the relevant period signed ICOA v3.0. The remaining approximately 547 drivers operated under either ICOA v1.0 or ICOA v2.0 and were not subject to the arbitration clause or collective action waiver.
88.  The existence of three different contractual frameworks governing the driver-SLG relationship during the relevant period is itself a material difference that undermines the assertion that all 1,187 drivers are similarly situated. Drivers operating under ICOA v3.0 are subject to different dispute resolution procedures, different non-competition obligations, and different subcontracting and branding terms than drivers operating under the earlier versions. These contractual differences may affect the merits of individual drivers' claims and the defenses available to SLG with respect to particular subsets of drivers.
89.  I defer to the declaration of Karen Lund, SLG's Director of Driver Relations, for a more detailed comparison of the specific ICOA terms across the three versions and the implications of those differences for the proposed collective.
VIII. NAMED PLAINTIFF MARCUS DELANO — SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES
90.  Marcus Delano, the named Plaintiff in this action, performed delivery services out of HUB-01 (Fort Worth, Texas) from approximately March 2021 through September 2024. I am familiar with Mr. Delano's tenure at SLG based on my oversight of HUB-01 operations and my review of SLG's driver records.
91.  Mr. Delano signed the original ICOA v1.0 (the 2018 template) when he began performing delivery services for SLG in March 2021. He did not subsequently sign ICOA v2.0 or ICOA v3.0. As a result, Mr. Delano is not subject to the arbitration clause or collective action waiver contained in ICOA v3.0. This places Mr. Delano in a different contractual posture than the approximately 640 drivers who signed ICOA v3.0 and who may be subject to mandatory individual arbitration.
92.  Mr. Delano's experience at HUB-01 is not representative of drivers at SLG's other hubs. HUB-01 is one of SLG's five largest metropolitan hubs and offers all three delivery types—standard last-mile, regional freight, and white-glove delivery. Many drivers at other hubs operate in materially different environments, with different delivery mixes, different geographic conditions, different hours patterns, and different compensation profiles.
93.  Based on my review of SLG's operational records, Mr. Delano's average weekly hours during calendar year 2023 were approximately 58 hours, and his average weekly gross pay during the same period was approximately $1,247. These figures are specific to Mr. Delano's individual work pattern—including the delivery types he chose to accept, the number of days per week he chose to work, and his own route and scheduling preferences—and they should not be extrapolated to represent the experience of the broader driver population. As noted above, weekly hours worked across SLG's driver population vary widely, from approximately 25 to 60 hours per week, and compensation varies based on delivery type mix, hub location, and individual driver choices.
94.  I defer to the declaration of Dennis Faulkner, the hub manager for HUB-01, for hub-specific details regarding Mr. Delano's performance history, his delivery type mix, and the operational practices at HUB-01 during Mr. Delano's tenure.
IX. CONCLUSION
95.  Based on my nine years of experience with SLG's operations—including nearly four years as Regional Operations Manager and over five years as Vice President of Operations overseeing all fourteen hubs—it is my considered judgment that the approximately 1,187 drivers in Plaintiff's proposed collective are not similarly situated for purposes of conditional certification under Section 216(b) of the FLSA.
96.  Material differences exist across the proposed collective in multiple dimensions, including:
(a) Hub size, geography, and market characteristics. SLG's fourteen hubs range from 29 drivers (Lubbock) to 195 drivers (Houston) and serve dramatically different geographic territories, from dense urban environments to sprawling rural areas.
(b) Delivery type mix. Drivers perform different combinations of standard last-mile, regional freight, and white-glove deliveries, with some hubs offering all three types and others offering only one or two. These delivery type differences affect compensation, hours, equipment requirements, and the nature of the work.
(c) Hub manager practices and enforcement of ICOA provisions. Hub managers exercise localized discretion over operational decisions, including delivery assignment communication, performance review processes, subcontracting approval, and vehicle inspection practices. These practices are not uniform across hubs.
(d) Driver autonomy in scheduling, route selection, and delivery acceptance. Drivers exercise substantial individual discretion over which deliveries to accept, how many days and hours to work, and the routes and sequences they follow in completing their deliveries. This individual autonomy produces wide variation in work patterns across the driver population.
(e) ICOA version. Approximately 640 drivers signed ICOA v3.0, which contains an arbitration clause and collective action waiver, while approximately 547 drivers operate under earlier versions that do not contain these provisions. The existence of three different contractual frameworks creates material differences in the legal rights and obligations of drivers within the proposed collective.
(f) Individual driver hours worked, earnings, and engagement patterns. Weekly hours range from approximately 25 to 60 hours, and compensation varies significantly based on delivery type mix, hub location, and individual driver choices.
97.  Given these material differences, individualized inquiries would predominate over any common questions if the proposed collective were certified. Resolving the classification question for each driver would require examination of that driver's specific hub, delivery type mix, work patterns, scheduling choices, route discretion, ICOA version, and hub-level management practices. Adjudicating these issues on a collective-wide basis would be unmanageable and would not promote judicial economy.
98.  For these reasons, I respectfully submit that Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification should be denied.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on August 11, 2025, at Irving, Texas.
________________________________________
Trevor Sandoval Vice President of Operations Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. 4200 Commerce Gateway Blvd., Suite 800 Irving, TX 75039
Date: ________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 11, 2025, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Declaration of Trevor Sandoval in Support of Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification to be served on all counsel of record via the Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send notification of such filing to all parties registered to receive electronic notice in this case, including:
Claudia Hartwell HARTWELL & BRASHEAR PLLC 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 1750 Dallas, TX 75201 Counsel for Plaintiff Marcus Delano
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________
Bernard Crawford CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 555-7800 Facsimile: (214) 555-7801 bcrawford@calderwoodharkness.com
Counsel for Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.
Date: August 11, 2025
MARCUS DELANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v. | Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-01847-RBC
STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.,
Defendant. | Hon. Rebecca Chen
Hub ID | Location | Approximate No. of Unique Drivers (Relevant Period)
HUB-01 | Fort Worth, TX | 142
HUB-02 | Dallas, TX | 168
HUB-03 | Houston, TX | 195
HUB-04 | San Antonio, TX | 121
HUB-05 | Austin, TX | 98
HUB-06 | Oklahoma City, OK | 87
HUB-07 | Tulsa, OK | 64
HUB-08 | Baton Rouge, LA | 53
HUB-09 | New Orleans, LA | 71
HUB-10 | Little Rock, AR | 46
HUB-11 | Shreveport, LA | 34
HUB-12 | El Paso, TX | 41
HUB-13 | Lubbock, TX | 29
HUB-14 | Corpus Christi, TX | 38
Total | 1,187

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS OF DECLARANT

II. OVERVIEW OF STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.

IV. DRIVER AUTONOMY IN ROUTE SELECTION AND SCHEDULING

V. DELIVERY TYPES AND THEIR IMPACT ON DRIVER EXPERIENCE

VII. DIFFERENCES IN ICOA VERSIONS AND THEIR IMPACT

IX. CONCLUSION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.,

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts