Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

ZAMORA v. SWIFT TRANSP. CORP., 319 Fed.Appx. 333 (5th Cir. 2009)

319 Fed.Appx. 333

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-04-03
Topic
general

ZAMORA v. SWIFT TRANSP. CORP., 319 Fed.Appx. 333 (5th Cir. 2009) Cynthia ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATIONCORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Carlos Castaneda, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed ZAMORA v. SWIFT TRANSP. CORP., 319 Fed.Appx. 333 (5th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

ZAMORA v. SWIFT TRANSP. CORP.,319 Fed.Appx. 333(5th Cir. 2009)
Cynthia ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Carlos Castaneda, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. Swift Transportation Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Albert Zamora,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Swift Transportation Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 08-50476, 08-50546, 08-50631.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 3, 2009.
Lisa A. Elizondo, Elizondo Hayes PC, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gerald Green Howard, Charles C. High, Jr., Kemp Smith, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC Nos. 3:07-CV-452, 3:07-CV-369, and 3:07-CV-400.Page 334
Before GARWOOD, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:fn*
Swift Transportation Corporation (Swift) appeals the denials of its motions to compel arbitration in three separate cases brought against it by former employees. The cases below came before three different district court judges,. each of whom correctly concluded that the respective arbitration agreements at issue were illusory because Swift reserved the right to revoke or modify the agreements at any time without notice.1Accordingly, Swift's motions to compel arbitration were appropriately denied. AFFIRMED.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩
  2. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. ↩
  3. See J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster,128 S.W.3d 223,230n. 2 (Tex. 2003). ↩